2 ms·

You're mixing it up with hydroelectric dams which need a river. Pumped hydro needs two close bodies of water at different heights. That geography is very very c

by pydry 4y ago

You're mixing it up with hydroelectric dams which need a river. Pumped hydro needs two close bodies of water at different heights. That geography is very very common.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> That geography is very very common. Could you provide some more info for this? My understanding was a lot of the sites that could do this, have done. If that's not the case it'd be good to see what the real picture is.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  There's no point if you don't have energy to store. Only 1% of potential sites need to be developed https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ Probably won't happen because batteries will be even cheaper by the time much of it is developed.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    That link is what makes me concerned when talking on these topics. Far too much certainty and trust seem to be derived from and placed in such studies. In this case, from the study: > None of the PHES sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is not known whether any particular site would be suitable. The commercial feasibility of developing these sites is unknown.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > makes me concerned There it is. Always so concerned" about whatever imaginary downside alternatives have, but completely credulous about nuclear which has failed over and over again. You're claiming without any evidence whatsoever that at least 99% of geographically appropriate sites are unusable.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > Always so concerned" about whatever imaginary downside alternatives have It's not a downside. It's a problem with the study. > completely credulous about nuclear which has failed over and over again Can you cite where I've done this? > You're claiming without any evidence whatsoever that at least 99% of geographically appropriate sites are unusable. And where I've done this?

by pydry 4y ago

You're mixing it up with hydroelectric dams which need a river. Pumped hydro needs two close bodies of water at different heights. That geography is very very common.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> That geography is very very common. Could you provide some more info for this? My understanding was a lot of the sites that could do this, have done. If that's not the case it'd be good to see what the real picture is.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
There's no point if you don't have energy to store. Only 1% of potential sites need to be developed https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ Probably won't happen because batteries will be even cheaper by the time much of it is developed.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  That link is what makes me concerned when talking on these topics. Far too much certainty and trust seem to be derived from and placed in such studies. In this case, from the study: > None of the PHES sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is not known whether any particular site would be suitable. The commercial feasibility of developing these sites is unknown.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > makes me concerned There it is. Always so concerned" about whatever imaginary downside alternatives have, but completely credulous about nuclear which has failed over and over again. You're claiming without any evidence whatsoever that at least 99% of geographically appropriate sites are unusable.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > Always so concerned" about whatever imaginary downside alternatives have It's not a downside. It's a problem with the study. > completely credulous about nuclear which has failed over and over again Can you cite where I've done this? > You're claiming without any evidence whatsoever that at least 99% of geographically appropriate sites are unusable. And where I've done this?