5 ms·

Not stated in the article: There are very few places in the world with two large lakes, separated by a lot of height and not much distance. Wherever that ha

Not stated in the article: There are very few places in the world with two large lakes, separated by a lot of height and not much distance. Wherever that happens, it is probably financially a good idea to build one of these. But that geography is really rather rare, so the rest of the world will probably have to use gas peaker plants (environment-killing) or battery storage (expensive).

sambeau 3y ago
Pump-storage hydro is for load balancing as it can’t store anything on a grid scale and is very inefficient. Sadly, it could never replace gas — the U.K. alone would need thousands.
- Gud 3y ago
  It is absolutely "grid scale". Did you read the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
  - sambeau 3y ago
    It's grid-scale load balancing, not grid-scale storage. Grid-scale storage is hundreds and thousands of GWh. The UK needs 30-50 TWh to be secure without fossil fuels.
eppp 3y ago
There are lots of places where such things can be built though. TVA's Raccoon Mountain is an example. https://www.tva.com/energy/our-power-system/hydroelectric/raccoon-mountain https://www.tva.com/energy/our-power-system/hydroelectric/ra... There is water at the base of a lot of mountains, just knock the top off and build a lake.
- sambeau 3y ago
  There’s really not a lot of point these days. Batteries can be used for load balancing and pump-storage is very inefficient.
  - eppp 3y ago
    We should do all of it at the same time. Diversity and over provisioning is a way to have options and redundancy.
    - sambeau 3y ago
      The U.K. needs something like 30 TWh of storage (the National Grid has 50 TWh in their plan). We’d need thousands of these. They’re great for load balancing, especially when coupled with compressed air to get them generating within seconds, but we’d have to flood all the glens of Scotland and Wales to make a dent in our needs.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    Moss Landing, CA is the worlds largest battery. It is 3.0GWh, and has been operating 2 months. However, Dinorwig, UK is far larger at 9.1 GWh, and is 40 years old.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      For comparison, you could build a replacement for Dinorwig with less than 1 quarter (12 weeks) of Tesla's single Megafactory annual output, and have it installed in less than a year, in any geography (assuming you're ready to run copper and pour slabs; storage enclosures can be installed in parallel, it's trucks, cranes, and human labor bolting them down). Timelines go down as battery manufacturing scales up. TBMs and mountain cutting are not getting faster or cheaper.
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        A quarter worth of production from the Megafactory sounds pretty expensive. I mean somebody should make a giant battery backup, but Dinorwig does have a pretty big advantage in terms of existing-ness.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Keep an eye on Australia, Snowy 2 (whose costs are blowing out) [1], and battery uptake [2]. Based on cost decline curves of lithium scale utility storage, batteries will be cheaper by the time Snowy is commissioned. Battery manufacturing is ramping because every automaker is being forced to electrify, Tesla is preparing to build a second Megafactory factory for battery storage in China [3], and batteries can be installed anywhere. Batteries can also provide grid support (frequency and voltage support when transmission or generators trip) and can be grid forming now; instead of having to follow the grid, they can drive grid health, including black start [4] when the grid is down. In South Australia, a new battery storage facility has recently come online and is in testing to enable AEMO, the grid operator, to turn down the requirement for ~70MW of constant fossil gas generation for grid services [5]. [1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-much-how-can-a-2-2gw-water-battery-be-worth-more-than-12-billion/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-much-how-can-a-2-2gw-wat... ("This is the fourth time Snowy 2.0’s cost has been reset – from $2 billion in 2017, to $3.8-$4.5 billion later that year, to $5.1 billion in 2019, to $5.9 billion in 2020, to $12 billion now (2023).") [2] https://www.energy-storage.news/global-bess-deployments-to-exceed-400gw-annually-by-2030-says-rystad-energy/ https://www.energy-storage.news/global-bess-deployments-to-e... ("Global BESS deployments to exceed 400GWh annually by 2030, says Rystad Energy") [3] https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-china-megafactory-construction/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-china-megafactory-constructi... ("Tesla’s estimated initial production capacity for the China-based Megapack factory is 10,000 units per year or about 40GWh.") [My note: This is equal to their existing capacity in Lathrop, California] [4] https://www.nrel.gov/grid/black-start.html https://www.nrel.gov/grid/black-start.html [5] https://opennem.org.au/facilities/sa1/?selected=TIB&tech=battery_discharging&status=operating https://opennem.org.au/facilities/sa1/?selected=TIB&tech=bat... ("Torrens Island BESS")
