Re: The Death Of Fossil Fuels
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:44 pm
That’s not storage so much as production. For it to be useful to the UK, in this hypothetical scenario, we’d need to add a TWh or so of capacity that we could use in a day or two and which would be easily replenished. That might not be that big of a challenge, I don’t know. Does Norway export a lot of hydro power currently?bmforre wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:18 pmLatest first: We don't pump hydro in Norway, water rains down from above and is caught in our large reservoirs. From whence: dispatched.Grumble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:43 pm... I don’t think we’ll get 1 TWh of storage, we might get up to the GWh range but that doesn’t last all that long. We’re currently in the MWh range. Can we really use Norway as our storage? I assume this would be pumped hydro, I don’t know what capacity they have?
Storage capacity in this country. According to https://energifaktanorge.no/norsk-energ ... rsyningen/, translated and commented by me:
"Normal year" production: 141 TWh. Trend: Increasing with climate change at present.
Storage capacity ca. 70% of yearly consumption.
That's ca 100 TWh.
While you statein Norway we do have 100 times that.... I don’t think we’ll get 1 TWh of storage ...
Interesting. I was working with Genesis who are one of the power generators in NZ, and they were the ones who told me about pumped hydro, but I can't find any details about their power stations online. (They have divested some of their stations in recent years - they were essentially the New Zealand Electricity Corporation until ~1999.) I'm sure that they mentioned that their power stations have the ability to reverse flow when there is excess power generation in the country, but there's no mention of it. I wonder whether a hydro-electric power station which has the ability to reverse flow is still only mentioned as a hydro-electric power station, and pumped hydro-electric then refers specifically to stations pumping to a new, high-level reservoir constructed for the purpose.basementer wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:56 pmDo you have a citation for that? There is lots of hydro generation, certainly, but when I've gone looking for figures on pumped storage I've mostly found articles saying that we ought to consider doing it.
You need high mountains in wet areas with different level lakes/reservoirs (or the construction of reservoirs). I guess that in Scotland there aren't so many lakes/reservoirs close to each other but with significant elevation difference to make hydroelectricity an option. That and the historic availability of cheap gas from the North Sea which has made investment in renewable energy schemes superfluous.
Most of the stations in the Waitaki scheme (there are eight in all) discharge into rivers or canals, which presumably makes reversing the flow impractical, but at a cursory glance Ohau A and Aviemore look to have lakes below that could be used. Meridian owns those now, and they don't mention pumped storage on their website. Perhaps it is a matter of terminology as you say.Martin_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:55 amInteresting. I was working with Genesis who are one of the power generators in NZ, and they were the ones who told me about pumped hydro, but I can't find any details about their power stations online. (They have divested some of their stations in recent years - they were essentially the New Zealand Electricity Corporation until ~1999.) I'm sure that they mentioned that their power stations have the ability to reverse flow when there is excess power generation in the country, but there's no mention of it. I wonder whether a hydro-electric power station which has the ability to reverse flow is still only mentioned as a hydro-electric power station, and pumped hydro-electric then refers specifically to stations pumping to a new, high-level reservoir constructed for the purpose.
