TN

*****5 STAR Article by Irina Slav - "The Ugly Truth About Renewable Power"

Recommended Posts

On 5/1/2021 at 3:06 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

The biggest battery at Moss Landing will be 1500MW/6000MWh when it is completed in a few years.. Whereas pumped hydro can't be brought online until completed, batteries are modular and can be revenue generating long before completion.

Another huge advantage of batteries is that they can be quickly built at pre existing substations. Moss Landing is a very large natural gas plant that has been retired. The battery is being built in the former turbine building and using the plants' pre existing transmission. No environmental issues at all, no new power lines, just reusing power industry infrastructure is a big plus for batteries. The plan is to convert many of the natural gas plants to big batteries.

 

Just higher prices for Californians most likely. 

https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/1/2021 at 12:53 PM, surrept33 said:

 I think it'll be interesting to see smaller scale pumped hydro projects be economically viable that could be used in more places with either natural or artificial topology, especially switching between generation (the battery)/pumping (recharging) quickly.

 

There is considerable lag between switching between pumping and generating (and worse for generating and pumping) with pumped hydro.  On the order of many minutes or more. They are designed to be dispatched (make a call to operations to "do something").  And you can't stop that flowing water mass that quickly (without CONSIDERABLE water hammer issues).  And you gotta bring the spinning mass to a stop (with wear and tear on the brakes), reverse rotation, and regain full speed.  Tricky!

Batteries and power electronics can make the switch in less than a second.

Edited by turbguy
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

There is considerable lag between switching between pumping and generating (and worse for generating and pumping) with pumped hydro.  On the order of many minutes or more. They are designed to be dispatched (make a call to operations to "do something").  And you can't stop that flowing water mass that quickly (without CONSIDERABLE water hammer issues).  And you gotta bring the spinning mass to a stop (with wear and tear on the brakes), reverse rotation, and regain full speed.  Tricky!

Batteries and power electronics can make the switch in less than a second.

There are no brakes.  The generator IS the brake.  Also, they do NOT reverse.  What wacko gave you that lightbulb idea?  Some ass who has never seen a turbine apparently yet likes talking about them.

A turbine is a ONE WAY street dude. 

Pumped hydro uses entirely separate pumps

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

There is considerable lag between switching between pumping and generating (and worse for generating and pumping) with pumped hydro.  On the order of many minutes or more.

Actually no, the way you BYPASS any vibration issues in tubines be it steam, gas, or hydro is you DUMP the water, etc as fast as possible.  Truth is the gates only open yea fast so there is no true hydraulic shock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

22 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

There are no brakes.  The generator IS the brake.  Also, they do NOT reverse.  What wacko gave you that lightbulb idea?  Some ass who has never seen a turbine apparently yet likes talking about them.

A turbine is a ONE WAY street dude. 

Pumped hydro uses entirely separate pumps

Complete crap as usual. Pumped hydro uses reversible pumps. Here is a sales brochure for  reversible pump turbines https://voith.com/corp-en/11_06_Broschuere-Pumped-storage_einzeln.pdf

"In 1937, Voith developed the first large pump-turbine, which operated both as a turbine for energy generation and, in the reverse direction, as a pump."

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

There are no brakes.  The generator IS the brake.  Also, they do NOT reverse.  What wacko gave you that lightbulb idea?  Some ass who has never seen a turbine apparently yet likes talking about them.

A turbine is a ONE WAY street dude. 

Pumped hydro uses entirely separate pumps

Oh, Pumped Hydro uses the same machine for pumping AND generating. 

A synchronous generator can also be used as a synchronous motor.

A Francis turbine runner works just fine as a pump impeller.

You just have to reverse direction of rotation (and start the pump cycle with the turbine casing evacuated from water, using massive amounts of compressed air to lower the water level, to bring the pump up to speed first).  Almost all pump-turbines are BELOW the level of the the discharge/suction "lower reservoir".

AND, almost all hydro-generators have brakes, at LEAST for safety!  It ain't easy to perform service on a machine that keeps spinning.  The main thrust bearing doesn't "like" that, either! You gotta keep the high-pressure bearing lift oil running until she stops.

BUT, I only have direct experience with six installations, perhaps you have more...

