5 ms·

Pumped Hydro is great, but there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement. They are trying to put two in Southern Oregon [0] [1]. They have b

Pumped Hydro is great, but there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement. They are trying to put two in Southern Oregon [0] [1]. They have been looking at it for decades, and still need many more years to look at environmental costs, diverting existing water (especially since that area has been in a large drought for the last few years, and farmers in that basin have had wells running dry), etc. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/10/pumped-storage-hydropower-lake-county-oregon/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/10/pumped-storage-hydrop... [1] https://slenergystorage.com/ https://slenergystorage.com/

shagie 4y ago
Tangent - a bit on the math behind Oregon's hydro power on the Columbia river: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/?sh=3632b147222b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-s... I was hunting for the video of the "where water is being released to make sure that there is sufficient volume in the river for the hydro plant at the proper time to meet the expected demand" - https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ
pencilguin 4y ago
> "there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement" This is repeated often, but is wholly false, each time. Often it comes with a claim that an existing, elevated watershed is needed, which is false. A watershed is needed only for regular hydro generation. Most places suitable for that already have dams, many of which can be used for pumped hydro storage. Many are. But that is just a matter of convenience. The claim is often made hoping to confuse readers. Some claim an existing elevated lake is needed, which is false. An earthen dike at a hilltop suffices. Such a dike may be needed only at one end of the reservoir. Some insist an expensive concrete dam is needed to provide enough "head" to store much energy. They either have not heard of a penstock, or pretend. An earthen dike suffices. "Head" is the height of the hill, not the depth of water behind the dike. Some insist a copious water supply is needed, which is false. Water may be stored at the bottom and pumped back up, with only evaporative losses. Such loss may be reduced by floating solar PV on the reservoir. Some places can use sea water. Some insist a mountain is required, where in fact a hill suffices. The greater the altitude, the more energy each ton of water stores, but a few hundred meters height is plenty. In places with underground cavities, even the hill is optional. Using an underground cavity for the lower reservoir can radically increase the head available, vs. just a hill. Few places are very far from any hill, or cannot afford evaporative loss from a reservoir. Such places will use other storage.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  > Some claim an existing elevated lake is needed, which is false. An earthen dike at a hilltop suffices. Such a dike may be needed only at one end of the reservoir. This seems like an over simplification. At a minimum it needs to be an earthen dyke on a strata suitable for retaining water, right? It needs to be located in an appropriate area, near suitable grid infrastructure to ship the power out and road access to get workers and equipment in. Lots of mountainous regions are highly valued for their natural beauty which makes large infrastructure projects more challenging.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    ("Dyke" is a wholly different noun. I advise against its use until you understand it better.) The bottom of the reservoir needs to be impermeable. It is well understood by civil engineers how to achieve this. Earth-moving equipment is very good at getting to places you would not want to try driving your car into (unless, I gather, you are French). Generation and pumping equipment remains at the bottom of the hill. An earthen dike on a hilltop can be as inconspicuous as you care to make it. You do need wires from there to where the power is, as usual.
    - VBprogrammer 4y ago
      > "Dyke" is a wholly different noun. I advise against its use until you understand it better. Perhaps you could refrain from making snarky comments about minor spelling errors which clearly didn't impact your understanding until you understand dyslexia better? > The bottom of the reservoir needs to be impermeable. It is well understood by civil engineers how to achieve this. Understood isn't the same as economically feasible. It's not a trivial issue. > Earth-moving equipment is very good at getting to places you would not want to try driving your car into Earth-moving equipment isn't designed to make long distance overland journeys. They are typically delivered to a work site at most hundreds of yards from where they are needed. > Generation and pumping equipment remains at the bottom of the hill You still need to get the equipment there so the bottom of the hill needs to be near a road. And you don't want miles of penstock because that will reduce the dynamic head pressure due to friction losses. The point is there are constraints which you are pretending just don't exist.

shagie 4y ago

Tangent - a bit on the math behind Oregon's hydro power on the Columbia river: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/?sh=3632b147222b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-s... I was hunting for the video of the "where water is being released to make sure that there is sufficient volume in the river for the hydro plant at the proper time to meet the expected demand" - https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ https://youtu.be/jvnaiHFT6nQ

pencilguin 4y ago

> "there are only a few places where its cost effective to implement" This is repeated often, but is wholly false, each time. Often it comes with a claim that an existing, elevated watershed is needed, which is false. A watershed is needed only for regular hydro generation. Most places suitable for that already have dams, many of which can be used for pumped hydro storage. Many are. But that is just a matter of convenience. The claim is often made hoping to confuse readers. Some claim an existing elevated lake is needed, which is false. An earthen dike at a hilltop suffices. Such a dike may be needed only at one end of the reservoir. Some insist an expensive concrete dam is needed to provide enough "head" to store much energy. They either have not heard of a penstock, or pretend. An earthen dike suffices. "Head" is the height of the hill, not the depth of water behind the dike. Some insist a copious water supply is needed, which is false. Water may be stored at the bottom and pumped back up, with only evaporative losses. Such loss may be reduced by floating solar PV on the reservoir. Some places can use sea water. Some insist a mountain is required, where in fact a hill suffices. The greater the altitude, the more energy each ton of water stores, but a few hundred meters height is plenty. In places with underground cavities, even the hill is optional. Using an underground cavity for the lower reservoir can radically increase the head available, vs. just a hill. Few places are very far from any hill, or cannot afford evaporative loss from a reservoir. Such places will use other storage.

VBprogrammer 4y ago
> Some claim an existing elevated lake is needed, which is false. An earthen dike at a hilltop suffices. Such a dike may be needed only at one end of the reservoir. This seems like an over simplification. At a minimum it needs to be an earthen dyke on a strata suitable for retaining water, right? It needs to be located in an appropriate area, near suitable grid infrastructure to ship the power out and road access to get workers and equipment in. Lots of mountainous regions are highly valued for their natural beauty which makes large infrastructure projects more challenging.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  ("Dyke" is a wholly different noun. I advise against its use until you understand it better.) The bottom of the reservoir needs to be impermeable. It is well understood by civil engineers how to achieve this. Earth-moving equipment is very good at getting to places you would not want to try driving your car into (unless, I gather, you are French). Generation and pumping equipment remains at the bottom of the hill. An earthen dike on a hilltop can be as inconspicuous as you care to make it. You do need wires from there to where the power is, as usual.
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    > "Dyke" is a wholly different noun. I advise against its use until you understand it better. Perhaps you could refrain from making snarky comments about minor spelling errors which clearly didn't impact your understanding until you understand dyslexia better? > The bottom of the reservoir needs to be impermeable. It is well understood by civil engineers how to achieve this. Understood isn't the same as economically feasible. It's not a trivial issue. > Earth-moving equipment is very good at getting to places you would not want to try driving your car into Earth-moving equipment isn't designed to make long distance overland journeys. They are typically delivered to a work site at most hundreds of yards from where they are needed. > Generation and pumping equipment remains at the bottom of the hill You still need to get the equipment there so the bottom of the hill needs to be near a road. And you don't want miles of penstock because that will reduce the dynamic head pressure due to friction losses. The point is there are constraints which you are pretending just don't exist.