GIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdf
Really? Please provide pointers to such installed live plant.
Shall we judge nuclear energy by unsubsidised new builds then? Whether something is practical is different from it being an interesting investment.
QuoteN.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.Hydro has great efficiency too. Thermal storage and using hydrogen from electrolysis stored in mines not so much. The INGRID project has a tiny little hydrogen storage demonstrator in Italy though.
QuoteGIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdf
Thanks for that link. I did not know the data behind PHS. Unfortunately NL is (for obvious reasons) not in the charts. But thankfully we're still part of the EU.
But even this much potential is not enough.
I know that it will not be calm and grey all over Europe and that we will always be able to make energy, be it from waves, tides, geothermic, whatever,
N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.Hydro has great efficiency too. Thermal storage and using hydrogen from electrolysis stored in mines not so much. The INGRID project has a tiny little hydrogen storage demonstrator in Italy though.Compressed gas is coming along quickly, as are batteries, so there are other options but there are private companies investing in hydro even through the uncertainties:
http://www.quarrybatterycompany.com/what-we-do.html
with some interesting insight here:
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/march-2015-digi-issue/pumped-storage-a-new-project-for-wales/
But it seems this has all been done before and tggzzz will happily post nonsense that is easily proven wrong:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/tidal-lagoon-energy-from-the-ocean-uk-gov-is-putting-money-in-it/?all
and then repeat it all here after being throughly disproven already.
There are many ways forward and few of them should be ignored, a diverse mix of distributed generation and storage is the way to a secure and reliable source of energy.
N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.Pumped hydro can be effective and profitable with just 50-100m (a few hundred feet) of head, or use pumped tidal pools in estuaries or other low depth areas.
Storage in estuaries is a disreputable claim. Such "batteries" will naturally be replenished when the tide next comes in, so if you want to count them as useful storage of excess wind power, it has to be with two significant conditions:
- it has to be the right time of day to store and use the energy; at other times it is impossible
- any such stored energy has to be used within a couple of hours, before the tide comes in; not much use for wind power outages lasting days due to a blocking high pressure zone
This old chestnut, you can store and dispatch energy from tidal storage at any planned time. There are no times when it is impossible to produce energy to schedule. Yes it will produce less energy if you demand more storage from the system, and/or reduce the storage capacity if you want it at a specific time, but these are the balances and tradeoffs that also exist to a lesser extent in conventional land based pumped hydro. For tidal systems the energy can be stored either as an empty or full reservoir for moving water to or from on demand, its the scheduling that makes it work as storage rather than a simple generator.
QuoteGIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdfThanks for that link. I did not know the data behind PHS. Unfortunately NL is (for obvious reasons) not in the charts. But thankfully we're still part of the EU.
But even this much potential is not enough.Precisely. It still surprises me that some people don't want to face that.
QuoteGIS studies can find enormous potential for hydro,
be it pumped:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc_20130503_assessment_european_phs_potential.pdfThanks for that link. I did not know the data behind PHS. Unfortunately NL is (for obvious reasons) not in the charts. But thankfully we're still part of the EU.
But even this much potential is not enough.Precisely. It still surprises me that some people don't want to face that.Not enough for all of Europe, but they found more than 4000GWh in the UK, several days of electricity supply could be held in storage from the realisable resources that have been identified. We've heard from you that these sites don't exist and its not possible, but many much more informed people than yourself disagree. Large scale energy storage in the UK is possible from technical and economic aspects.
N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.Pumped hydro can be effective and profitable with just 50-100m (a few hundred feet) of head, or use pumped tidal pools in estuaries or other low depth areas.
Storage in estuaries is a disreputable claim. Such "batteries" will naturally be replenished when the tide next comes in, so if you want to count them as useful storage of excess wind power, it has to be with two significant conditions:
- it has to be the right time of day to store and use the energy; at other times it is impossible
- any such stored energy has to be used within a couple of hours, before the tide comes in; not much use for wind power outages lasting days due to a blocking high pressure zone
This old chestnut, you can store and dispatch energy from tidal storage at any planned time. There are no times when it is impossible to produce energy to schedule. Yes it will produce less energy if you demand more storage from the system, and/or reduce the storage capacity if you want it at a specific time, but these are the balances and tradeoffs that also exist to a lesser extent in conventional land based pumped hydro. For tidal systems the energy can be stored either as an empty or full reservoir for moving water to or from on demand, its the scheduling that makes it work as storage rather than a simple generator.
Sigh.
With tidal power either you can store the energy or you can use it to generate electricity. Too often I've seen addle-brained proponents try to do both, often in successive sentences!