One of those sites was rather unusual.  It was an open cycle system, but during pumping, it took water from BEFORE the dam, and discharged AFTER the dam, so it actually had an "efficiency" of GREATER that 100%! 

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Complete crap as usual. Pumped hydro uses reversible pumps. Here is a sales brochure for  reversible pump turbines https://voith.com/corp-en/11_06_Broschuere-Pumped-storage_einzeln.pdf

"In 1937, Voith developed the first large pump-turbine, which operated both as a turbine for energy generation and, in the reverse direction, as a pump."

Sigh... brainless reply as usual.  Turbine 95% one way(down) and only 80% up instead of +90% up with a proper designed pump adds up in a gigantic hurry.  When you need  thousands of GWh, not MWh, efficiency counts.  Sorry boyo pumped hydro on a large scale requires high efficiency pumps and high efficiency turbines.  No they are not the same thing.  A overall trip efficiency difference of 15% adds up in a gargantuan hurry.  You can buy a LOT of VERY large pumps/valves for 15%-->20% of power generated instead of throwing it away in a fit of internet arrogance believing you actually know shit. 

Just because you CAN use something it is not efficient at doing, does not make it economically viable at large scale.  Small scale peakers, sure, in reality, no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Actually no, the way you BYPASS any vibration issues in tubines be it steam, gas, or hydro is you DUMP the water, etc as fast as possible.  Truth is the gates only open yea fast so there is no true hydraulic shock. 

You cannot stop the flowing water mass quickly in a hydro machine without causing "penstock issues".  Those big valves ain't that fast anyhow.   Surge tanks can (and do) assist with water hammer.

Steam turbine valves can close VERY fast (much less than a second).  With EHC systems, so fast that my eye cannot see them move between OPEN and CLOSED during closure.   And steam hammer then becomes an issue for the designer.

With a CT, you just cease fuel flow.  The compressor drags the speed down from there.

Because of this "sluggishness", most hydro machines have an overspeed trip point of 125% of rated speed, while most steam turbines have an overspeed trip point of 110% (the generator rotor retaining rings "typically" being the "weakest" link).

Very special considerations apply to electric systems that have a steam turbine generator and hydro turbine generator tied together during a system upset.  The hydro generator can actually drive the steam turbine generator to destruction.

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

28 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sigh... brainless reply as usual.  Turbine 95% one way(down) and only 80% up instead of +90% up with a proper designed pump adds up in a gigantic hurry.  When you need  thousands of GWh, not MWh, efficiency counts.  Sorry boyo pumped hydro on a large scale requires high efficiency pumps and high efficiency turbines.  No they are not the same thing.  A overall trip efficiency difference of 15% adds up in a gargantuan hurry.  You can buy a LOT of VERY large pumps/valves for 15%-->20% of power generated instead of throwing it away in a fit of internet arrogance believing you actually know shit. 

Just because you CAN use something it is not efficient at doing, does not make it economically viable at large scale.  Small scale peakers, sure, in reality, no. 

Perhaps brainless, but that's the way it is, sorry.

The Francis runners for pumped hydro are specifically designed for the purpose, but that tinkering is beyond my knowledge.  I think most of the tinkering is to minimize cavitation damage during both "flow directions" rather than just one.  The difference is not visually obvious.

Buying power at low cost and selling it at high cost makes a huge difference with economic operation of pumped storage.  Sometimes it really eye-opening (when they are PAID to take the power, for instance)!

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sigh... brainless reply as usual.  Turbine 95% one way(down) and only 80% up instead of +90% up with a proper designed pump adds up in a gigantic hurry.  When you need  thousands of GWh, not MWh, efficiency counts.  Sorry boyo pumped hydro on a large scale requires high efficiency pumps and high efficiency turbines.  No they are not the same thing.  A overall trip efficiency difference of 15% adds up in a gargantuan hurry.  You can buy a LOT of VERY large pumps/valves for 15%-->20% of power generated instead of throwing it away in a fit of internet arrogance believing you actually know shit. 

Just because you CAN use something it is not efficient at doing, does not make it economically viable at large scale.  Small scale peakers, sure, in reality, no. 

