That's a nice wish. The person that manages to do it economically will become rich beyond the dreams of Croesus.
In the meantime...Pumped Hyrdro...
http://www.ecogeneration.com.au/why-pumped-hydro-beats-batteries-as-a-storage-solution
The UK is very limited in that respect. We are limited to minutes (seconds?) of the total grid demand.
A prime use of our pumped storage is for a "black start" contingency.The UK is limited in its current installed capacity, not limited with the available capacity it has not exploited. But there was 6 pages on that in the other thread.
That's a nice wish. The person that manages to do it economically will become rich beyond the dreams of Croesus.
In the meantime...Pumped Hyrdro...
http://www.ecogeneration.com.au/why-pumped-hydro-beats-batteries-as-a-storage-solution
The UK is very limited in that respect. We are limited to minutes (seconds?) of the total grid demand.
A prime use of our pumped storage is for a "black start" contingency.The UK is limited in its current installed capacity, not limited with the available capacity it has not exploited. But there was 6 pages on that in the other thread.
Really? Do tell us where!
Someone who knows about the subject has outlined what would be needed (1200GWh), what has been achieved (30GWh), what could be achieved next (100GWh), and how far it might reasonably be pushed (400GWh). There is a large gap (a factor of 3) between the "would be needed" and "could be pushed to".
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_186.shtml and following pages
Achieving the full 1200 GWh that we were hoping for looks tough, however.
I am simply saying that the only way to go to 100% renewables is to have long term storage. You cannot go to 100% renewables with 50 day hydro buffers - even if we did have the water in Australia to do so.
The hydro storage solutions are only needed if you stick to coal generation. If you plan for renewables + long term storage, you don't need hydro.
Your argument is that even if long term storage is technically possible, you are in lala land if you talk about it.
Ok. Over to you. How can we stop using coal? If you are responsible for engineering a solution for the future, how would you do it?Right off the bat you've stuck to your corner, 100% renewable generation does not require long term storage. We can generate enough power year round to only require short term storage. Hydro is one of the cheapest forms of grid scale energy storage and Australia has plenty of it available, so its a natural choice to solve the intermittency problem of renewables.
Right now adding solar generation capacity to the Australian grid is profitable (wind is less certain based on rebates and government kickbacks as far as I know), its also profitable to build new pumped storage. So you can keep incrementally adding those alone until you reach 100% renewable generation, with todays technology. It will need a massively upgraded distribution network unless the storage and generation are co-sited and then you need more of both, tradeoffs for the market to analyse case by case. Equally the exact mix of generation to storage to demand is not exactly known yet but as the price fluctuates storage becomes more profitable, while as the price is steady intermittent renewable generation becomes more profitable so they are self balancing in the market place.
At a rough guess you would end up with between 2 and 4 times the peak power requirement in installed capacity of wind and solar (both run around 25% capacity factor in Australian grid scale projects), and around 2 times peak power in pumped power, with storage to ride out between 2 and 6 days of zero generation. Thats a guess but you're welcome to suggest how it would be impossible, electricity prices would increase but that's how it is when you're trying to reduce pollution and reliance on finite resources.
Australia has developed much of its large scale hydro energy potential. Electricity generation from hydro has declined in recent years because of an extended period of drought in eastern Australia, where most hydroelectricity capacity is located. Hydro energy is becoming less significant in Australia’s fuel mix for electricity generation, as growth in generation capacity is being outpaced by other fuels.
That's a nice wish. The person that manages to do it economically will become rich beyond the dreams of Croesus.
In the meantime...Pumped Hyrdro...
http://www.ecogeneration.com.au/why-pumped-hydro-beats-batteries-as-a-storage-solution
The UK is very limited in that respect. We are limited to minutes (seconds?) of the total grid demand.
A prime use of our pumped storage is for a "black start" contingency.The UK is limited in its current installed capacity, not limited with the available capacity it has not exploited. But there was 6 pages on that in the other thread.
Really? Do tell us where!
