530,000 potential off river pump storage sites identified across the globe

[NickW + 2,714]

ANU identify 530,000 potential closed loop pump storage sites ranging from 2GWh to 150 GWh of storage.

ANU finds 530,000 potential pumped-hydro sites worldwide - ANU

That should resolve the intermittency concerns😉

[markslawson + 1,042]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

ANU identify 530,000 potential closed loop pump storage sites ranging from 2GWh to 150 GWh of storage.

ANU finds 530,000 potential pumped-hydro sites worldwide - ANU

That should resolve the intermittency concerns😉

NickW - the ANU is always finding potential pumped hydro sites. I seen various surveys like that over the years. No one is doubting that they exist, and after years of denying that the intermittency problem exists it is good to see the renewables industry now routinely acknowledging that there is a problem. But you don't build pumped hydro sites on a whim. They are very, very, very expensive to build and getting environmental permission to build them is very, very hard. It would have been better for the ANU to identify those sites that are cost effective to build and have some chance of being approved.. I would be interested to know how many such sites could be turned into renewable batteries. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

On 1/6/2021 at 3:24 PM, markslawson said:

NickW - the ANU is always finding potential pumped hydro sites. I seen various surveys like that over the years. No one is doubting that they exist, and after years of denying that the intermittency problem exists it is good to see the renewables industry now routinely acknowledging that there is a problem. But you don't build pumped hydro sites on a whim. They are very, very, very expensive to build and getting environmental permission to build them is very, very hard. It would have been better for the ANU to identify those sites that are cost effective to build and have some chance of being approved.. I would be interested to know how many such sites could be turned into renewable batteries. 

• Almost none of them as:
  • 1) NIMBY  major reason Nepal/India/Bhutan have not built dams is that in the region where they are to be built live millions of people.  Likewise, Switzerland does not wish to become a giant lake and they are the bankers holding Europe's balls so...
  • 2) Environmental "concerns" if in actual wilderness/forest preserves
  • 3) displacing forest lands
• Now me personally?  Build them anyways.  Need them for basic water control anyways. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

On 1/7/2021 at 6:24 AM, markslawson said:

NickW - the ANU is always finding potential pumped hydro sites. I seen various surveys like that over the years. No one is doubting that they exist, and after years of denying that the intermittency problem exists it is good to see the renewables industry now routinely acknowledging that there is a problem. But you don't build pumped hydro sites on a whim. They are very, very, very expensive to build and getting environmental permission to build them is very, very hard. It would have been better for the ANU to identify those sites that are cost effective to build and have some chance of being approved.. I would be interested to know how many such sites could be turned into renewable batteries. 

Valid concerns, as stated at the end of the linked article:

Disclaimer: None of the sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is not known whether any particular site would be suitable. The commercial feasibility of developing these sites is unknown. As with all major engineering projects, diligent attention to quality assurance would be required for safety and efficacy. There has been no investigation of land tenure apart from exclusion of some environmental areas and urban areas, and no discussions with land owners and managers. Nothing in this list of potential site locations implies any rights for development of these locations.

(DW: Will the greenies allow such structures?  I think they would be great, at least in theory, but based on what seems to be a war against dam and hydro projects of any size around the world by the greenies, I'm not convinced many of these pumped hydro sites could be installed where they may be needed most.)

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Rather than pumping water up and down, there is the inclined-plane with large weight approach.  You build a simple rail track up the incline, and install cables hooked to a generator at one end, on a spool, and to the railcars filled with rocks at the other end.  When you have surplus power, you convert your kinetic energy into potential energy by pulling the railcars up the slope.  When you need power, you convert the potential energy in those railcars back into electricity by letting them run downhill.  Works like a charm. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Valid concerns, as stated at the end of the linked article:

Disclaimer: None of the sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is not known whether any particular site would be suitable. The commercial feasibility of developing these sites is unknown. As with all major engineering projects, diligent attention to quality assurance would be required for safety and efficacy. There has been no investigation of land tenure apart from exclusion of some environmental areas and urban areas, and no discussions with land owners and managers. Nothing in this list of potential site locations implies any rights for development of these locations.

(DW: Will the greenies allow such structures?  I think they would be great, at least in theory, but based on what seems to be a war against dam and hydro projects of any size around the world by the greenies, I'm not convinced many of these pumped hydro sites could be installed where they may be needed most.)

The world doesn't need a fraction of these sites. The point is to demonstrate the number of sites with the topography that is suitable for closed circle PS.

Taking the UK as an example there are 17 150GWH (18 hour capacity sites) alone. There are 50 sites with 50GWH (18 hr cap). Half a dozen of these would meet the UK's needs if we went fully renewable with 6-8 GW of nuclear baseload, some NG peaking plant  and some power to H2 capacity. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Rather than pumping water up and down, there is the inclined-plane with large weight approach.  You build a simple rail track up the incline, and install cables hooked to a generator at one end, on a spool, and to the railcars filled with rocks at the other end.  When you have surplus power, you convert your kinetic energy into potential energy by pulling the railcars up the slope.  When you need power, you convert the potential energy in those railcars back into electricity by letting them run downhill.  Works like a charm. 

There is at least one demonstration model of that in California . I think the developer wanted to market this to arid countries / regions with the suitable topography. One of the benefits of this is that the manufacturing base is already there for the rails and rolling stock. The regenerative motors just send the energy back through the rails so no need for cables. 

The weights on cables concept is already being trialed using former mine shafts. Can't see this being a major reserve of stored energy but would be useful for frequency response management on networks. One proposal I saw was a 3000 ton weight on a 500 metre mineshaft. They output was about 2 MW for 2 hours. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

• Almost none of them as:
  • 1) NIMBY  major reason Nepal/India/Bhutan have not built dams is that in the region where they are to be built live millions of people.  Likewise, Switzerland does not wish to become a giant lake and they are the bankers holding Europe's balls so...
  • 2) Environmental "concerns" if in actual wilderness/forest preserves
  • 3) displacing forest lands
• Now me personally?  Build them anyways.  Need them for basic water control anyways. 

India & Nepal will need to do that anyway as the Himalaya Glaciers are melting rapidly and they will need something to regulate the flow once the glaciers are gone / significantly diminished. 

The main reason none built in Nepal is no one is willing to invest due to the Maoist clique running the country (no doubt backed by China).