4 ms·

Pumped hydro is largely maxed out in countries that are looking at intermittent renewables. And of course hydro is quite dangerous and environmentally destruct

Pumped hydro is largely maxed out in countries that are looking at intermittent renewables. And of course hydro is quite dangerous and environmentally destructive. Solar overbuild and batteries alone generally can't handle the burden. You need overbuild and batteries and gas backup. And if you want that gas backup to be hydrogen, you need even more overbuild and electrolysers on top. So quadrupling the very expensive infrastructure that you then have mostly sitting around idle. You can't get rid of the intermittency problem. You can only move it around, somewhat, at enormous expense. And the generating capacity required you need is also insane. And that's a quote: "...which challenges the economic sanity of 100% intermittent renewable targets." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605...

pfdietz 2y ago
Pumped hydro is nowhere near maxed out. What is maxed out is primary hydro on rivers. Pumped hydro doesn't have to be on rivers. I can even be built in deserts, far from any waterways. Your comments about intermittency are demonstrated to be wrong by detailed modeling. Using the tools available (various kinds of storage, transmission, demand dispatch, efficiency) intermittency can be dealt with at an overall cost lower than trying to use nuclear at its current cost. I believe that link you are pointing to assumes batteries are used for long term storage. This is a common error (if error it is rather than deliberate deception) that inflates the cost of a 100% RE system considerably. The "insane" comment is just a handwave. The world is going to spend something like a quadrillion dollars on energy this century. Renewables are very likely going to be the least-cost way of powering the world, when the $1000/tonne externalities of CO2 are included.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  For Germany: "Der Anteil der Wasserkraft an der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien ist über die Jahre gesunken und liegt gegenwärtig noch bei ca. 8 Prozent. Dieser Anteil wird in Zukunft weiter sinken, da die Potenziale der Wasserkraftnutzung in Deutschland weitgehend erschlossen sind..." The situation is similar in most of the developed world. > Your comments about intermittency are demonstrated to be wrong by detailed modeling Actually: they are not. All the detailed models show this exact problem, such as the paper I linked. > The "insane" comment is just a handwave. No, the "insane" comment is exactly the conclusion of the people who do the detailed modeling. As this paper (and many others) show, renewables are great as long as they are used for part of energy production. Trying for 100% renewables is the part that's insane. I recently had a close look at one of the "studies" by Fraunhofer that are frequently touted by renewable advocates as showing how feasible 100% renewables are. I can't imagine they actually read the study. For Germany, they say we need 750 GW of Wind/Solar + 500 GWh of batteries + 150 GW of gas plants + the electrolysers to produce the gas. In addition they also assume a massive increase in efficiency and thus reduction in consumption. Our current electricity generation needs are around 70 GW. OK, some of that is for electrification of other sectors, but for that they also assume massive synergy effects. This is fantasy-land material that makes the Brexiteer visions of "sunny uplands" appear to be voices of restraint and reason.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    > "The share of hydropower in electricity generation from renewable energies has fallen over the years and is currently still around 8 percent. This proportion will continue to fall in the future, as the potential for hydropower use in Germany has been largely exploited..." That's primary hydro. As I already told you, that's not pumped hydro. You don't seem to be understanding this point, so let me explain in more detail. Primary hydro involves exploiting natural water flows, extracting energy from water that falls at higher elevations as it flows down to lower elevations. It is limited by these natural water flows, and the need