4 ms·

Unfortunately, Snow 2's storage figures are rather misleading. That 350 GWh cannot be used daily, that's its total storage capacity which takes a month and a ha

Unfortunately, Snow 2's storage figures are rather misleading. That 350 GWh cannot be used daily, that's its total storage capacity which takes a month and a half to refill. The cyclic capacity of Snowy 2 - as in, the storage capacity that I can pump back into the facility using excess renewable power - is only ~40 GWh. And again, this is geographically limited storage system: pumped hydro requires just the right geography of an upper and lower reservoir spaced not too far apart. Not too bad if you're a sparsely populated country with huge amounts of land per capita. But it isn't a solution for most countries.

moloch-hai 4y ago
It will be used where it is a good solution. Where it is not, others will be used. Use of other methods elsewhere does not detract from its usefulness in places suited to it.
pydry 4y ago
>Not too bad if you're a sparsely populated country with huge amounts of land per capita. Even a pretty skeptical assessment of Snowy 2 believes it's 240 GWh: https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=EXH-2536%2120191108T002841.497%20GMT https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRest... "If based on the active storage volume of the ‘lesser reservoir’, Talbingo, the theoretical energy storage capacity is about 240 GWh" Once again this is just JUST ONE project, already under construction and it already will cover somewhere between 30-40% of the energy storage requirements to get the entire country to reach a 98% solar/wind powered grid. Dismissing the possibility of this order of magnitude of storage as simply impossible as the OP did when it is already under construction is asinine. >And again, this is geographically limited storage system: pumped hydro requires just the right geography of an upper and lower reservoir spaced not too far apart. There have been multiple studies on this. Unlike hydro, the geography for pumped storage is not rare throughout most of the world. This is the most perplexing talking point against pumped storage, and frankly, reminds me of when people used to pick up on pro nuclear/carbon lobbies sneering at solar/wind for being infeasible because it was < 1% of the grid back in 2014.

moloch-hai 4y ago

It will be used where it is a good solution. Where it is not, others will be used. Use of other methods elsewhere does not detract from its usefulness in places suited to it.

pydry 4y ago

>Not too bad if you're a sparsely populated country with huge amounts of land per capita. Even a pretty skeptical assessment of Snowy 2 believes it's 240 GWh: https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=EXH-2536%2120191108T002841.497%20GMT https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRest... "If based on the active storage volume of the ‘lesser reservoir’, Talbingo, the theoretical energy storage capacity is about 240 GWh" Once again this is just JUST ONE project, already under construction and it already will cover somewhere between 30-40% of the energy storage requirements to get the entire country to reach a 98% solar/wind powered grid. Dismissing the possibility of this order of magnitude of storage as simply impossible as the OP did when it is already under construction is asinine. >And again, this is geographically limited storage system: pumped hydro requires just the right geography of an upper and lower reservoir spaced not too far apart. There have been multiple studies on this. Unlike hydro, the geography for pumped storage is not rare throughout most of the world. This is the most perplexing talking point against pumped storage, and frankly, reminds me of when people used to pick up on pro nuclear/carbon lobbies sneering at solar/wind for being infeasible because it was < 1% of the grid back in 2014.