The tidal lagoons that would be used to store energy are automatically fully "topped up" twice a day without wind power. Please explain in simple terms how they could also store extra energy from wind power that could be used the next day when there is effectively zero wind power.
Don't forget that in the UK the only such large scale storage would be in the river Severn. I see the Severn estuary every day, so I know any proposal to increase the maximum height of the water is a non-starter.
As an example, while living here I've seen picture 1 twice http://www.heart.co.uk/bristolsomerset/news/local/west-country-flooding/ It shows water flowing from the sea over the top of the lock gates into the centre of Bristol. Increased maximum height would be a disaster here and elsewhere on the estuary.
N.B. pumped storage or other hydro is difficult in the UK; a 2000ft peak is officially a mountain, and there aren't many of those.Pumped hydro can be effective and profitable with just 50-100m (a few hundred feet) of head, or use pumped tidal pools in estuaries or other low depth areas.
Storage in estuaries is a disreputable claim. Such "batteries" will naturally be replenished when the tide next comes in, so if you want to count them as useful storage of excess wind power, it has to be with two significant conditions:
- it has to be the right time of day to store and use the energy; at other times it is impossible
- any such stored energy has to be used within a couple of hours, before the tide comes in; not much use for wind power outages lasting days due to a blocking high pressure zone
This old chestnut, you can store and dispatch energy from tidal storage at any planned time. There are no times when it is impossible to produce energy to schedule. Yes it will produce less energy if you demand more storage from the system, and/or reduce the storage capacity if you want it at a specific time, but these are the balances and tradeoffs that also exist to a lesser extent in conventional land based pumped hydro. For tidal systems the energy can be stored either as an empty or full reservoir for moving water to or from on demand, its the scheduling that makes it work as storage rather than a simple generator.
Sigh.
With tidal power either you can store the energy or you can use it to generate electricity. Too often I've seen addle-brained proponents try to do both, often in successive sentences!
The tidal lagoons that would be used to store energy are automatically fully "topped up" twice a day without wind power. Please explain in simple terms how they could also store extra energy from wind power that could be used the next day when there is effectively zero wind power.
Don't forget that in the UK the only such large scale storage would be in the river Severn. I see the Severn estuary every day, so I know any proposal to increase the maximum height of the water is a non-starter.
As an example, while living here I've seen picture 1 twice http://www.heart.co.uk/bristolsomerset/news/local/west-country-flooding/ It shows water flowing from the sea over the top of the lock gates into the centre of Bristol. Increased maximum height would be a disaster here and elsewhere on the estuary.But to take you down memory lane,
A hypothetical tidal dam/dike/barrage is the best thing since slice bread for those worried about flooding, it can hold back the tides and prevent flooding. Perhaps ask the dutch how they like all their dikes. Authorities then have the control over tide heights which is a huge economic benefit before considering power generation or storage capabilities.
You can store and/or generate electricity with a tidal system, yes as you store more the generation capacity drops to zero but there is a working range between solely generating and solely storing which you seem unable to acknowledge. Equally long term storage is pointless as you can get free generation on each cycle of the tide, scheduling when to curtail generation or absorb electricity and hold the water to dispatch the power later is a gamble but one that all the market players do already with their bidding for contracts.
A tidal power system is a unique generator and storage capacity that is inextricably linked to the tides 745 minute cycle but it can deliver reliably scheduled power at any time during that cycle as the operator determines is appropriate. Tides have been able to be predicted for hundreds of years, electricity demand can be predicted with surprising accuracy, combine the two and you can predict when is the best time to deliver power and when it should be absorbed for pumping.
You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first placeOther than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work,
You have acknowledged that wind power needs energy storage. If not you should account for the cost of idle conventional plant in the cost of the wind energy.
You have proposed that tidal barrages can be used to store energy. They can - but only for a short period, not the periods necessary for blocking high zones.
If you try to store energy for more than a few hours with a hypothetical Severn barrage (the best candidate in the UK), then you would have to raise water levels and create floods.
A tidal power system is a unique generator and storage capacity that is inextricably linked to the tides 745 minute cycle but it can deliver reliably scheduled power at any time during that cycle as the operator determines is appropriate. Tides have been able to be predicted for hundreds of years, electricity demand can be predicted with surprising accuracy, combine the two and you can predict when is the best time to deliver power and when it should be absorbed for pumping.I refer you to your comments above, which show you know that is an overly rose-tinted viewpoint! You are trying to have your cake and eat it.
You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first placeOther than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work,
Interesting. What was your contribution?
