4 ms·

There are two incredibly common wrong assumptions made about pumped storage: * It doesnt exist. Nobody says this outright of course but solar and wind skeptics

by pydry 2y ago

There are two incredibly common wrong assumptions made about pumped storage: * It doesnt exist. Nobody says this outright of course but solar and wind skeptics often choose to "assume" that only more expensive lithium ion batteries can store power generated by solar or wind and "forget" about pumped hydro, being up to 3x cheaper. * The geography for it is rare. The geography for hydroelectric dams which can also be used as pumped storage IS rare, because undammed dammable rivers are not common. However, for pumped storage it's not the case. In both cases there are certain lobbies whom I think have a vested interest in perpetuating these false assumptions - the same way false assumptions about, say, wind turbines and bird deaths are perpetuated by people like Trump.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> the same way false assumptions about, say, wind turbines and bird deaths are perpetuated by people like Trump I've not heard this one - what's it referring to?
- pydry 2y ago
  https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-thousands-bald-eagles-killed-wind-turbines-1778304 https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-thousands-bald-eagle...
  - misja111 2y ago
    Thanks for the link! But, after reading the article, it seems that Trump's assumptions about bird killings were true? Apparently US windmills kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year. Among them hundreds of bald eagles. So over time that adds up to thousands.
    - fred_is_fred 2y ago
      The falsehood here is that only wind mills kill animals. Coal mines, especially strip and mountain removal mines kill plenty of wildlife. Oil refineries also do, as do turbines in hydro dams. There's no energy source we have that is zero impact.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        I don't think that was a stated claim, though?
        fred_is_fred 2y ago
        I've always felt it implied when this is discussed, but you are correct that it was not mentioned above. Wind turbines kill birds so wind farms are bad. But the alternative isn't that we just don't use less electricity. And Wind farms may kill more bald eagles than coal mines, but as a resident of an area where coal was king, I would disagree if anyone said they are less harmful overall. There is a term for this type of comparison but it is escaping me right now.
        p1necone 2y ago
        > There is a term for this type of comparison but it is escaping me right now. False Dichotomy?
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Wind turbines kill birds so wind farms are bad I've read it more that "wind farms are not an unalloyed good", which counters something I do read. In generaly, this example seems pretty weak. Trump might've exaggerated the number of this particular type of bird being killed, but by far more he massively underplayed the numbers of the total number of birds being killed by them. Seems as though people are reading a lot into this, when you could more easily read the opposite into it: Trump downplaying damage to non-bald eagles! Why!?
        ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        Yes, "wind farms are not an unalloyed good" seems like a great summary of the famously reasonable Donald Trump's take on Wind power, a subject he's kind of ambivalent about, but just wants a reasonable discussion of the facts with all context taken into account. And to immediately stop all offshore wind on day one of his potential next presidency. > They say the noise causes cancer. > If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations: Your house just went down 75% in value. > The windmills are driving the whales crazy > They shake, causing worms to come out of the soil. This is not a joke > windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before. No one does anything about that. > If you love birds, you’d never want to walk under a windmill, because it’s a very sad, sad sight. It’s like a cemetery. We put a little statue for the poor birds. Threw in a little bonus Putin quote there, see if you can spot it.
    - megaman821 2y ago
      Now you have this little factoid, then what? Should we ban everything that kills more birds than wind turbines? Context-free facts like this with clear implications are akin to lying.
      - misja111 2y ago
        I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a strong proponent of wind energy. But I also like birds. In my view of the world, we should search for solutions that let windmills kill less birds. The fact that it was Trump who brought this up doesn't make it less true. At least not in my world.
cubefox 2y ago
I think it's rather the other way round. People who want to promote solar energy want to make it look as if the high volatility of this energy source can be simply solved with pumped storage, allegedly making it possible to get rid of coal and fission power plants, as well as natural gas power plants and biomass power plants etc. To this end they compare the cost of pumped storage merely to battery storage, which makes anything else look cheap. (Because batteries are so expensive.)
- pydry 2y ago
  >I think it's rather the other way round. People who want to promote solar energy want to make it look as if the high volatility of this energy source can be simply solved with pumped storage It can be solved with pumped storage and batteries: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... >To this end they compare the cost of pumped storage merely to battery storage, which makes anything else look cheap. The cost of batteries, pumped storage and windgas do not compare favorably to natural gas. They compared very favorably to nuclear power though. Nuclear power's costs eclipses the cost of solar and wind even when it is backed by windgas (which is more expensive than either): https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...
  - cubefox 2y ago
    > Nuclear power's costs eclipses the cost of solar and wind even when it is backed by windgas We were talking about pumped storage, not "windgas".
    - pydry 2y ago
      Pumped storage is a cheaper form of storage than windgas and batteries.
      - cubefox 2y ago
actionfromafar 2y ago
3 - even if not pumped, regular dams can be "saved" until they are full, saving the water for a not-windy nor sunshiny day.
vertnerd 2y ago
I toured the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant when I was a child, in the early 70s, over 50 years ago! It was built on land that is as flat as a pancake, with the only geographical convenience being easy access to Lake Michigan. I am impressed to note that the Wikipedia article lists it sixth in its list of the five largest pump-storage plants in the world.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
And yet batterystorage is about to overtake pumped hydro: https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-is-about-to-overtake-global-capacity-of-pumped-hydro/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-is-about-to-over... Pumped hydro has been around for decades and was the goto solution for storing excess nuclear power in the sixties. So, there's a lot of it around. But it's barely growing. You can plonk down batteries just about anywhere. Engineering large water reservoirs for storing energy, is a bit more work; and not that cheap typically. And you do need the terrain to have some elevation differences. I.e. mountains.
himinlomax 2y ago
Another wrong assumption about dams, whether for pumped storage or not: they're safe and environmentally friendly! Hydroelectricity has killed several orders of magnitude more people than nuclear power, and it causes a lot more environmental damage too.

