PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
You need to do a bit of research. Hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars comes from fossil fuels. It's too expensive to produce with electricity. While the resevior system works, just look at how little electricity it actually produces for Germany. I think I saw less than 3%.
This is from eight years ago, "In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity. That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity."
Want to guess how many for these "planned to be built" are actually being considered? In California the answer is 0. There are issues with fish, water for farmers and people. I think California has close to 200, and we stopped building them for environmental reasons. One of the last ones they were building is about 2 hours from me. It's one of the ones the environmentalists never allowed to be completed.
While it might sound like it good idea, in practice it doesn't work out that way.It's not economical vs producing it from natural gas, when using power from the grid at the standard price, but if you're looking for something to do with surplus solar or wind generation, that's a special case. Of course, unless the issue of mass production of hydrogen from clean sources is solved, i don't see how the hydrogen car can have any future.
Pumping water up the dam works here in the conditions it's done. YMMV.
This is the wikipedia article for this kind of hydroelectric dams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
This one is also interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
Also very interesting. A map with different energy storage plants and projects: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects.html
QuoteFor now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe.Not credible any more. Too expensive considering clean alternatives.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
You need to do a bit of research. Hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars comes from fossil fuels. It's too expensive to produce with electricity. While the resevior system works, just look at how little electricity it actually produces for Germany. I think I saw less than 3%.
This is from eight years ago, "In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity. That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity."
Want to guess how many for these "planned to be built" are actually being considered? In California the answer is 0. There are issues with fish, water for farmers and people. I think California has close to 200, and we stopped building them for environmental reasons. One of the last ones they were building is about 2 hours from me. It's one of the ones the environmentalists never allowed to be completed.
While it might sound like it good idea, in practice it doesn't work out that way.It's not economical vs producing it from natural gas, when using power from the grid at the standard price, but if you're looking for something to do with surplus solar or wind generation, that's a special case. Of course, unless the issue of mass production of hydrogen from clean sources is solved, i don't see how the hydrogen car can have any future.
Pumping water up the dam works here in the conditions it's done. YMMV.
This is the wikipedia article for this kind of hydroelectric dams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
This one is also interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
Also very interesting. A map with different energy storage plants and projects: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects.html
No one is saying it doesn't work. It's a 100+ year old technology which has been proven. I live in California and we have around 200. We've built all we can. The terrain is such there are any other locations suitable for building any more. Then we have water shortages and environmentalist who don't want to see them get built.
The mass production of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels.
While what you are saying is all good, the problem is we have built all we can, and there aren't any other sites suitable for building any more.
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage . Some interesting technologies there.
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
The picture in the link you provided are very interesting. Did you look at it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Energy-Units-01.png
A sense of units and scale for electrical energy production and consumption.
Take a look at how little solar and wind produces compared to just one nuclear power plant.
I have been to Hover dam. Hard to belevive something that huge produces so little electrictiy. With that said, I wonder just how large Itaipu dam is.
This might not be as great as a solution as it sounds. Over the past 20 years the water level in Hover dam had dropped 200 feet. What happens when we run out of water?
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
The picture in the link you provided are very interesting. Did you look at it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Energy-Units-01.png
A sense of units and scale for electrical energy production and consumption.
Take a look at how little solar and wind produces compared to just one nuclear power plant.
I have been to Hover dam. Hard to belevive something that huge produces so little electrictiy. With that said, I wonder just how large Itaipu dam is.
This might not be as great as a solution as it sounds. Over the past 20 years the water level in Hover dam had dropped 200 feet. What happens when we run out of water?Yes, it seems like there aren't a lot of solar and wind turbines out there, isn't it? Only China has a 24000 MWh/day wind farm. The graph is a little bit outdated, as it lists Fukushima, and it didn't go very well back in 2011.
The graph doesn't really tells you much about the pros and cons of running different power plants, it's just a snapshot in time of the energy production, from at least 8 years ago, i presume.
Wind and solar are relatively new, evolving technologies. The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface. That's not too shabby. I'm fairly sure that as time goes on, we are going to see more and more of them.
Well, yes, you cannot build a dam in any place you want, but it's not the only option for energy storage. Take a look at the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage . Some interesting technologies there.
Maybe you don't need to store that much, if the grid is large enough to transport the energy where the demand is.
With solar, half of the earth is lit and half is dark at any time. Not so easy to transport such large amounts of energy, of course, or to make a grid so large, but maybe that's what will be needed at some point. HVDC power transmission is an interesting technology for this.
Anyways, at some point, when fossil fuels get more and more scarce, changes will be unavoidable.