to be on the rivers in which the water is flowing. Pumped hydro, on the other hand, creates its own water flow. It does not need to exploit natural precipitation. It can recycle the water it uses, getting much more energy flow per unit of water (until the water seeps or evaporates away, but that is slow.) It can be placed in locations that aren't on rivers. As an example, consider this PHES project in an arid part of the Great Basin in Nevada: https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/ https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/ Notice the graphics with two reservoirs, constructed on flat areas by surrounding them with earthen walls, sitting in the middle of a desert without any permanent rivers in sight. The potential for this sort of pumped hydro is enormous anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief. In Australia, for example, the potential is some 100x what would be needed for a 100% RE grid. They've built a global PHES geographical database for finding places around the world (where they have data; Russia is excluded for example). http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ Go play with this; the opportunities are vast. PHES is not suitable for flat terrain, so it can't be a complete solution in general, but to call it maxed out is very wrong. > Actually: they are not. All the detailed models show this exact problem, such as the paper I linked. Let's look at a review paper. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 "With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive." > For Germany, they say we need 750 GW of Wind/Solar + 500 GWh of batteries + 150 GW of gas plants + the electrolysers to produce the gas. In addition they also assume a massive increase in efficiency and thus reduction in consumption. Battery storage is approaching $100/kWh (not cells, the whole turnkey system) in China now. So, 500 GWh would be $50B. If the batteries have a lifespan of 20 years that's $2.5B/year (+ interest). Can you not afford this? That's less than half of what Germany spends on pizza. Also, consider how many GWh of storage in cars would be needed if all the cars in Germany were BEVs (I get about 3 TWh).
- anovikov 2y ago
  This. Google: kombikraftwerk. That's a very old study that's been tried and tried many times since. It shows how little storage is actually necessary for a 100% renewable electricity system.
cykros 2y ago
Generous of you to not even point to the environmental issues associated with the mining of battery metals making drilling for fossil fuels look like a band of boyscouts going into the woods to plant trees.
anovikov 2y ago
Question is - how can pumped hydro be probably ever "maxed out"? Let's say if we take all the (normal, not "pumped") hydro we have and increase number of turbines on them 10x, or 100x, and make them reversible, that will easily cover all the storage needs in terms of power. Of course, it will not produce more actual electricity than currently because the water in dams in finite, but it will produce almost as much as desired in terms of storage volume. Essentially it's up to "annual hydro output in TWh x 365". In reality, less because hydro output fluctuates in different seasons with the rainfall/river water release, but still... Isn't it way more than we could ever need? Don't get how pumped hydro can ever be "maxed out".
- cesarb 2y ago
  > Question is - how can pumped hydro be probably ever "maxed out"? Playing devil's advocate: once you've run out of places with enough height difference to build one upper and one lower reservoir. It's going to take a long time (there are many more places suitable for pumped hydro than places suitable for traditional hydro), but it's possible. > Let's say if we take all the (normal, not "pumped") hydro we have and increase number of turbines on them 10x, or 100x, and make them reversible, that will easily cover all the storage needs in terms of power. That's usually not feasible. Pumped hydro needs both a lower and an upper reservoir, while non-pumped hydro normally has only an upper reservoir, and discharges water directly into a river. That is: even if you made the turbines reversible (or added pumps in parallel with them), there would be no water for them to pump upwards.

