3 ms·
To scale it up requires building very large impoundments of water, typically on the top of a mountain by removing the top of the mountain. Think artificial vol
by buckle8017 1y ago
To scale it up requires building very large impoundments of water, typically on the top of a mountain by removing the top of the mountain.
Think artificial volcano shape with a tube in the middle.
- pfdietz 1y agoThe reservoirs need not be that large, at least for diurnal storage. Look at the illustration for this 1000 MW, 8 hour project: https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/ https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/
- buckle8017 1y agoFor solar the storage really need to be seasonal. Think 100 million times the size of that project. 24/8 * 100days * 330000Mw
- pfdietz 1y agoPumped hydro is not appropriate for seasonal storage. It's not an environmental issue, it's a capital cost issue. The capex per kWh of storage capacity is two orders of magnitude too high. See the comparison tables at https://www.orcasciences.com/articles/standard-thermal-copy https://www.orcasciences.com/articles/standard-thermal-copy
- buckle8017 1y agoWell yes, but nothing is appropriate. That's why we still burn natural gas all winter instead of storing solar.
- DamonHD 1y agoRenewables-hydrolysed hydrogen stored in the caverns where we currently store methane is quite likely a big part of the interseasonal energy solution.
- lambdaone 1y agoOr indeed methane generated via the Sabatier reaction using hydrogen generated from renewables - higher energy density, easier to handle, store and distribute. And it can be fed to existing gas peaker plants, a known technology.
- DamonHD 1y agoIndeed possible and both will probably happen. If you put your H2 hydrolysers and turbines or fuel cells near the H2 store then handlng and distribution becomes easier. Move the electricity not the H2.
- pfdietz 1y agoThe problem is where do you get the CO2. This adds complexity and cost and looks to make the economics inferior to just storing hydrogen.
- pfdietz 1y agoI had thought that, until the technology in that link above came out. Ultra cheap thermal storage in dirt, if it works, looks much superior to hydrogen for seasonal grid storage, and has no geographical constraints. Hydrogen really wants salt formations to make cheap solution mined cavities; piles of dirt can be made just about anywhere.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- buckle8017 1y agoStoring heat in dirt will only work if it's combined with low grade heart distribution networks. In general though low grade heat is almost entirely worthless, all the Bitcoin miners and data centers that regularly just blow low grade heat into the air.
- pfdietz 1y agoWhat? No. Here we're talking about storage of heat in dirt to be recovered as electrical energy using a steam cycle. This only requires moving the high grade (600 C) heat to the power plant itself. There is no need to move low grade heat, except the waste heat from this power plant.
- lambdaone 1y agoThat makes a really interesting case for large-scale thermal storage at high temperatures (inefficient, cheap, enormous capacity, slow response) as a complement to solar generation (cheap, intermittent), and batteries (efficient, instant response, not enough capacity).
- pfdietz 1y agoIt could be a game changer. They've been coy about what their resistive heaters are made out of, but this is looking like something that could be done anywhere in the world without high tech. If it works it could expand explosively (figuratively :)). It also is a counter to anyone still proposing primary baseload plant construction. Why fission atoms when you can just get cheap heat from huge piles of slightly red hot dirt?