The picture in the link you provided are very interesting. Did you look at it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Energy-Units-01.png
A sense of units and scale for electrical energy production and consumption.
Take a look at how little solar and wind produces compared to just one nuclear power plant.
I have been to Hover dam. Hard to belevive something that huge produces so little electrictiy. With that said, I wonder just how large Itaipu dam is.
This might not be as great as a solution as it sounds. Over the past 20 years the water level in Hover dam had dropped 200 feet. What happens when we run out of water?Yes, it seems like there aren't a lot of solar and wind turbines out there, isn't it? Only China has a 24000 MWh/day wind farm. The graph is a little bit outdated, as it lists Fukushima, and it didn't go very well back in 2011.
The graph doesn't really tells you much about the pros and cons of running different power plants, it's just a snapshot in time of the energy production, from at least 8 years ago, i presume.
Wind and solar are relatively new, evolving technologies. The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface. That's not too shabby. I'm fairly sure that as time goes on, we are going to see more and more of them.
Doesn’t matter that it’s from 8 years ago, the relative numbers have not changed.
You make a very good point about the sun’s energy hitting the Earth. Just think if we could convert all of that 1000 to electricity we would be incomplete darkness and nothing would grow. We would have to use the electricity we produce for lighting and to grow crops. Better to let the sun do it.
Do you have any idea how much aluminum, steel and concrete is would be needed to provide one quarter of the world with electricity from solar with the current technology? It would take all of the aluminum and steal that’s ever been mined and all of the concrete that’s ever been poured.
While what you are saying sounds good in theory, it’s the practicality that gets in the way. Much like people who invent perpetual motion machines. There’s that one issues that can’t seem to figure out....It takes energy to power the machine.
Do you have any idea how much aluminum, steel and concrete is would be needed to provide one quarter of the world with electricity from solar with the current technology? It would take all of the aluminum and steal that’s ever been mined and all of the concrete that’s ever been poured.
IMAGE: MAP SHOWING SOLAR RADIATION ACROSS AUSTRALIA. THE SMALL RED DOT IN THE CENTRE SHOWS THE AREA OF AUSTRALIA THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE ALL OF AUSTRALIA’S ELECTRICITY USING SOLAR ENERGY. THE LARGE GREEN DOT SHOWS THE AREA REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE ENTIRE WORLD’S ELECTRICITY
Solar areas defined by the dark disks could provide more than the world's total primary energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8%). That is, all energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels, etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites.
The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface.
The Sun shines 1000 MW per square kilometer on the earth's surface.
What percentage of a solar panel is silicon vs aluminum? Every solar panel I have seen has an aluminum frame. When it comes to a large ground mounted then use steel and concreate. The amount of steel aluminum and concrete is far greater than the amount of silicon. It is the solar and wind turbine industry association and which is saying we would have to use all of the steel and aluminum ever mined and all of the concrete ever poured.
There’s a fault in the logic of these maps. We don’t have the technology to covert all of the sun’s energy into electricity. What the maps are showing is what is theoretically possible the only problem is we don’t have the technology to do it.
What percentage of a solar panel is silicon vs aluminum? Every solar panel I have seen has an aluminum frame. When it comes to a large ground mounted then use steel and concreate. The amount of steel aluminum and concrete is far greater than the amount of silicon. It is the solar and wind turbine industry association and which is saying we would have to use all of the steel and aluminum ever mined and all of the concrete ever poured.
There’s a fault in the logic of these maps. We don’t have the technology to covert all of the sun’s energy into electricity. What the maps are showing is what is theoretically possible the only problem is we don’t have the technology to do it.
They don't expect that.
They quote 8% conversion efficiency.
What is the real killer is getting the Electricity from where it is made, to where it is used.
There are some things which ameliorate this problem, but which are (obviously) not the "magic bullet" to cure all ills.
What is done in Western Australia is that many remote (& we have some really remote ones), small towns produce their own power, either from solar, (with diesel for when the Sun isn't shining), or wind, or a combination of all three.
Even "Roadhouses" in "the middle of nowhere" have their own small "Solar farms".(They sell fuel, so they want to be able to keep the lion's share of their diesel fuel to sell, not burn it for no profit).
This saves the tonnes of steel & concrete which would otherwise be used to build thousands of kilometres of electricity transmission towers to bring power from the larger population centres.
This way of doing things would work well in many African countries, & maybe already does.
OK, it isn't powering the World, but it is an effective way to supply power in very large, sparsely populated countries.
In cities, rooftop solar generation on individual homes is common.
Solar hot water systems are ubiquitous in Australia, & have been for years.
