IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: USES OF EXISTING HYDRO DAMS FOR ADDED PUMP STORAGE
Topic Summary:
Created On: 14 November 2016 05:12 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 14 November 2016 05:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 210
Joined: 30 June 2007

If we refit existing hydro stations with addition gen./pump turbines then without any change to the environment we can achieve a possible 20% extra capacity to meet the peak using day only PV solar on rooftops as the source or excess wind.
 14 November 2016 10:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 10100
Joined: 18 January 2003

But new reservoirs will be needed below the existing reservoirs to catch and hold the water before it is pumped back. That is not going to be a popular idea.

Andy
 15 November 2016 11:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 210
Joined: 30 June 2007

Yes. There must be a few hydro's that empty into a downstream lake which would be ideal to start with.
The alternative is to construct large tunnel like pipes down to the next lake downstream. This will be expensive and it may be cheaper to create a new lake at the bottom of the existing dam wall and face the delays that environmental assessment and reports may cause.
The IET magazine has an article on available wind and solar in UK and mentioned pumped storage in Wales. Creating more of these would be ideal but why bother if we can refurb existing hydro's and get the same result?
 15 November 2016 12:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 979
Joined: 19 July 2002

The potental sites for hydro and pumped storage are quite limited. In the UK they only really exist in North Wales and Scotland. This puts them a long way from most of the users (the exception being aluminium smelters who tend to build their facilities near to hydro or nuclear power plants) resulting in long and expensive transmission lines.

The transmission losses and the losses in the pumped storage system (~70% efficient) further reduce the already poor return on energy invested of the renewable power sources. In the case of roof to solar this probably becomes less than 1.

Daytime 'peak' solar has already destroyed the investment return on pumped storage.

http://www.reuters.com/article...idUSL5N0QV3FK20140831

Best regards

Roger
 15 November 2016 01:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 747
Joined: 17 September 2001

The silly thing is that the more we rely on renewables, the more we need energy storage to carry us through the times when the renewables aren't generating.

But there may not be a business case for building massive great pumped-storage power stations if they are only going to be used intermittently.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD IEng MIET
 19 November 2016 11:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 210
Joined: 30 June 2007

Exactly so. The only renewables that are predictably available besides nuclear are hydro and tidal energy. For wind and solar we need to invest in energy storage as electrical storage is totally uneconomical on large scale, we need either hydro or tidal to store potential energy for release through turbine generators at peak times
 23 November 2016 05:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



OMS

Posts: 22388
Joined: 23 March 2004

Tesla Power wall ?

Regards

OMS

-------------------------
Let the wind blow you, across a big floor.
 23 November 2016 08:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sparkingchip

Posts: 10100
Joined: 18 January 2003

Originally posted by: OMS

Tesla Power wall ?



Regards



OMS


Depends on what taxation the government decides to put on them.

Andy
 24 November 2016 07:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 979
Joined: 19 July 2002

You will need a lot of batteries and a lot of Lithium (also to keep you sane ;-) )

http://notrickszone.com/2016/1...#sthash.7xVDpkqz.dpbs

Best regards

Roger
 29 November 2016 05:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 210
Joined: 30 June 2007

Correct Roger. The total amount of Lithium needed to be produced would be insanely expensive. A non starter really I think.
 03 December 2016 12:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



BostinPowers

Posts: 13
Joined: 01 December 2016

The reasons for that are pretty interesting. Lithium is a surprisingly abundant crustal metal - more of it than Tin, Lead or Boron, for example.

The "surprise" is actually that there isn't a very great deal more of it - Hydrogen (1 proton) and Helium (2) are the two most common elements in the universe, so with Lithium next in line, we might expect a lot more of it. But the Li nucleus has relatively low binding energy per nucleon, so it is not particularly stable, at least as nuclei go. Thus in the extreme conditions in stars and supernovae where heavier nuclei (by and large) are formed, other, more stable ones tend to form at a (net) faster rate.

Also because it is light and reactive, it tends to be diluted and spread about. Seawater has "a lot" in it, but how to get to it economically?

Still - back on topic - I'd take issue with the earlier comment that "The only renewables that are predictably available besides nuclear are hydro and tidal energy."

I'm sure we all know that nuclear is not a renewable, but just to remove any ambiguity..

Predictability all depends on timescale. We can predict with near certainty that there will be a lot more wind in Dec/Jan/Feb (in N. Hemisphere) than in July/Aug/Sept. But yes, six months is rather too long to wait for your kettle to boil. Although of course, we can actually do quite a bit better than that. One big issue with wind is that there can be unseasonal windless periods lasting a few days, rather than a drastic inability to predict what wind-speeds will do in the next 1, 2, 4, 8-hour windows.

Solar is different. The sun is very predictable - it comes up every single day. And while we might like to moan that the UK is a dingy cloud-covered place, we do actually get about 1000 kWh/sq. m every year. In contrast, Portugal gets about twice this. Not more - only twice. And at the low price of PV modules these days, it's ever more clear that generation ain't the problem; it really is an issue of storage.

And pumped water is a non starter, aside from very few highly favourable sites where two big reservoirs are very close together except in vertical height.
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.


..