Someone who knows about the subject has outlined what would be needed (1200GWh), what has been achieved (30GWh), what could be achieved next (100GWh), and how far it might reasonably be pushed (400GWh). There is a large gap (a factor of 3) between the "would be needed" and "could be pushed to".
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_186.shtml and following pagesYou are such an impertinent nit picker, its right there in the same document on page 193 where the 400GWh fraction is described as easy to obtain just within Scotland:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_193.shtml
But you hold onto this one line with endless insistence:Quote from: David JC MacKay, Sustainable Energy - without the hot air, pg 194Achieving the full 1200 GWh that we were hoping for looks tough, however.
Tough, but certainly not impossible and in its wider context in the book that may be just referring to Scotland.
Just start looking outside of Scotland at the rest of the UK for candidate sites, perhaps even those that don't already have a water body in them.
Geospatial investigation reveals many many unexpected resources for pumped hydro, even in Australia with its exceptionally flat and rolling topography. In the other thread I put up the numbers at around 0.5% of UK land area required to cover that demand.
Or from David JC MacKay in Sustainable Energy - without the hot air where in "plan G" where he suggests a possible solution for the UKs energy needs including 4000GWh of pumped storage, presented as a possible solution with no disclaimers of impossibility.
I am simply saying that the only way to go to 100% renewables is to have long term storage. You cannot go to 100% renewables with 50 day hydro buffers - even if we did have the water in Australia to do so.
The hydro storage solutions are only needed if you stick to coal generation. If you plan for renewables + long term storage, you don't need hydro.
Your argument is that even if long term storage is technically possible, you are in lala land if you talk about it.
Ok. Over to you. How can we stop using coal? If you are responsible for engineering a solution for the future, how would you do it?Right off the bat you've stuck to your corner, 100% renewable generation does not require long term storage. We can generate enough power year round to only require short term storage. Hydro is one of the cheapest forms of grid scale energy storage and Australia has plenty of it available, so its a natural choice to solve the intermittency problem of renewables.Australia has plenty of hydro? Where? there is the Snowy scheme developed in the 50's and 60's.
Anyone who says we have plenty of water has got to be joking. We even reneged on the promise to reintroduce significant flows back into the Snowy River. Over 99% of the Snowy river flow at Jindabyne was redirected into the Murray without any environmental study. State and federal governments made a solemn commitment to add a small amount back into the Snowy, and then shut the water off again due to water shortages in the Murray.
I am not convinced your dream is a particularly well engineered dream. Is there a reason you believe in the renewables+hydro option so fervently? Are you in the industry?
I am simply saying that the only way to go to 100% renewables is to have long term storage. You cannot go to 100% renewables with 50 day hydro buffers - even if we did have the water in Australia to do so.
The hydro storage solutions are only needed if you stick to coal generation. If you plan for renewables + long term storage, you don't need hydro.
Your argument is that even if long term storage is technically possible, you are in lala land if you talk about it.
Ok. Over to you. How can we stop using coal? If you are responsible for engineering a solution for the future, how would you do it?Right off the bat you've stuck to your corner, 100% renewable generation does not require long term storage. We can generate enough power year round to only require short term storage. Hydro is one of the cheapest forms of grid scale energy storage and Australia has plenty of it available, so its a natural choice to solve the intermittency problem of renewables.Australia has plenty of hydro? Where? there is the Snowy scheme developed in the 50's and 60's.
But you definitely seem to have a huge issue with long term storage - it is almost like you hate the idea. Why wouldn't we want to implement long term storage for renewable energy?
Really? Do point to it.
I’ll present a few plans that I believe are technically feasible for the UK by 2050.
Plan G’s electricity breaks down as follows. Wind: 32 kWh/d/p (80 GW average) (plus about 4000GWh of associated pumped-storage facilities).
I am simply saying that the only way to go to 100% renewables is to have long term storage. You cannot go to 100% renewables with 50 day hydro buffers - even if we did have the water in Australia to do so.