- stephen_g 3y ago
  Of course, Snowy 2 was a political project for which the planning was totally under-baked. It was a compromise set off by a centrist who was lukewarmly pro-renewable energy, but leading a party that was mostly dead against it and just wanted the Government to pump money into expanding fossil fuel ('coincidently' many of these MPs in the party have direct or indirect investment and interest in coal mining companies, oil and gas industry links, etc.). There was always much better ways the money could have been spent, like investment into offshore wind, battery banks etc. but to directly invest in renewables and battery storage was and is politically untenable for that party. The Government has changed now to the party that doesn't have the same kind of direct fossil fuel investments, but unfortunatly the massive political donations from the resource industry and oil & gas to our politicians is bipartisan so they talk 'clean energy' while not that much actually changes...
FFP999 3y ago
Is there any reason that "lakes" (i.e. big holes) can't be dug where they would be useful for this purpose? (Update: for those who are downvoting, it was a serious question.)
- ajb 3y ago
  Well at least one of these was originally a quarry, so yes. But it would raise the cost a lot, if the excavate wasn't valuable as in this case.
  - FFP999 3y ago
    It'll definitely raise the cost, I acknowledge that what I'm talking about isn't going to be a small project. I just wouldn't necessarily assume that it would raise the cost so much as to make this infeasible. To be clear, it's also not like I know anything about civil or power engineering.
- sambeau 3y ago
  I’ve seen a suggestion that you could use two spheres in the sea one deep down, one near the surface.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    I don't think so... You would presumably be pumping air from one sphere to the other. That air ends up compressing/decompressing, and therefore heating or getting cold. That dramatically lowers efficiency. And on top of that, a football stadium sized sphere full of compressed air at the bottom of the ocean is going to need hold-down anchors at a scale the world has never seen...
    - sambeau 3y ago
      > "The general idea is to have a closed vessel sitting on the seafloor. Surplus energy is then used to pump water out of this vessel, leaving the inside at a near-vacuum. When it’s desired to recover energy from the system, water can be allowed to flow back into the vessel under the pressure generated by the seawater above. As the vessel is filled, the water flowing in turns a turbine, generating electricity in just the same way as a traditional pumped hydro system." https://hackaday.com/2022/02/02/underwater-tanks-turn-energy-storage-upside-down/ https://hackaday.com/2022/02/02/underwater-tanks-turn-energy... https://www.iee.fraunhofer.de/en/topics/stensea.html https://www.iee.fraunhofer.de/en/topics/stensea.html
cesarb 3y ago
> There are very few places in the world with two large lakes, separated by a lot of height and not much distance. You only need one large lake (or a place which can be dammed to create one); the other one can be completely artificial, with no water inflow or outflow other than through the pumps/turbines. In fact, I think it might even be possible to make both reservoirs completely artificial, and fill them by pumping water from somewhere else. That makes the necessary geography a lot less rare; you only need the appropriate height difference, and the ability to create artificial reservoirs on both ends.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Yes, but large artificial lakes aren't known for being cheap. Pumped storage needs big lakes - a swimming pool on the top of a mountain isn't going to cut it.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power... They only started with a single lake and a moderate amount of elevation.