Ok dippy, here ya go:

The reversible pump/turbine, developed overseas in the 1940's and now used almost exclusively, greatly extended  the field of pumped storage application at economical costs (See Section 2.4.1). Although reversible pump/turbines were tested and installed outside the United States, it was not until the 1950's that they were utilized in this country.

When completed the Bath County Project will be the world's largest pumped storage facility. , .... The six reversible units will operate under a static head of approximately 1,200 feet.

image.thumb.png.85dbc39c084d504decfc309abdfc149d.png

image.thumb.png.f4373d0134f1389f433c14debef72e75.png

image.thumb.png.6d4c8ed784827f98d56c3ca5f29e99f4.png

https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/IWR019-000001-000517.pdf

Continued in my next post...

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

When completed the Bath County Project will be the world's largest pumped storage facility. , .... The six reversible units will operate under a static head of approximately 1,200 feet.

Thanx!

That's a lotta static head!  That's like 500 psi at the bottom of the penstock and in the spiral case!  Must be a thick wall with a REALLY thick concrete embedment.  The wicket gate operating cylinders get REALLY massive.

I believe there's a larger installation in the UK.

Edited by turbguy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Largest pumped storage plants in operation and development

By Carrieann Stocks  13 May 2020

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/largest-pumped-storage-plants/

Bath = Reversible, link in previous post. 

11 hours 24,000 MWh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station

Huizhou = The total installed capacity of the station is 2400MW, with 8*300MW reversible pumped storage units. The designed annual generation capacity is 4563GWh, and the designed annual pumping consumption is 6003GWh.  http://eng.csg.cn/Press_release/News_2011/201512/t20151217_110109.html

Guangdong = an underground power cavern containing four 300 MW reversible turbines 

image.png.1eedcc486eb6d657b32582b096f6f20f.png

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/galvan-lopez2/docs/26369-prc-pcr.pdf

Okutataragi = Reversible  https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/hydraulics_lab/pubs/EM/EM39.pdf

Ludington = The power plant consists of six reversible turbines that can each generate 312 megawatts of electricity for a total output of 1,872 megawatts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant

Under Construction:

Fengning = The facility will comprise an underground powerhouse equipped with 12 reversible Francis pump-turbine units of 300MW capacity each. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/largest-pumped-storage-plants

Attaqa Mountain = underground powerhouse equipped with six 400MW reversible pump/turbine units. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/largest-pumped-storage-plants

Meizhou = The powerhouse will be equipped with eight 300MW single-stage, vertical-shaft, mixed-flow, reversible pump-turbine units operating at a water head of 400m. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/meizhou-pumped-storage-power-station/

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/30/2021 at 9:11 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sigh... brainless reply as usual.  Turbine 95% one way(down) and only 80% up instead of +90% up with a proper designed pump adds up in a gigantic hurry.  When you need  thousands of GWh, not MWh, efficiency counts.  Sorry boyo pumped hydro on a large scale requires high efficiency pumps and high efficiency turbines.  No they are not the same thing.  A overall trip efficiency difference of 15% adds up in a gargantuan hurry.  You can buy a LOT of VERY large pumps/valves for 15%-->20% of power generated instead of throwing it away in a fit of internet arrogance believing you actually know shit. 

Just because you CAN use something it is not efficient at doing, does not make it economically viable at large scale.  Small scale peakers, sure, in reality, no. 

Gee where'd ya go? Don't you want to explain to us how brainless the entire pumped hydro industry is and how they don't know shit for using reversible pumps exclusively on all the large scale pumped hydro installations?

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Gee where'd ya go? Don't you want to explain to us how brainless the entire pumped hydro industry is and how they don't know shit for using reversible pumps exclusively on all the large scale pumped hydro installations?

I don't know where he "went".

Hopefully, it was to get educated about the peculiarities and realities of the state of the art concerning hydro generation and  pumped hydro storage.  He might benefit.

I would agree that steam turbines and CT's are "one way", so are Pelton (impulse) hydro turbines.  I suspect that some Kaplan hydro runners are as well (no direct experience with those variable pitch machines).  A Francis turbine runner works just fine in either flow direction.

 

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, turbguy said:

I don't know where he "went".