The hydro storage solutions are only needed if you stick to coal generation. If you plan for renewables + long term storage, you don't need hydro.
Your argument is that even if long term storage is technically possible, you are in lala land if you talk about it.
Ok. Over to you. How can we stop using coal? If you are responsible for engineering a solution for the future, how would you do it?Right off the bat you've stuck to your corner, 100% renewable generation does not require long term storage. We can generate enough power year round to only require short term storage. Hydro is one of the cheapest forms of grid scale energy storage and Australia has plenty of it available, so its a natural choice to solve the intermittency problem of renewables.Australia has plenty of hydro? Where? there is the Snowy scheme developed in the 50's and 60's.I'll repeat the link since you missed it:
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/research/energy-systems/energy-storage-liquid-air-and-pumped-hydro/research/opportunities-for-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-in-australia2
There are enormous untapped pumped hydro resources available.But you definitely seem to have a huge issue with long term storage - it is almost like you hate the idea. Why wouldn't we want to implement long term storage for renewable energy?You're the one dismissing renewables and pumped hydro, which on their current economics are very profitable. I'm not trying to say they'll ride out some major apocalypse, but they're a plausible way of providing the entire electricity demand of Australia with current technology. Even at 100% renewable generation.
More storage options are great but you keep claiming pumped hydro wont work and 100% renewable isnt possible, they're both possible on large scales in Australia and some other countries around the world. There hasnt been a demonstrated need for long term energy storage, so trying to claim that its essential is misleading. Its nice to have and there is lots of work around hydrocarbon (or just hydrogen) storage but right now the most cost effective option is pumped hydro (salt water included).
The problem in the UK is that the government sell everything off and private companies only care about making money. Nuclear has bigger time scales than any parliament so no parliament will bother because investing is bad and leaving the mess for the next government to clean up is good for their political carrer. Last I heared we were running out of temporary storage for the waste because no one could be bothered to build permanent storage and it was mounting up in temporary storage where it had nowhere to go from.
For anyone wondering just what out electricity is made from go here: http://gridwatch.co.uk/ bearing in mind that 1/3 of wind is not registered here and none of the solar is as it's not all centrally monitored.
..There are currently methods that will probably be safe for the lifetime of anyone alive today, but people don't even know what changes might occur over the next 50,000 years - crustal, environmental, political and economical.
..There are currently methods that will probably be safe for the lifetime of anyone alive today, but people don't even know what changes might occur over the next 50,000 years - crustal, environmental, political and economical.
Did you intentionally omitted scientific and technological changes?
Extrapolating from the scientific and technological progress in the last 50,000 years, it's naive to assume only our current waste management solutions.
The other option is to move to Thorium Reactors which can burn Nuclear waste as fuel.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-thorium-can-burn-nuclear-waste-and-generate-energy/
What, like contaminated rubber gloves and other low-level waste?
Or intermediate level waste like fuel cladding that is currently put into the ground in concrete blocks?
Or are you talking about only a small proportion of the estimate 12,000 metric tons of nasty high-level waste that is made every year?
To me it sounds like the green-washing that is the Energizer Eco-advanced battery - each battery is 4% old battery. So it takes 25 new batteries to get rid of an old one... yeah - that's green
How about reading the link before you get on your high horse and act like a dick?
..There are currently methods that will probably be safe for the lifetime of anyone alive today, but people don't even know what changes might occur over the next 50,000 years - crustal, environmental, political and economical.
Did you intentionally omitted scientific and technological changes?
Extrapolating from the scientific and technological progress in the last 50,000 years, it's naive to assume only our current waste management solutions.Its also naive to assume that as we develop more advanced waste management technologies, we'll even be able to find all the stuff which need reprocessing.
The problem in the UK is that the government sell everything off and private companies only care about making money. Nuclear has bigger time scales than any parliament so no parliament will bother because investing is bad and leaving the mess for the next government to clean up is good for their political carrer. Last I heared we were running out of temporary storage for the waste because no one could be bothered to build permanent storage and it was mounting up in temporary storage where it had nowhere to go from.