Sure it is efficient. But that's insufficient: you also have to have enough storage, and that is not trivial in the UK.
You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first placeOther than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work,
Interesting. What was your contribution?The contribution today is pie, meeting your face, and the world is a slightly better place for it. Some of us actually contribute, learn, and share ideas, rather than trying to squash discussion and I'll make no assumptions about your lack of understanding on the topic so you should be polite and make no assumptions about others knowledge and experience.
Sure it is efficient. But that's insufficient: you also have to have enough storage, and that is not trivial in the UK.Your mines could store a whole lotta hydrogen.
Are you sure? I haven't spotted any such plans, serious or speculative, for that.
Are you sure? I haven't spotted any such plans, serious or speculative, for that.
I mentioned INGRID before and underground hydrogen storage is a common enough speculative topic to have its own wikipedia page.
With the ~25% round trip efficiency renewable energy needs to be really really cheap for it to make sense. Throwing some concrete and coating on mine shafts is unlikely to add too much to the cost. If renewable energy ever gets cheap enough for it, I suspect high temperature thermal storage will be a big competitor. Which is also seeing small amounts of research and demonstrators. It's just too far from commercial viability to see any really big efforts though. What's the point? By the time it becomes relevant the patents would have run out and the R&D is straightforward enough, everyone is just waiting till it's wanted/needed for the most part.
You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first placeOther than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work, I have also read it. It presents with great technical detail and accuracy technologies and limitations that could provide energy for the UK, you can see all sorts of possible ways froward from its examples. Finding storage to back a 100% renewable electricity grid for the UK is plausible, and profitable, it may not be cheaper for the consumer or more profitable for the operators than the nuclear or gas plants but of the 5 technically feasible energy plans for the UK presented in the book 1 was 100% renewable. There is much detail in the book on the current state of the UKs energy storage infrastructure, and what opportunities are available hence why I referred to it on that specific point.
You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first placeOther than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work, I have also read it. It presents with great technical detail and accuracy technologies and limitations that could provide energy for the UK, you can see all sorts of possible ways froward from its examples. Finding storage to back a 100% renewable electricity grid for the UK is plausible, and profitable, it may not be cheaper for the consumer or more profitable for the operators than the nuclear or gas plants but of the 5 technically feasible energy plans for the UK presented in the book 1 was 100% renewable. There is much detail in the book on the current state of the UKs energy storage infrastructure, and what opportunities are available hence why I referred to it on that specific point.Its like you've read a different book from the rest of us. MacKay paints a picture of a UK that could generate its current energy needs from renewable means, but only by being re-engineered into a very different country. He casts doubt at several points as to whether enough materials might be available for some ideas to be scaled. He casts considerable doubt whether the massive scale of engineering required could be undertaken before fossil fuel resources run out. He is quite dispassionate in his assessments of what is possible, but I don't think many read them as a picture of a highly achievable renewable future.
You evidently haven't read/understood "Without Hot Air". The second page of chapter 1 contains this important point describing a primary motivation for MacKay writing the book in the first placeOther than conversing with the Author and contributing to the work, I have also read it. It presents with great technical detail and accuracy technologies and limitations that could provide energy for the UK, you can see all sorts of possible ways froward from its examples. Finding storage to back a 100% renewable electricity grid for the UK is plausible, and profitable, it may not be cheaper for the consumer or more profitable for the operators than the nuclear or gas plants but of the 5 technically feasible energy plans for the UK presented in the book 1 was 100% renewable. There is much detail in the book on the current state of the UKs energy storage infrastructure, and what opportunities are available hence why I referred to it on that specific point.Its like you've read a different book from the rest of us. MacKay paints a picture of a UK that could generate its current energy needs from renewable means, but only by being re-engineered into a very different country. He casts doubt at several points as to whether enough materials might be available for some ideas to be scaled. He casts considerable doubt whether the massive scale of engineering required could be undertaken before fossil fuel resources run out. He is quite dispassionate in his assessments of what is possible, but I don't think many read them as a picture of a highly achievable renewable future.
Renewable generation is already a viable investment.
Renewable generation is already a viable investment.
Really? Other than hydro dams can you provide a single example of energy storage beyond research prototypes that work on an industrial scale?
Let's hope I'm being too pessimistic in this case. Storage is going to be the key enabling technology, and whoever cracks it will become extremely rich.
Well as I mentioned in another thread, if we want something which:
* Absorbs sunlight
* Stores the energy in a safe, environmentally friendly and economically viable means
* Stable over many decades
* Can release said energy on demand to produce heat or electricity..
They are called trees.