Hopefully, it was to get educated about the peculiarities and realities of the state of the art concerning hydro generation and  pumped hydro storage.  He might benefit.

I would agree that steam turbines and CT's are "one way", so are Pelton (impulse) hydro turbines.  I suspect that some Kaplan hydro runners are as well (no direct experience with those variable pitch machines).  A Francis turbine runner works just fine in either flow direction.

He went no where and I have had Jay blocked for a year as I can't stand his ignorant illiterate engineering drivel and made the mistake of clicking read his post and replying.  Nor your blatant ignoring what was posted and play make believe that small scale where power for pumped hydro is free equates to large scale.  Small scale you do not care about efficiency for the most part as the power is sold free to you.  So sure, go use a turbine in reverse at piss poor efficiency.  Bravo. 

What is topic?  Small scale?  No.  Giant scale of TerraWatt hours. 

Kinda like your brake statement... a device to stop turbine for maintenance is vastly different than a real brake. 

Can't stand definition shavers who know damned well the person is talking about the 95% and you purposefully decide to pick the 0.0001%, as if that is reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

...

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

14 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

 

What is topic?  Small scale?  No.  Giant scale of TerraWatt hours. 

 

 

I updated a few of the projects in my previous list of large pumped storage power stations with MWh, since he can't be bothered to do any actual research when he can just make a fool of himself instead in a fit of internet arrogance believing he actually knows shit.

However Wiki has a list of projects with many reporting MWh so let's look at everything they have listed as more MWh than Bath in Virginia which we all know is very large.

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

 

Station Country Location Power Capacity (MW) Storage Capacity (MWh) Ref
Raccoon Mountain Pumped-Storage Plant 23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States 17px-WMA_button2b.png35°02′55″N 85°23′48″W 1,652 36,344  [9]
Grand'Maison Dam 23px-Flag_of_France.svg.png France 17px-WMA_button2b.png45°12′21″N 06°07′01″E 1,800 34,800 [12][13]
Drakensberg Pumped Storage Scheme 23px-Flag_of_South_Africa.svg.png South Africa 17px-WMA_button2b.png28°34′23″S 29°05′13″E 1,000 27,600 [59]
Bad Creek Hydroelectric Station 23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States 17px-WMA_button2b.png35°0′40.02″N 83°0′52.23″W 1,065 25,560 [36]
Cortes La Muela Power Station [es] 23px-Flag_of_Spain.svg.png Spain 17px-WMA_button2b.png39°14′20″N 0°55′41″W 1,490 24,496 [22][13]
Bath County Pumped Storage Station 23px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States 17px-WMA_button2b.png38°12′32″N 79°48′00″W 3,003 24,000 [1][2]

Raccoon Mountain project with four reversible pump/turbines. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4074936

Grand'Maison Dam =  Finally found an example with 1/3rd one direction Pelton, the other 2/3rd are reversible pump turbine

Turbines 4 x 150 MW Pelton-type
8 x 150 MW Francis pump turbine

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand'Maison_Dam

Drakensberg During the off-peak periods Drakensberg will use its reversible turbines to pump the water back to the upper reservoir, readying the system for peak periods.- Average production over last 3 years: 2041 GWh- Average import (pumping) over last 3 years: 2766 GWh https://www.eskom.co.za/Whatweredoing/ElectricityGeneration/PowerStations/Pages/Drakensberg_Pumped_Storage_Scheme.aspx#:~:text=A pumped storage scheme generates,the system for peak periods.

 
Bad Creek = Reversible pump turbines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Creek_Hydroelectric_Station
 
 
Bath County = Reversible pump turbines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station
 
Summary of this short list containing TeraWatt hours of annual pumped storage production finds >90% is serviced by reversible pump turbines. :P
 
But wait! Just to top this off with a cherry let's look at what is shaping up to be the largest capacity pumped storage on the planet:

Under construction[edit]

Station Country Location Capacity (MW) Storage capacity (MWh) Expected Completion Ref
Snowy 2.0 Pumped Storage Power Station [fr] 23px-Flag_of_Australia_%28converted%29.s Australia 17px-WMA_button2b.png35°46′53″S 148°27′13″E 2,000 350,000 2026 [71]

 