That's pretty much the case, with an added element of "the market is always right".QuoteFor anyone wondering just what out electricity is made from go here: http://gridwatch.co.uk/ bearing in mind that 1/3 of wind is not registered here and none of the solar is as it's not all centrally monitored.
I missed that bit about 1/3 of the wind power (not that it changes the cumulative distribution function, of course). Is there any indication of why it is "missed out"?
I am simply saying that the only way to go to 100% renewables is to have long term storage. You cannot go to 100% renewables with 50 day hydro buffers - even if we did have the water in Australia to do so.
The hydro storage solutions are only needed if you stick to coal generation. If you plan for renewables + long term storage, you don't need hydro.
Your argument is that even if long term storage is technically possible, you are in lala land if you talk about it.
Ok. Over to you. How can we stop using coal? If you are responsible for engineering a solution for the future, how would you do it?Right off the bat you've stuck to your corner, 100% renewable generation does not require long term storage. We can generate enough power year round to only require short term storage. Hydro is one of the cheapest forms of grid scale energy storage and Australia has plenty of it available, so its a natural choice to solve the intermittency problem of renewables.Australia has plenty of hydro? Where? there is the Snowy scheme developed in the 50's and 60's.I'll repeat the link since you missed it:
http://energy.unimelb.edu.au/research/energy-systems/energy-storage-liquid-air-and-pumped-hydro/research/opportunities-for-pumped-hydro-energy-storage-in-australia2
There are enormous untapped pumped hydro resources available.But you definitely seem to have a huge issue with long term storage - it is almost like you hate the idea. Why wouldn't we want to implement long term storage for renewable energy?You're the one dismissing renewables and pumped hydro, which on their current economics are very profitable. I'm not trying to say they'll ride out some major apocalypse, but they're a plausible way of providing the entire electricity demand of Australia with current technology. Even at 100% renewable generation.People survived the 1883-1885 event - probably because they were using technologies like coal. Your the one trying to say it is OK to reduce the total energy reserve in the system to under 30 days. You are the one saying that if an event that happened only 133 years ago happens when we are using 100% renewables, it will become a major apocalypse.
I get it. With PHES, you can pump seawater up a hill as a way of storing the days solar energy for the night. That is a good thing.
Is it a solution to store the summer solar energy for use in the winter? No.
I looked at all the proposed solutions and they all seemed to be Big Energy solutions. But it definitely is not cheap, since you have to consider the cost of the grid updates since the PHES sites have to accept all the excess solar power during the day and release all of it at night. If the solar power is at Broken Hill and the PHES site is on the coast, that is a long way to be sending power back and forth.Quote
More storage options are great but you keep claiming pumped hydro wont work and 100% renewable isnt possible, they're both possible on large scales in Australia and some other countries around the world. There hasnt been a demonstrated need for long term energy storage, so trying to claim that its essential is misleading. Its nice to have and there is lots of work around hydrocarbon (or just hydrogen) storage but right now the most cost effective option is pumped hydro (salt water included).
There has most definitely been a demonstration of long term energy storage that every single one of us has personally experienced. For many of us, we have seen storage for far many decades. More on that later.
The point about long term storage for renewables is if we want to stop a completely expected volcanic event being a "major apocalypse", it is totally essential. Sorry if it is a shock to you, but there will be more volcanoes and some will be whoppers. Yellowstone park is a supervolcano as it sits on top of a couple of massive blobs of magma. There have been super-eruptions about every 700,000 years for the last 2.1 million years and the last was 630000 years ago.
So I still come back to the point. Ten years of energy can easily be stored as fuel in a relatively small volume in a house. That is absolute and uncontroversial. Just do the calculations.
I did do the calculations using fat (just because it is the long term storage our body uses) and 10 years 24kWh/day of energy occupies 2 x 2 x 2.5 meters. Realistic storage will need more space, but we are not talking unreasonably big volumes of space. Perhaps a room in the house, a shed outside the house, or a basement.