pfdietz 2y ago

Pumped hydro is nowhere near maxed out. What is maxed out is primary hydro on rivers. Pumped hydro doesn't have to be on rivers. I can even be built in deserts, far from any waterways. Your comments about intermittency are demonstrated to be wrong by detailed modeling. Using the tools available (various kinds of storage, transmission, demand dispatch, efficiency) intermittency can be dealt with at an overall cost lower than trying to use nuclear at its current cost. I believe that link you are pointing to assumes batteries are used for long term storage. This is a common error (if error it is rather than deliberate deception) that inflates the cost of a 100% RE system considerably. The "insane" comment is just a handwave. The world is going to spend something like a quadrillion dollars on energy this century. Renewables are very likely going to be the least-cost way of powering the world, when the $1000/tonne externalities of CO2 are included.

mpweiher 2y ago
For Germany: "Der Anteil der Wasserkraft an der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien ist über die Jahre gesunken und liegt gegenwärtig noch bei ca. 8 Prozent. Dieser Anteil wird in Zukunft weiter sinken, da die Potenziale der Wasserkraftnutzung in Deutschland weitgehend erschlossen sind..." The situation is similar in most of the developed world. > Your comments about intermittency are demonstrated to be wrong by detailed modeling Actually: they are not. All the detailed models show this exact problem, such as the paper I linked. > The "insane" comment is just a handwave. No, the "insane" comment is exactly the conclusion of the people who do the detailed modeling. As this paper (and many others) show, renewables are great as long as they are used for part of energy production. Trying for 100% renewables is the part that's insane. I recently had a close look at one of the "studies" by Fraunhofer that are frequently touted by renewable advocates as showing how feasible 100% renewables are. I can't imagine they actually read the study. For Germany, they say we need 750 GW of Wind/Solar + 500 GWh of batteries + 150 GW of gas plants + the electrolysers to produce the gas. In addition they also assume a massive increase in efficiency and thus reduction in consumption. Our current electricity generation needs are around 70 GW. OK, some of that is for electrification of other sectors, but for that they also assume massive synergy effects. This is fantasy-land material that makes the Brexiteer visions of "sunny uplands" appear to be voices of restraint and reason.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > "The share of hydropower in electricity generation from renewable energies has fallen over the years and is currently still around 8 percent. This proportion will continue to fall in the future, as the potential for hydropower use in Germany has been largely exploited..." That's primary hydro. As I already told you, that's not pumped hydro. You don't seem to be understanding this point, so let me explain in more detail. Primary hydro involves exploiting natural water flows, extracting energy from water that falls at higher elevations as it flows down to lower elevations. It is limited by these natural water flows, and the need to be on the rivers in which the water is flowing. Pumped hydro, on the other hand, creates its own water flow. It does not need to exploit natural precipitation. It can recycle the water it uses, getting much more energy flow per unit of water (until the water seeps or evaporates away, but that is slow.) It can be placed in locations that aren't on rivers. As an example, consider this PHES project in an arid part of the Great Basin in Nevada: https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/ https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/ Notice the graphics with two reservoirs, constructed on flat areas by surrounding them with earthen walls, sitting in the middle of a desert without any permanent rivers in sight. The potential for this sort of pumped hydro is enormous anywhere there is sufficient vertical relief. In Australia, for example, the potential is some 100x what would be needed for a 100% RE grid. They've built a global PHES geographical database for finding places around the world (where they have data; Russia is excluded for example). http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ Go play with this; the opportunities are vast. PHES is not suitable for flat terrain, so it can't be a complete solution in general, but to call it maxed out is very wrong. > Actually: they are not. All the detailed models show this exact problem, such as the paper I linked. Let's look at a review paper. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 "With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive." > For Germany, they say we need 750 GW of Wind/Solar + 500 GWh of batteries + 150 GW of gas plants + the electrolysers to produce the gas. In addition they also assume a massive increase in efficiency and thus reduction in consumption. Battery storage is approaching $100/kWh (not cells, the whole turnkey system) in China now. So, 500 GWh would be $50B. If the batteries have a lifespan of 20 years that's $2.5B/year (+ interest). Can you not afford this? That's less than half of what Germany spends on pizza. Also, consider how many GWh of storage in cars would be needed if all the cars in Germany were BEVs (I get about 3 TWh).
anovikov 2y ago
This. Google: kombikraftwerk. That's a very old study that's been tried and tried many times since. It shows how little storage is actually necessary for a 100% renewable electricity system.

cykros 2y ago

Generous of you to not even point to the environmental issues associated with the mining of battery metals making drilling for fossil fuels look like a band of boyscouts going into the woods to plant trees.

anovikov 2y ago

Question is - how can pumped hydro be probably ever "maxed out"? Let's say if we take all the (normal, not "pumped") hydro we have and increase number of turbines on them 10x, or 100x, and make them reversible, that will easily cover all the storage needs in terms of power. Of course, it will not produce more actual electricity than currently because the water in dams in finite, but it will produce almost as much as desired in terms of storage volume. Essentially it's up to "annual hydro output in TWh x 365". In reality, less because hydro output fluctuates in different seasons with the rainfall/river water release, but still... Isn't it way more than we could ever need? Don't get how pumped hydro can ever be "maxed out".

cesarb 2y ago
> Question is - how can pumped hydro be probably ever "maxed out"? Playing devil's advocate: once you've run out of places with enough height difference to build one upper and one lower reservoir. It's going to take a long time (there are many more places suitable for pumped hydro than places suitable for traditional hydro), but it's possible. > Let's say if we take all the (normal, not "pumped") hydro we have and increase number of turbines on them 10x, or 100x, and make them reversible, that will easily cover all the storage needs in terms of power. That's usually not feasible. Pumped hydro needs both a lower and an upper reservoir, while non-pumped hydro normally has only an upper reservoir, and discharges water directly into a river. That is: even if you made the turbines reversible (or added pumps in parallel with them), there would be no water for them to pump upwards.