sambeau 3y ago

Pump-storage hydro is for load balancing as it can’t store anything on a grid scale and is very inefficient. Sadly, it could never replace gas — the U.K. alone would need thousands.

Gud 3y ago
It is absolutely "grid scale". Did you read the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
- sambeau 3y ago
  It's grid-scale load balancing, not grid-scale storage. Grid-scale storage is hundreds and thousands of GWh. The UK needs 30-50 TWh to be secure without fossil fuels.

eppp 3y ago

There are lots of places where such things can be built though. TVA's Raccoon Mountain is an example. https://www.tva.com/energy/our-power-system/hydroelectric/raccoon-mountain https://www.tva.com/energy/our-power-system/hydroelectric/ra... There is water at the base of a lot of mountains, just knock the top off and build a lake.

sambeau 3y ago
There’s really not a lot of point these days. Batteries can be used for load balancing and pump-storage is very inefficient.
- eppp 3y ago
  We should do all of it at the same time. Diversity and over provisioning is a way to have options and redundancy.
  - sambeau 3y ago
    The U.K. needs something like 30 TWh of storage (the National Grid has 50 TWh in their plan). We’d need thousands of these. They’re great for load balancing, especially when coupled with compressed air to get them generating within seconds, but we’d have to flood all the glens of Scotland and Wales to make a dent in our needs.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Moss Landing, CA is the worlds largest battery. It is 3.0GWh, and has been operating 2 months. However, Dinorwig, UK is far larger at 9.1 GWh, and is 40 years old.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    For comparison, you could build a replacement for Dinorwig with less than 1 quarter (12 weeks) of Tesla's single Megafactory annual output, and have it installed in less than a year, in any geography (assuming you're ready to run copper and pour slabs; storage enclosures can be installed in parallel, it's trucks, cranes, and human labor bolting them down). Timelines go down as battery manufacturing scales up. TBMs and mountain cutting are not getting faster or cheaper.
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      A quarter worth of production from the Megafactory sounds pretty expensive. I mean somebody should make a giant battery backup, but Dinorwig does have a pretty big advantage in terms of existing-ness.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Keep an eye on Australia, Snowy 2 (whose costs are blowing out) [1], and battery uptake [2]. Based on cost decline curves of lithium scale utility storage, batteries will be cheaper by the time Snowy is commissioned. Battery manufacturing is ramping because every automaker is being forced to electrify, Tesla is preparing to build a second Megafactory factory for battery storage in China [3], and batteries can be installed anywhere. Batteries can also provide grid support (frequency and voltage support when transmission or generators trip) and can be grid forming now; instead of having to follow the grid, they can drive grid health, including black start [4] when the grid is down. In South Australia, a new battery storage facility has recently come online and is in testing to enable AEMO, the grid operator, to turn down the requirement for ~70MW of constant fossil gas generation for grid services [5]. [1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-much-how-can-a-2-2gw-water-battery-be-worth-more-than-12-billion/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/snowy-2-much-how-can-a-2-2gw-wat... ("This is the fourth time Snowy 2.0’s cost has been reset – from $2 billion in 2017, to $3.8-$4.5 billion later that year, to $5.1 billion in 2019, to $5.9 billion in 2020, to $12 billion now (2023).") [2] https://www.energy-storage.news/global-bess-deployments-to-exceed-400gw-annually-by-2030-says-rystad-energy/ https://www.energy-storage.news/global-bess-deployments-to-e... ("Global BESS deployments to exceed 400GWh annually by 2030, says Rystad Energy") [3] https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-china-megafactory-construction/ https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-china-megafactory-constructi... ("Tesla’s estimated initial production capacity for the China-based Megapack factory is 10,000 units per year or about 40GWh.") [My note: This is equal to their existing capacity in Lathrop, California] [4] https://www.nrel.gov/grid/black-start.html https://www.nrel.gov/grid/black-start.html [5] https://opennem.org.au/facilities/sa1/?selected=TIB&tech=battery_discharging&status=operating https://opennem.org.au/facilities/sa1/?selected=TIB&tech=bat... ("Torrens Island BESS")

stephen_g 3y ago
Of course, Snowy 2 was a political project for which the planning was totally under-baked. It was a compromise set off by a centrist who was lukewarmly pro-renewable energy, but leading a party that was mostly dead against it and just wanted the Government to pump money into expanding fossil fuel ('coincidently' many of these MPs in the party have direct or indirect investment and interest in coal mining companies, oil and gas industry links, etc.). There was always much better ways the money could have been spent, like investment into offshore wind, battery banks etc. but to directly invest in renewables and battery storage was and is politically untenable for that party. The Government has changed now to the party that doesn't have the same kind of direct fossil fuel investments, but unfortunatly the massive political donations from the resource industry and oil & gas to our politicians is bipartisan so they talk 'clean energy' while not that much actually changes...

FFP999 3y ago

Is there any reason that "lakes" (i.e. big holes) can't be dug where they would be useful for this purpose? (Update: for those who are downvoting, it was a serious question.)

ajb 3y ago
Well at least one of these was originally a quarry, so yes. But it would raise the cost a lot, if the excavate wasn't valuable as in this case.
- FFP999 3y ago
  It'll definitely raise the cost, I acknowledge that what I'm talking about isn't going to be a small project. I just wouldn't necessarily assume that it would raise the cost so much as to make this infeasible. To be clear, it's also not like I know anything about civil or power engineering.
sambeau 3y ago
I’ve seen a suggestion that you could use two spheres in the sea one deep down, one near the surface.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  I don't think so... You would presumably be pumping air from one sphere to the other. That air ends up compressing/decompressing, and therefore heating or getting cold. That dramatically lowers efficiency. And on top of that, a football stadium sized sphere full of compressed air at the bottom of the ocean is going to need hold-down anchors at a scale the world has never seen...
  - sambeau 3y ago
    > "The general idea is to have a closed vessel sitting on the seafloor. Surplus energy is then used to pump water out of this vessel, leaving the inside at a near-vacuum. When it’s desired to recover energy from the system, water can be allowed to flow back into the vessel under the pressure generated by the seawater above. As the vessel is filled, the water flowing in turns a turbine, generating electricity in just the same way as a traditional pumped hydro system." https://hackaday.com/2022/02/02/underwater-tanks-turn-energy-storage-upside-down/ https://hackaday.com/2022/02/02/underwater-tanks-turn-energy... https://www.iee.fraunhofer.de/en/topics/stensea.html https://www.iee.fraunhofer.de/en/topics/stensea.html

cesarb 3y ago

> There are very few places in the world with two large lakes, separated by a lot of height and not much distance. You only need one large lake (or a place which can be dammed to create one); the other one can be completely artificial, with no water inflow or outflow other than through the pumps/turbines. In fact, I think it might even be possible to make both reservoirs completely artificial, and fill them by pumping water from somewhere else. That makes the necessary geography a lot less rare; you only need the appropriate height difference, and the ability to create artificial reservoirs on both ends.

londons_explore 3y ago
Yes, but large artificial lakes aren't known for being cheap. Pumped storage needs big lakes - a swimming pool on the top of a mountain isn't going to cut it.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power... They only started with a single lake and a moderate amount of elevation.