We are allowed in this forum to talk about ideas that have not been invented yet. The usual response if the idea is a dud is to give a reasoned explanation as to why it is technically impossible. In this forum, it is a very positive and helpful thing to do. Arguing that we don't need long term storage because we already have a different mostly unimplemented short term solution that would be rendered obsolete if the long term solution worked is a very funny kind of rebuttal.
The problem in the UK is that the government sell everything off and private companies only care about making money. Nuclear has bigger time scales than any parliament so no parliament will bother because investing is bad and leaving the mess for the next government to clean up is good for their political carrer. Last I heared we were running out of temporary storage for the waste because no one could be bothered to build permanent storage and it was mounting up in temporary storage where it had nowhere to go from.
For anyone wondering just what out electricity is made from go here: http://gridwatch.co.uk/ bearing in mind that 1/3 of wind is not registered here and none of the solar is as it's not all centrally monitored.
. Solar photo-voltaic cells are known to have a shelf-life of 10-20 years
I don't like nuclear, I don't trust people enough. We have seen time and time again how profits trump safety, the VW scandal being a good example. I am also sick of the private sector ruining stuff. I don't know how the whole nuclear generation cycle works but it cleaerly works badly if we are running out of storage.
Our new made in china reactors won't be ready for years and already wind is cheaper than nuclear,
by the time that power station is switched on we will all feel the shafting badly as it will be very expensive electricity that we have agreed to pay a price for years in advance and we could have spend the difference on developing storage technology.
we could have spend the difference on developing storage technology.totally agree
Our new made in china reactors won't be ready for years and already wind is cheaper than nuclear, by the time that power station is switched on we will all feel the shafting badly as it will be very expensive electricity that we have agreed to pay a price for years in advance and we could have spend the difference on developing storage technology.Oh, that old canard.
Q: if you install X GW of wind generating plant then how much conventional plant can you remove?
A: 0 GW; nada, zilch.
You still have to have the equivalent conventional plant capacity available when wind power is unavailable, and that costs money. Self evidently, if you only have to use a plant for, say, 10% of the time, then the fixed costs make the cost per minute or GWh look extremely high. But what's the cost of not having it available when required? (Hint: much, much higher).
..There are currently methods that will probably be safe for the lifetime of anyone alive today, but people don't even know what changes might occur over the next 50,000 years - crustal, environmental, political and economical.
Did you intentionally omitted scientific and technological changes?
Extrapolating from the scientific and technological progress in the last 50,000 years, it's naive to assume only our current waste management solutions.Its also naive to assume that as we develop more advanced waste management technologies, we'll even be able to find all the stuff which need reprocessing.
..There are currently methods that will probably be safe for the lifetime of anyone alive today, but people don't even know what changes might occur over the next 50,000 years - crustal, environmental, political and economical.
Did you intentionally omitted scientific and technological changes?
Extrapolating from the scientific and technological progress in the last 50,000 years, it's naive to assume only our current waste management solutions.Its also naive to assume that as we develop more advanced waste management technologies, we'll even be able to find all the stuff which need reprocessing.
It's the mistake of most of us born in the late 20th century to extrapolate the recent rapid pace of technological advancement indefinitely into the future.
..There are currently methods that will probably be safe for the lifetime of anyone alive today, but people don't even know what changes might occur over the next 50,000 years - crustal, environmental, political and economical.
Did you intentionally omitted scientific and technological changes?
Extrapolating from the scientific and technological progress in the last 50,000 years, it's naive to assume only our current waste management solutions.Its also naive to assume that as we develop more advanced waste management technologies, we'll even be able to find all the stuff which need reprocessing.
It's the mistake of most of us born in the late 20th century to extrapolate the recent rapid pace of technological advancement indefinitely into the future.
Rapid? Read my post. I was extrapolating from the last 50K years. A century is a drop in the ocean of time.