by pydry 2y ago

robertlagrant 2y ago

> the same way false assumptions about, say, wind turbines and bird deaths are perpetuated by people like Trump I've not heard this one - what's it referring to?

pydry 2y ago
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-thousands-bald-eagles-killed-wind-turbines-1778304 https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-thousands-bald-eagle...
- misja111 2y ago
  Thanks for the link! But, after reading the article, it seems that Trump's assumptions about bird killings were true? Apparently US windmills kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year. Among them hundreds of bald eagles. So over time that adds up to thousands.
  - fred_is_fred 2y ago
    The falsehood here is that only wind mills kill animals. Coal mines, especially strip and mountain removal mines kill plenty of wildlife. Oil refineries also do, as do turbines in hydro dams. There's no energy source we have that is zero impact.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      I don't think that was a stated claim, though?
      - fred_is_fred 2y ago
        I've always felt it implied when this is discussed, but you are correct that it was not mentioned above. Wind turbines kill birds so wind farms are bad. But the alternative isn't that we just don't use less electricity. And Wind farms may kill more bald eagles than coal mines, but as a resident of an area where coal was king, I would disagree if anyone said they are less harmful overall. There is a term for this type of comparison but it is escaping me right now.
        p1necone 2y ago
        > There is a term for this type of comparison but it is escaping me right now. False Dichotomy?
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Wind turbines kill birds so wind farms are bad I've read it more that "wind farms are not an unalloyed good", which counters something I do read. In generaly, this example seems pretty weak. Trump might've exaggerated the number of this particular type of bird being killed, but by far more he massively underplayed the numbers of the total number of birds being killed by them. Seems as though people are reading a lot into this, when you could more easily read the opposite into it: Trump downplaying damage to non-bald eagles! Why!?
        ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        Yes, "wind farms are not an unalloyed good" seems like a great summary of the famously reasonable Donald Trump's take on Wind power, a subject he's kind of ambivalent about, but just wants a reasonable discussion of the facts with all context taken into account. And to immediately stop all offshore wind on day one of his potential next presidency. > They say the noise causes cancer. > If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations: Your house just went down 75% in value. > The windmills are driving the whales crazy > They shake, causing worms to come out of the soil. This is not a joke > windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before. No one does anything about that. > If you love birds, you’d never want to walk under a windmill, because it’s a very sad, sad sight. It’s like a cemetery. We put a little statue for the poor birds. Threw in a little bonus Putin quote there, see if you can spot it.
  - megaman821 2y ago
    Now you have this little factoid, then what? Should we ban everything that kills more birds than wind turbines? Context-free facts like this with clear implications are akin to lying.
    - misja111 2y ago
      I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm a strong proponent of wind energy. But I also like birds. In my view of the world, we should search for solutions that let windmills kill less birds. The fact that it was Trump who brought this up doesn't make it less true. At least not in my world.

cubefox 2y ago

I think it's rather the other way round. People who want to promote solar energy want to make it look as if the high volatility of this energy source can be simply solved with pumped storage, allegedly making it possible to get rid of coal and fission power plants, as well as natural gas power plants and biomass power plants etc. To this end they compare the cost of pumped storage merely to battery storage, which makes anything else look cheap. (Because batteries are so expensive.)

pydry 2y ago
>I think it's rather the other way round. People who want to promote solar energy want to make it look as if the high volatility of this energy source can be simply solved with pumped storage It can be solved with pumped storage and batteries: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... >To this end they compare the cost of pumped storage merely to battery storage, which makes anything else look cheap. The cost of batteries, pumped storage and windgas do not compare favorably to natural gas. They compared very favorably to nuclear power though. Nuclear power's costs eclipses the cost of solar and wind even when it is backed by windgas (which is more expensive than either): https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...
- cubefox 2y ago
  > Nuclear power's costs eclipses the cost of solar and wind even when it is backed by windgas We were talking about pumped storage, not "windgas".
  - pydry 2y ago
    Pumped storage is a cheaper form of storage than windgas and batteries.
    - cubefox 2y ago

actionfromafar 2y ago

3 - even if not pumped, regular dams can be "saved" until they are full, saving the water for a not-windy nor sunshiny day.

vertnerd 2y ago

I toured the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant when I was a child, in the early 70s, over 50 years ago! It was built on land that is as flat as a pancake, with the only geographical convenience being easy access to Lake Michigan. I am impressed to note that the Wikipedia article lists it sixth in its list of the five largest pump-storage plants in the world.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

And yet batterystorage is about to overtake pumped hydro: https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-is-about-to-overtake-global-capacity-of-pumped-hydro/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/battery-storage-is-about-to-over... Pumped hydro has been around for decades and was the goto solution for storing excess nuclear power in the sixties. So, there's a lot of it around. But it's barely growing. You can plonk down batteries just about anywhere. Engineering large water reservoirs for storing energy, is a bit more work; and not that cheap typically. And you do need the terrain to have some elevation differences. I.e. mountains.

himinlomax 2y ago

Another wrong assumption about dams, whether for pumped storage or not: they're safe and environmentally friendly! Hydroelectricity has killed several orders of magnitude more people than nuclear power, and it causes a lot more environmental damage too.