Yeah there are losses like any energy generation systems in the world. That's just thermodynamics. This one is quite clean by comparison.What about losses? What's the efficiency of this "battery"?
No one said anything about it being a new concept. I'm pretty sure you can't use solar panels to generate excess power during the night.This isn’t a new thing, we’ve been doing it in the states for years....You can use solar panels or wind power to generate excess power during the night.. usually..
Instead of asking questions assuming you know the answers you should be looking up data first. Nuclear power plants cost around 6 times more and that's doesn't include the cost of everything related to nuclear fuel and safety.Everyone should be asking the following:
What was the true total cost to build
What is the return on investment
Rather build a nuclear plant and have 24/7 power, and much more of it.
None of this was about reducing carbon. Also concrete is only 10% - 15% cement. The carbon produced creating it is insignificant when compared to the lifespan of concrete structures.This is a cool project but I'm not sold on the idea.
I suspect that the total carbon footprint of building this thing was enormous. Tunneling through eleven miles of solid rock. Carving out enormous chambers 2000 feet underground. How much carbon was created just moving the stone? And the concrete? Making one ton of cement produces roughly one ton of CO2, because they have to fire it to 1400C.
The pumps required to pump the water uphill will significantly increase maintenance costs. Will workers need to take an eleven mile train ride just to reach the site? It would be interesting to see a ten year carbon footprint comparison between this and a coal energy plant with similar power delivery.
The renewable energy industry sometimes has hidden carbon costs that make it a wash. Sure, you save carbon by using a windmill instead of burning coal. But when you factor in the backup systems to make up for inherent shortfalls of renewable energy, the carbon balance moves the other way.
It's like EVs. The carbon footprint of building an EV is MUCH higher than an IC, due mainly to the battery. It takes roughly seven years before the break-even point is reached. Most people sell their car at six years. So they're driving around thinking they're saving the world, when just the manufacturing of their car puts them seven years behind on the carbon footprint curve. Nothing is for free.
You edited out the first statement before I replied, so I assume you know it's incorrect. But the second statement -- the first Google link you found -- is equally wrong. Concrete used to make your driveway or patio is only about 10% cement, but the high-strength mix used for dams and bridges is many times higher.you are confusing concrete with ceramic. Concrete doesn't need to be fired..Also concrete is only 10% - 15% cement.
Eh? Of course you can. This system can store the energy from any system that generates the electricity necessary to run its pumps. The point, though, is that you don't *need* to store electricity with traditional sources like coal or nuclear. That's a problem that exists only with wind and solar. They're always generating either too much power, or too little. Most people don't realize that the largest problem in commercial power generation isn't producing the energy, but instantaneously matching supply to the demand load on an instantaneous basis. Without enormous "batteries" like this, wind and solar can never produce more than a fraction of a grid's total energy demand.This battery isn't designed to replace power generation it's about capturing the excess renewable energy Switzerland produces to use it at another time. You can't do that with a coal power plant.
Again, this is utterly false. For operating costs alone, nuclear power is far cheaper than any other source. Amortizing capital construction costs raises the price -- especially in the US and Europe, where rabid environmentalists force legal actions that mean plants take 30 years to construct, rather than four or five.Nuclear power plants cost around 6 times more
Whoops, that’s a typo.No one said anything about it being a new concept. I'm pretty sure you can't use solar panels to generate excess power during the night.
Instead of asking questions assuming you know the answers you should be looking up data first. Nuclear power plants cost around 6 times more and that's doesn't include the cost of everything related to nuclear fuel and safety.
None of this was about reducing carbon. Also concrete is only 10% - 15% cement. The carbon produced creating it is insignificant when compared to the lifespan of concrete structures.
This battery isn't designed to replace power generation it's about capturing the excess renewable energy Switzerland produces to use it at another time. You can't do that with a coal power plant. Also it's obvious a coal power plant would produce a lot more carbon over 10 years than the construction of this water battery used to store excess renewable power.
"But when you factor in the backup systems to make up for inherent shortfalls of renewable energy," This water battery is the backup system for their renewable energy power production.
There you are with your environmental boogeymen again. Do you check in your closet and under your bed each night for those environmental boogeymen?Amortizing capital construction costs raises the price -- especially in the US and Europe, where rabid environmentalists force legal actions that mean plants take 30 years to construct, rather than four or five.
Every major environmental group opposes nuclear power outright. And they also spend enormous sums to block nuclear plant construction, through legal action, protests, political lobbying, and occasionally outright sabotage at construction sites. They don't want clean, safe, well-regulated nuclear power They want no nuclear power whatsoever. Period.There you are with your environmental boogeymen again.
This is a cool project but I'm not sold on the idea.
I suspect that the total carbon footprint of building this thing was enormous. Tunneling through eleven miles of solid rock. Carving out enormous chambers 2000 feet underground. How much carbon was created just moving the stone? And the concrete? Making one ton of cement produces roughly one ton of CO2, because they have to fire it to 1400C.
