4 ms·

It isn't. Even with pumping water up hill and letting it flow down, which is far easier and more efficient, there just isn't the land, elevation, and water for

It isn't. Even with pumping water up hill and letting it flow down, which is far easier and more efficient, there just isn't the land, elevation, and water for the scale we need.

ggm 3y ago
This is one of those sort-of hyperbolic put downs which goes to "we need" encompassing the entire western worlds power requirements. No, you can't replace all existing power sources now and into the future by pumped hydro. Pumped hydro has a massive role to play in power supply, time shifting electricity from renewable sources, providing system resiliency, black start, inductive and inertial load, you-name-it. It also exists. It's in widespread use, across the globe. I have one less than 100km from me here in Qld, there is one under construction in the snowy hydro project (with issues) complementing an existing unit at Tumut, Another at Shoalhaven in NSW and there are two large sites in the UK power grid Dinorwig and Cruachan, both of which supply near-instantaneous (<20sec) power against demand shifts. Compared to gas turbine load start (minutes), pumped hydro is fast (seconds). Compared to batteries (milliseconds), It's slow. Batteries have capacity limits too. In the capacity stakes, Pumped hydro can beat them hands-down but for a massive initial capital outlay. Snowy 2.0 will supply DAYS of power. 2Gigawatts, as 350GWh of power. 3 million homes equivalent, for a week. People argue about the economics, not about the underlying capability. Worldwide there are plenty of good sites, including mine shafts. And, gravity models for power include trains, and cranes. Neither of which will replace all sources of power for all burdens in the network either. The idea this is limited to existing land-surface bodies of water simply isn't true. Not all useful things have to be able to solve the problems "at the scale we need" to be both useful, and able to solve problems.
- kamranjon 3y ago
  I’ve always wanted to ask someone who knew something about this stuff if this idea is feasible: Imagine a giant empty bucket held high in the air. As it rains, the bucket fills and using a counter-weight it slowly lowers down to ground level. Now the bucket is covered and the water is slowly drained causing the counter-weight to lower to the ground and the bucket to rise in the air again. If this were geared properly, could energy be generated in any meaningful amount?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Nowhere rains enough for that; hydro dams only manage it by having a huge catchment area nobody needs to build. Highest rainfall in a year: > 26,470 mm (1,042 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 1860–1861 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records 26.4 tons * 1km * 9.8m/s/s / 1 year = 7.4 watts
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - noam_k 3y ago
    Randall Monroe made some calculations here: https://what-if.xkcd.com/91/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/91/
  - magicalhippo 3y ago
    You just described hydroelectric power but with more steps and a much smaller area to catch rain.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  No at all. No one is suggesting it must cover all power needs. Sure, there may be municipalities that are advantaged by it due to the unique and perfect nature of their geography. But that's not going to be enough to put any realistic dent in the problem at a national level. Many people have done the math. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    Unfortunately, many people are unrealistic. People in general demand quick, simple, easy and singular solutions to complex problems that cover massive ranges of financial, geographical, political, cultural, and individual variances with no tolerance, and they honestly believe they are being fair and reasonable when they do so. Example: Idea: "New houses could have cheap batteries built into their foundations, cheaply decreasing the load on the electrical grid and providing a backup source to cover temporary power outages." Response: "Well, that's not going to completely solve the energy crisis, restore CO2 to pre-industrial revolution levels and avert the polar ice caps from melting, so what's the point?" And they think that this response is rational.

It isn't. Even with pumping water up hill and letting it flow down, which is far easier and more efficient, there just isn't the land, elevation, and water for the scale we need.

ggm 3y ago

This is one of those sort-of hyperbolic put downs which goes to "we need" encompassing the entire western worlds power requirements. No, you can't replace all existing power sources now and into the future by pumped hydro. Pumped hydro has a massive role to play in power supply, time shifting electricity from renewable sources, providing system resiliency, black start, inductive and inertial load, you-name-it. It also exists. It's in widespread use, across the globe. I have one less than 100km from me here in Qld, there is one under construction in the snowy hydro project (with issues) complementing an existing unit at Tumut, Another at Shoalhaven in NSW and there are two large sites in the UK power grid Dinorwig and Cruachan, both of which supply near-instantaneous (<20sec) power against demand shifts. Compared to gas turbine load start (minutes), pumped hydro is fast (seconds). Compared to batteries (milliseconds), It's slow. Batteries have capacity limits too. In the capacity stakes, Pumped hydro can beat them hands-down but for a massive initial capital outlay. Snowy 2.0 will supply DAYS of power. 2Gigawatts, as 350GWh of power. 3 million homes equivalent, for a week. People argue about the economics, not about the underlying capability. Worldwide there are plenty of good sites, including mine shafts. And, gravity models for power include trains, and cranes. Neither of which will replace all sources of power for all burdens in the network either. The idea this is limited to existing land-surface bodies of water simply isn't true. Not all useful things have to be able to solve the problems "at the scale we need" to be both useful, and able to solve problems.

kamranjon 3y ago
I’ve always wanted to ask someone who knew something about this stuff if this idea is feasible: Imagine a giant empty bucket held high in the air. As it rains, the bucket fills and using a counter-weight it slowly lowers down to ground level. Now the bucket is covered and the water is slowly drained causing the counter-weight to lower to the ground and the bucket to rise in the air again. If this were geared properly, could energy be generated in any meaningful amount?
- ben_w 3y ago
  Nowhere rains enough for that; hydro dams only manage it by having a huge catchment area nobody needs to build. Highest rainfall in a year: > 26,470 mm (1,042 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 1860–1861 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records 26.4 tons * 1km * 9.8m/s/s / 1 year = 7.4 watts
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- noam_k 3y ago
  Randall Monroe made some calculations here: https://what-if.xkcd.com/91/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/91/
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  You just described hydroelectric power but with more steps and a much smaller area to catch rain.
RhodesianHunter 3y ago
No at all. No one is suggesting it must cover all power needs. Sure, there may be municipalities that are advantaged by it due to the unique and perfect nature of their geography. But that's not going to be enough to put any realistic dent in the problem at a national level. Many people have done the math. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Unfortunately, many people are unrealistic. People in general demand quick, simple, easy and singular solutions to complex problems that cover massive ranges of financial, geographical, political, cultural, and individual variances with no tolerance, and they honestly believe they are being fair and reasonable when they do so. Example: Idea: "New houses could have cheap batteries built into their foundations, cheaply decreasing the load on the electrical grid and providing a backup source to cover temporary power outages." Response: "Well, that's not going to completely solve the energy crisis, restore CO2 to pre-industrial revolution levels and avert the polar ice caps from melting, so what's the point?" And they think that this response is rational.