Both save a considerable amount of otherwise needed fossil fuel, over time.
OK, they aren't as effective in Northern Europe, or the Northern States of the USA, but many people live in countries with good levels of sunlight year round.
That said, the "powers that be" seem to have managed to stuff up electricity supply royally in the Eastern States of this country.
[quote author=fsr link=topic=101254.msg2145658#
Why do you say that solar isn't good for heating? There are some solar water heaters, and they say that they reduce a lot of the gas needed to heat the water:
When i traveled to some provinces in the north of my country, you see them everywhere. And i've seen some of them even here in Buenos Aires.
The 1 kW/m2 is often cited. Is it incorrect, or it's reasonable in certain conditions, like when panels are installed at an angle, so that they're perpendicular to the rays of the Sun?
As you said, there are deserts out there that are ideal for solar power, but to make the best use of them to power all latitudes would require an international grid, which would have it's technical challenges, and sadly, still bigger political challenges. In fact, if the grid is large enough, then storage would be less of an issue, because the sun is always shining somewhere, and there is always peak demand somewhere and valley demand elsewhere. But yeah, not the easiest thing to do.
But, if you have hydro and solar/wind, you don't need to use as much water when solar/wind is supplying the demand, at least partially. That could be considered some kind of energy storage, specially if the hydro can supply the demand when solar/wind is low, thanks to the fact that now you don't use as much water when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing.
Why do you say that solar isn't good for heating? There are some solar water heaters, and they say that they reduce a lot of the gas needed to heat the water:
What percentage of a solar panel is silicon vs aluminum? Every solar panel I have seen has an aluminum frame. When it comes to a large ground mounted then use steel and concreate. The amount of steel aluminum and concrete is far greater than the amount of silicon. It is the solar and wind turbine industry association and which is saying we would have to use all of the steel and aluminum ever mined and all of the concrete ever poured.
There’s a fault in the logic of these maps. We don’t have the technology to covert all of the sun’s energy into electricity. What the maps are showing is what is theoretically possible the only problem is we don’t have the technology to do it.
They don't expect that.
They quote 8% conversion efficiency.
What is the real killer is getting the Electricity from where it is made, to where it is used.
There are some things which ameliorate this problem, but which are (obviously) not the "magic bullet" to cure all ills.
What is done in Western Australia is that many remote (& we have some really remote ones), small towns produce their own power, either from solar, (with diesel for when the Sun isn't shining), or wind, or a combination of all three.
Even "Roadhouses" in "the middle of nowhere" have their own small "Solar farms".(They sell fuel, so they want to be able to keep the lion's share of their diesel fuel to sell, not burn it for no profit).
This saves the tonnes of steel & concrete which would otherwise be used to build thousands of kilometres of electricity transmission towers to bring power from the larger population centres.
This way of doing things would work well in many African countries, & maybe already does.
OK, it isn't powering the World, but it is an effective way to supply power in very large, sparsely populated countries.
In cities, rooftop solar generation on individual homes is common.
Solar hot water systems are ubiquitous in Australia, & have been for years.
Both save a considerable amount of otherwise needed fossil fuel, over time.
OK, they aren't as effective in Northern Europe, or the Northern States of the USA, but many people live in countries with good levels of sunlight year round.
That said, the "powers that be" seem to have managed to stuff up electricity supply royally in the Eastern States of this country.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I know Russia's solution to providing power at remote locations was nuclear. They powered (and maybe still do) power light houses, aircraft navigational aids with nuclear. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels would be way too expensive. And solar and wind would not be practical. They found nuclear to be "best" solution.
In the United States it is very rare to see any houses or buildings with solar hot water heaters except for pools. I recently priced one for my house and it was crazy expensive. Fuel costs, natural gas prices are so low here it I would be paying an ernormous premium to use the sun to make hot water. I don't live where it freezes. But if I didn't the cost goes up even more. A lot more.
Solar will never work in large cities with tall buidling for obvious reasons. While they might work for remote road houses where you are, we aren't as sparsely populated. I suspect where thouse road houses are hydroelectric is out of the question.
Oil | 37.7% |
Coal | 31.5% |
Gas | 24.7% |
Renewables | 6.2% |
It almost sounds like Australia uses lots of solar so I took a look at what Australia use to generate electricity:
ouch.
If you look at total energy use it gets worse:page 7: https://www.energy.gov.au/sites/default/files/australian_energy_update_2018.pdf
Oil 37.7% Coal 31.5% Gas 24.7% Renewables 6.2%
Something very strange is going on there, considering Australia are about as ideal for solar power as it gets.