They usually say to expect about 90% efficiency for this type of energy storage which is fairly efficient. This particular system with 900MW of storage isn't particularly large as there are probably 100 systems with more storage but they are a good way of storing energy.
Gravity, pressure, heat, what else? Virtually countless ways to store energy utilizing these natural phenomena really, anyone can build one, even if not exactly efficient, still a great thing to do.
Yeah there are losses like any energy generation systems in the world. That's just thermodynamics. This one is quite clean by comparison.
Instead of asking questions assuming you know the answers you should be looking up data first. Nuclear power plants cost around 6 times more and that's doesn't include the cost of everything related to nuclear fuel and safety.
None of this was about reducing carbon. Also concrete is only 10% - 15% cement. The carbon produced creating it is insignificant when compared to the lifespan of concrete structures.
This battery isn't designed to replace power generation it's about capturing the excess renewable energy Switzerland produces to use it at another time. You can't do that with a coal power plant. Also it's obvious a coal power plant would produce a lot more carbon over 10 years than the construction of this water battery used to store excess renewable power.
"But when you factor in the backup systems to make up for inherent shortfalls of renewable energy," This water battery is the backup system for their renewable energy power production.
There you are with your environmental boogeymen again. Do you check in your closet and under your bed each night for those environmental boogeymen?
Perhaps you should gain some historical perspective and look at the period of Lake Onondaga and what happened before environmental regulations came into play, and then again at the period after environmental regulations came into play as an example of what happens to resources both before and after environmental regulations come into play. You can bet that the free-reign of any owner of a source of pollution will invariably produce the same results. Keep championing a business climate without environmental regulations. Perhaps your children will inherit a cesspool and have you to thank for it.
I get it. Greed is a powerful driver. Let's let it run rampant. /s
Interestingly enough, Texas -- site of a catastrophic power outage last year that killed 200+ people -- just yesterday issued an an emergency appeal for power conservation, as their wind turbine farms were producing only a meagre 8% of their rated capacity, even as demand surged to record highs.The battery issue is not a feature, it's a "solution" for the very bad sources (wind & solar).
Unfortunately we all have to go by figures we find on the web. The numbers I found said 90%. A previous post said that Wikipedia gave an efficiency of 70-80%. The actual entry in Wikipedia states "The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%–80%, with some sources claiming up to 87%". The 70-80% figure does sound more believable.90%?? That sounds like an ideal number on the vacuum or something similar.
My inference was obviously about any system that transfers energy. Any process we use to power something. I thought that would be pretty obvious.This is not an energy generation scheme: this is about storage (the energy gains here are always negative). You probably want to read the article again.
And yet again Endymio provides a whole paragraph, and half the story.Interestingly enough, Texas -- site of a catastrophic power outage last year that killed 200+ people -- just yesterday issued an an emergency appeal for power conservation, as their wind turbine farms were producing only a meagre 8% of their rated capacity, even as demand surged to record highs.
You are misquoting your own article. Here is what it actually states:You are supposed to install wind power where it will have the best wind conditions. They didn't
"Depressed wind power during heat waves isn’t a new phenomenon. Powerful high-pressure systems that cause intense heat often squelch wind production -- just when more power is needed to meet higher electricity demand."
Yeah, see that's why we are supposed to link a whole article when quoting. And that's why I did it, so the whole story can be learned. This may surprise you, but some posters put up statements in quotes and even in italics. But no links. Guess who.You are misquoting your own article. Here is what it actually states:
Ok, that is what my point was. Damn, what is your deal?ERCOT sited their turbines in favorable areas. But that wind power doesn't exist when you need it most.
But I didn't quote an article; I stated a fact. A fact you quickly and easily verified. That's certainly preferable to providing a link, but misrepresenting it as supporting your claim when it doesn't do so at all.Yeah, see that's why we are supposed to link a whole article when quoting.
Sure.I might be able to have a few comment to you personally if you like. I know quite a few people at GE Energy.
For commercial projects, of course, but what I mean is energy storage can make a great weekend project.But efficiency IS the key element for "storage": you don't buy a dozen eggs to be able to eat 8, you want the 12 of them. You don't buy a gallon of milk to drink 1/3 and sure as hell you won't pay for a full tank of gas to be able to use 3/4: sorry, 1/4 of the gas just "evaporates", too bad, drive quicker next time. Although most of the time energy storage is leaky, that's something that you'll want to keep in check.
No, I stated facts, and proved them. You will learn all about that someday.But I didn't quote an article; I stated a fact.
They are like computers with throughput ratings, bandwidth and transfer speeds because they are rated with 100% perfect conditions that can't be met by the average end user. But they had been told what to expect where they should have been put, and what to expect from where they actually had some of them placed. Also, you should know, they told me that the rigs placed where they should have been are operating as promised.No matter where ERCOT places its turbines, they will never produce anywhere near their rated power.
War does that, and I honestly thought you would have known that. My bad.It's instructive to look at a nation like Germany, which in its attempts to "go green" went from the lowest electricity costs in Europe to one of the highest -- triple what we pay here.
Watch your PM, and please let me know. You are very interesting to them, with how you want to correct the people that have been there.Sure