Interesting Article on Energy Storage

[J.P.M.]

Are you quite sure about that? I just checked the dates a half-dozen US pumped storage powerplants were placed into service, and they were all in 1960 - 2000 or so.

You might want to check your facts.

Either way, pumped hydro is site limited by geography and other considerations. Most potential sites, in the U.S. anyway, and considering mostly the economics and environmental considerations, have been identified. Those parameters may and will probably change, and I may be wrong but I'd guess not a whole lot.

How about addressing SK's other points contained in that post instead of cherry picking ? Or, using your tricks of implication, false assumptions and putting words in other people's mouths by phony assertion, I guess since you didn't object to those other considerations SK raised, you must agree with them - such as the idea that pouring salt water on the ground isn't a good idea.

You are again out of your knowledge depth and area.

A respectful but serious suggestion for your consideration: Stick with computers and software. You look less ignorant there.

[DanKegel]

In the USA all available land for hydro and pump back lakes was built out by the end of WW-II.

Are you quite sure about that? I just checked the dates a half-dozen US pumped storage powerplants were placed into service, and they were all in 1960 - 2000 or so.

You might want to check your facts.

[Sunking]

Right, it's nothing new, it's proven stuff. The discussion isn't about whether it works, it's about using it on a grand scale, and if Australia were to go non-fossil for all their electricity, how much pumped storage they'd need..

About fresh or sea: the report is proposing closed-loop systems which don't require much water to keep them topped off, so probably fresh.

Dan are you that darn ignorant? Yeah I know so. Pump back lakes have been around for a century now. In the USA all available land for hydro and pump back lakes was built out by the end of WW-II. Most of it built by German and Japanese POW's. There is no more land left and no POW's to do hard cheap labor.

As for Australia where the hell are they going to get the water? Do you have any clue the volume of water it takes? No you do not have any clue. Do not dare say sea water because that only proves you are ignorant. Last thing anyone wants to do is pump sea water inland and make a lake out of it. If you are stupid enough to do that, you just polluted your ground water with salt. Not only can you not drink it, you damn sure cannot irrigate crops with salt water. Well you can if you want another Bonneville Flats to race high speed vehicles or make runways for planes.

[J.P.M.]

I have seen figures closer to 50% for pumping and storage within the California State Water Project system.

Not necessarily optimized for energy storage.

Also, that 80% figure probably does not take electric motor inefficiencies into account, just turbine efficiencies. Got to be careful what we're talking about.

[inetdog]

Short answer: Various sources put it at 70 - 80 % or so.

I have seen figures closer to 50% for pumping and storage within the California State Water Project system.

Not necessarily optimized for energy storage.

[DanKegel]

Many examples of pumped storage right here in California. And it's nothing new. The problem in Oz, fresh water or sea water ???

Right, it's nothing new, it's proven stuff. The discussion isn't about whether it works, it's about using it on a grand scale, and if Australia were to go non-fossil for all their electricity, how much pumped storage they'd need.

About fresh or sea: the report is proposing closed-loop systems which don't require much water to keep them topped off, so probably fresh.

[J.P.M.]

I wonder what percent of the pumping energy is recovered when the water comes back down (efficiency)? Not listed.
Bruce Roe

Short answer: Various sources put it at 70 - 80 % or so.

Broadly speaking, in terms of net energy gained, for what's commonly defined as "pumped storage", unless and until someone manages to violate entropy and make frictionless and 100% efficient systems, pumped storage is a net energy user, so, more energy is used to pump the fluid up to a higher potential energy than is gained when that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Broadly speaking, system efficiency = 1 - (%system losses). So, what's recovered is 1-system losses. Plus, losses that are called the "velocity head" losses that show up and are manifested as the fluid velocity at discharge from the turbine and thus still theoretically capable of some work by virtue of still having some kinetic energy, with potential head = V^2/2g. There is some discussion about whether or not those velocity head losses ought to be considered system losses or simply irreversibilities that are external to the system. Long story.

If the cost of "system losses" can be reduced to zero (by getting nature to pay for and do the pumping, for example: Tidal dams, or evaporation -->> rain -->> filling the Great Lakes -- >> Niagara Falls, etc.), then most all energy (less the velocity head and friction piping losses on the way down) is a gain. But that's not usually what's referred to as pumped storage.

Most of the advantages in pumped storage are in the time shifting of the generation.

[bcroe]

Here is a paper that says "exceed 80%,....".

Thats a pretty impressive round trip figure. If I could do that for about 30,000 KWH I wouldn't need a grid tie to
carry summer energy over to winter. Lets see, just put the whole house on an elevator and raise it all summer.
In winter just let is slowly come down, a friction brake would convert the energy to heat at 100% efficiency....
Bruce Roe

[Sunking]

Very outdated material. Dan seems to be the only one who does not know all Hydro and Pump Back Lakes were built out by WW-II in the USA and there is no more land or water to use. Not surprising because Dan is just plain [redacted] like all [redacted]

Mod Note: You can all mentally fill in your likely candidates for SK's words. Just don't do it in a post.

[GRickard]

Here is a paper that says "exceed 80%,....".

http://www.hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NHA_PumpedStorage_071212b12.pdf

[bcroe]

Many examples of pumped storage right here in California. And it's nothing new.

Worlds largest generation capacity of 3,003 MW VA, USA

I wonder what percent of the pumping energy is recovered when the water comes back down (efficiency)? Not listed.
Bruce Roe

[Mike90250]

Many examples of pumped storage right here in California. And it's nothing new. The problem in Oz, fresh water or sea water ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Pumped_Storage_Plant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castaic_Power_Plant

Worlds largest generation capacity of 3,003 MW VA, USA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station

[DanKegel]

I am just trying to figure out if the pumped storage area required would be a giant lake out on the open plains or at some raised mountain area that I am unaware of on the Australian continent.

I think they're saying you could meet the need with at least 14 GW / 200 MW = 70 smaller stations (and at most about twice that), each with a pair of 20 meter deep, 12 acre pools, separated vertically by 600 meters.
They provide maps of potential sites in Queensland and South Australia, color coded by vertical separation.

[SunEagle]

The amount of pumped storage needed might not be as big as you think.
The report I linked to says Australia uses 35 GW peak power & 560 GWh per day average, and yet says its needs could be met reliably with a combination of measures including as little as 14 GW & 400 GWh of pumped storage.

Trying to figure out which part you object to.
Do you agree that 14 GW of pumped storage might potentially suffice for Australia (given enough transmission capacity, the optimal mix of wind and solar, and demand management),
and only argue that getting 14 GW of pumped storage is impractical? Or do you think the report is wrong about how much storage is needed?

I am not objecting to anything. I am just trying to figure out if the pumped storage area required would be a giant lake out on the open plains or at some raised mountain area that I am unaware of on the Australian continent.

If it was on the open plain then wouldn't it be subjected to a lot of evaporation and if so how is that mitigated. I am just trying to get my head around the physics of a hydro pumping station of that size in that location.

[DanKegel]

even if you add up all of the power generated from all of those turbines, it is still small peanuts to what we consume on a daily basis.

The amount of pumped storage needed might not be as big as you think.
The report I linked to says Australia uses 35 GW peak power & 560 GWh per day average, and yet says its needs could be met reliably with a combination of measures including as little as 14 GW & 400 GWh of pumped storage.

Trying to figure out which part you object to.
Do you agree that 14 GW of pumped storage might potentially suffice for Australia (given enough transmission capacity, the optimal mix of wind and solar, and demand management),
and only argue that getting 14 GW of pumped storage is impractical? Or do you think the report is wrong about how much storage is needed?