Regardless of whether it's pumped storage or conventional hydro, it still must be possible to have it very fast to turn on and off, so with sufficient hydro generation capacity, the pumped storage part might be less important.dyqik wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:10 pmIt's a lot cheaper than building new pumped storage, or probably new other method storage sites. You've got the upper dam and reservoir, the generators, and the lines connecting to the grid already. The big outlays would be a lower water storage pond (probably much cheaper than the high dam and reservoir), pumps and plumbing*, and control and switch gear to reverse the direction of the grid connections.Pucksoppet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:33 amActually, as far as I could make out when I looked at this about a year or so ago, very little. I was reading original documents from the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE: http://www.nve.no), so I could easily have missed something, but it looked like, although Norway has lots of hydro power, it has very little to no pumped storage ( https://www.nve.no/energiforsyning/kraf ... f=mainmenu 1626 power-generating facilities generating 135 TWh/year and 30 pumps using 0.16 TWh/year.). That could be changed, but it is not a short-term, or cheap project.Grumble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:43 pmEven with all the concrete nuclear is still very much a low carbon energy source. And that’s the main point really, I don’t believe we can get to a point of 100% renewables because we need something like 1000x the current installation base to cover low wind days, or we need massive amounts of storage. We can get further with more wind and solar and more storage, but to provide 100% low carbon electricity we need nuclear in the mix. I don’t think we’ll get 1 TWh of storage, we might get up to the GWh range but that doesn’t last all that long. We’re currently in the MWh range. Can we really use Norway as our storage? I assume this would be pumped hydro, I don’t know what capacity they have?
Fusion will have the same issues of large capital costs to pay off, assuming it happens.
*or whatever the appropriate word here is
I can’t make out why China is building so many coal plants despite the existing ones not being utilised. I suspect the answer is in corruption.bjn wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:55 pmLooks like coal use will be on track to have declined by 3% globally in 2019.
The really illuminating part for me was that China, which is building a swathe of new coal plants, has historically low utilisation rate of 48% for its existing fleet. Globally the utilisation rate is also dropping. All those extra plants they are building are just going to add to the idle pool and reduce utilisation rates even further. Stranded assets in the making.
Australia has several pumped hydro schemes all on the east cost. Although the Shoalhaven one is used to pump water into the Sydney water supply rather than for generating electricity.Martin_B wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:55 amInteresting. I was working with Genesis who are one of the power generators in NZ, and they were the ones who told me about pumped hydro, but I can't find any details about their power stations online. (They have divested some of their stations in recent years - they were essentially the New Zealand Electricity Corporation until ~1999.) I'm sure that they mentioned that their power stations have the ability to reverse flow when there is excess power generation in the country, but there's no mention of it. I wonder whether a hydro-electric power station which has the ability to reverse flow is still only mentioned as a hydro-electric power station, and pumped hydro-electric then refers specifically to stations pumping to a new, high-level reservoir constructed for the purpose.
It's been a pretty still December until todayGrumble wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:57 pmAs I write this the U.K. electricity supply is 46% renewable, including 37% from wind. Admittedly it’s late at night and overall demand has dropped but it’s still impressive and not actually the highest figure for the day in % or GW. I’m well impressed by what wind generators are doing. I’m not sure why the coal plants have been woken up for winter though. It seems to me that with the increase in wind there is spare capacity in the gas turbine operators.
Ah, a bit of reading around and it has become clear that DSR is asking people (or companies really) not to use electricity when demand is high relative to supply, and vice versa. I wonder how much we can feasibly gain from that.
Here are some U.S. data. It looks like it takes about 12 GW off peak demand.
Our fab gets a lower tariff for going off-grid at times of high demand. We have a very large uninteruptable power supply based on a flywheel in a vacuum.
And is it all automatic as per bolo’s response?jimbob wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:25 pmOur fab gets a lower tariff for going off-grid at times of high demand. We have a very large uninteruptable power supply based on a flywheel in a vacuum.
At a friend's 40th, I ended up speaking to an engineer with the National Grid, who said us installing that stabilised the entire town's voltage - and that includes a pretty sizeable hospital and quite a bit of light industry, so it's not a small effect.
I'm pretty sure it is - but am not certain.Grumble wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:50 pmAnd is it all automatic as per bolo’s response?jimbob wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:25 pmOur fab gets a lower tariff for going off-grid at times of high demand. We have a very large uninteruptable power supply based on a flywheel in a vacuum.
At a friend's 40th, I ended up speaking to an engineer with the National Grid, who said us installing that stabilised the entire town's voltage - and that includes a pretty sizeable hospital and quite a bit of light industry, so it's not a small effect.