350,000 MWh without refilling  and what do you think it will use when it does need to refill? six reversible pump-turbines of course! https://www.hydroreview.com/hydro-industry-news/snowy-hydro-celebrates-milestone-in-2000-mw-snowy-2-0-project/#gref

 
What say we survey a few more from the middle of the the list to just really drive this point home. Particularly let's see what the Chinese are doing:
 
Pushihe Pumped Storage Power Station 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China
Pump-generators 4 x 300 MW Francis pump turbines
Installed capacity 1,200 MW
Annual generation 1 billion kWh
1,200    
Fengning Pumped Storage Power Station 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China
Pump-generators Francis pump turbines
Phase 1: 6 x 300 MW
Phase 2: 6 x 300 MW
Installed capacity 3,600 MW
Annual generation 3.424 TWh
1,200

Under construction

 
Huanggou Pumped Storage Power Station 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China
 
Turbines 4 x 300 MW Francis pump turbines
Installed capacity 1,200 MW
Annual generation 1.2 TWh (est.)
1,200

Under construction

 
Tongbai Pumped Storage Power Station 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China
Pump-generators 4 x 300 MW (400,000 hp) Francis pump turbines
Installed capacity 1,200 MW (1,600,000 hp)
Annual generation 2.8 billion kWh
1,200    
Xianyou Pumped Storage Power Station 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China
Pump-generators 4 x 300 MW Francis pump turbines
Installed capacity 1,200 MW
Annual generation 1.9 billion kWh (est.)
1,200    
Xilongchi Pumped Storage Power Station 23px-Flag_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_ China
Pump-generators 4 x 300 MW Francis pump turbines
Installed capacity 1,200 MW
Annual generation 1.8 billion kWh
1,200    

In conclusion, I can't find even one total TeraWatt hour of pumped storage annual generation produced by single direction turbines in the whole wide world. Poor, poor footsy. Would someone like to tell him what a fool he has been made out to be?

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Kinda like your brake statement... a device to stop turbine for maintenance is vastly different than a real brake. 

 

Oh, I'm talking real brakes, with pnuematic and/or hydraulic-actuated brake shoes and a LARGE brake ring (typically on the underside of the generator spider, with a diameter almost as large as the outer diameter of the poles).

AND you can use the generator as an electric dynamic brake at higher speeds.  Plants use both in a coordinated manner.  Applying the mechanical brake at full speed ain't "desirable".   If a unit happens to experience an "excitation issue" or a "rotor winding" issue during operation, it may not be possible to use electric dynamic braking at all.

The brake system also can be used to lift the rotating parts (and then install mechanical jacks) to enable thrust bearing servicing.

In any event, switching a pump-turbine from generating to pumping (or vice versa) cannot be done in a "prompt" manner, nowhere near as fast as a battery. At least the grid gains some "prompt" support if you stop drawing pumping power (or cease generating).  THAT can be done quickly.  But switching?  No way.  A well-trained operator might be able to do that in 5 minutes or so.  That's probably all automated these days...

I am unaware of ANY large scale pumped hydro system that has "separate" pumps and turbines installed.  Perhaps some small projects where old, abandoned (i.e., cheap) equipment was relocated for the purpose.  Nothing large scale.

I also don't believe that there is as large a difference in efficiency between generating and pumping as you seem to quote. I think it's on the order of a percent or three (with modern designs).

AND, another benefit from pumped storage, you can evacuate the turbine (let it spin in air) and use the generator as a synchronous condenser (although that's rarely done).

 

 

Edited by turbguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2021 at 3:06 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

The biggest battery at Moss Landing will be 1500MW/6000MWh when it is completed in a few years.. Whereas pumped hydro can't be brought online until completed, batteries are modular and can be revenue generating long before completion.

Another huge advantage of batteries is that they can be quickly built at pre existing substations. Moss Landing is a very large natural gas plant that has been retired. The battery is being built in the former turbine building and using the plants' pre existing transmission. No environmental issues at all, no new power lines, just reusing power industry infrastructure is a big plus for batteries. The plan is to convert many of the natural gas plants to big batteries.

 

I hope it works out well for the people of California but I think they would be better off with more natural gas plants. Time will tell. They are already paying very high rates for electricity. 

https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.