4 ms·

This is often repeated, but is false each time.

xyzzyz 4y ago
This is often repeated, because it is true. Just asserting it is false with no evidence is not very convincing. Let’s compare solar growth with pumped storage growth. In 2010, US had 0.9 GW of installed solar power generation capacity. In 2020, it has 19 GW of installed capacity. That’s 2100% growth. In the same time period, pumped storage has grown from 21.5 GW to 22.8 GW. That’s 6% growth. When should I expect to see significant growth of pumped hydro storage? I am willing to bet $500 that by 2030, pumped hydro generating capacity will not grow to more than 40 GW, while solar capacity will most definitely double by then. Will you take the other side of this bet?
- pencilguin 4y ago
  It would be obviously foolish to build out storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Until then, money is correctly spent on renewable generating capacity that actually displaces CO2 emission. And that is, in fact, what is being done. The only error is in spending less on renewable generating capacity than the looming catastrophe demands. I recommend you put your $500 there, instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    So I take it you won’t take the other side of the bet, then? Just as I thought.
    - pencilguin 4y ago
      I have told you where you may send my winnings, in advance, although I cannot enforce it. But it is far from clear that we will have enough spare renewable generating capacity deployed by 2030 to charge up storage, most places. 2040 seems more likely, provided global civilization has not collapsed by then. We will need to start on factories to make the equipment needed to provide storage well before we need the storage. Factories take appallingly long to build.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Hydro reservoirs seem to cost in the $50-90/kWh range. I don't see that going down as digging and pouring concrete are pretty cost optimized already. Although a holes don't tend to wear out and can be used many more times than a battery, I'm not convinced low cost abundant-material battery options won't eat their lunch if we keep dragging our feet on the renewable buildout. I guess if we were really committed to the idea we could use all that Uranium to make some very cheap holes and have it actually contribute to zero carbon energy rather than being a myth, but I'm not convinced the fallout is worth it.
        pencilguin 4y ago
        Pumped hydro reservoirs do not, as a rule, require concrete, or overmuch digging, unlike your typical hydro generation dam, which people seem often confuse them with. (But as with most things, you can spend as much as you like, and some have.) It is wholly possible that, in the fullness of time, some battery chemistry will undercut pumped hydro. The main problem with chemical batteries is that the cost is linear with capacity, where pumped hydro cost tends to per square root of marginal capacity (for dike construction), but also costs per watt for the turbine-and-pump(s), with a fixed up-front cost for the penstock.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Have you got some examples of reservoirs in the 10s or 100s of GWh range in non-preexisting hydro projects that beat $50/kWh? If not then asserting that costs scale with the square root of capacity is a massive indictment rather than an argument for it.
        pencilguin 4y ago
        The square-root scaling law means quadrupling the water storage only doubles the length of the perimeter dike. It is a good thing. Dikes are as mature as any technology still in use: they predate writing. We don't need to guess what they cost. We have, similarly, well beyond a century of experience with penstocks and kinetic waterwheels. Pumps have been in use for some time, too.

This is often repeated, because it is true. Just asserting it is false with no evidence is not very convincing. Let’s compare solar growth with pumped storage growth. In 2010, US had 0.9 GW of installed solar power generation capacity. In 2020, it has 19 GW of installed capacity. That’s 2100% growth. In the same time period, pumped storage has grown from 21.5 GW to 22.8 GW. That’s 6% growth. When should I expect to see significant growth of pumped hydro storage? I am willing to bet $500 that by 2030, pumped hydro generating capacity will not grow to more than 40 GW, while solar capacity will most definitely double by then. Will you take the other side of this bet?

pencilguin 4y ago
It would be obviously foolish to build out storage before there is enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. Until then, money is correctly spent on renewable generating capacity that actually displaces CO2 emission. And that is, in fact, what is being done. The only error is in spending less on renewable generating capacity than the looming catastrophe demands. I recommend you put your $500 there, instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349988
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  So I take it you won’t take the other side of the bet, then? Just as I thought.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    I have told you where you may send my winnings, in advance, although I cannot enforce it. But it is far from clear that we will have enough spare renewable generating capacity deployed by 2030 to charge up storage, most places. 2040 seems more likely, provided global civilization has not collapsed by then. We will need to start on factories to make the equipment needed to provide storage well before we need the storage. Factories take appallingly long to build.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Hydro reservoirs seem to cost in the $50-90/kWh range. I don't see that going down as digging and pouring concrete are pretty cost optimized already. Although a holes don't tend to wear out and can be used many more times than a battery, I'm not convinced low cost abundant-material battery options won't eat their lunch if we keep dragging our feet on the renewable buildout. I guess if we were really committed to the idea we could use all that Uranium to make some very cheap holes and have it actually contribute to zero carbon energy rather than being a myth, but I'm not convinced the fallout is worth it.
      - pencilguin 4y ago
        Pumped hydro reservoirs do not, as a rule, require concrete, or overmuch digging, unlike your typical hydro generation dam, which people seem often confuse them with. (But as with most things, you can spend as much as you like, and some have.) It is wholly possible that, in the fullness of time, some battery chemistry will undercut pumped hydro. The main problem with chemical batteries is that the cost is linear with capacity, where pumped hydro cost tends to per square root of marginal capacity (for dike construction), but also costs per watt for the turbine-and-pump(s), with a fixed up-front cost for the penstock.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Have you got some examples of reservoirs in the 10s or 100s of GWh range in non-preexisting hydro projects that beat $50/kWh? If not then asserting that costs scale with the square root of capacity is a massive indictment rather than an argument for it.
        pencilguin 4y ago
        The square-root scaling law means quadrupling the water storage only doubles the length of the perimeter dike. It is a good thing. Dikes are as mature as any technology still in use: they predate writing. We don't need to guess what they cost. We have, similarly, well beyond a century of experience with penstocks and kinetic waterwheels. Pumps have been in use for some time, too.