Test Pumped Hydro Storage For Solar and Wind Test

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Pumped Hydro Storage For Solar and Wind

Test
Mar 5, 2021 | 09:09 1 Switzerland according to CBC has hit the nail on the head. When surplus energy allows you pump the water up to top of tower, then when you need energy, you drop it through turbines. It looks like a very cheap structure. (Sarc) Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Mar 5, 2021 | 09:14 2 Drat. The law of diminishing returns. Reply With Quote
    Mar 5, 2021 | 09:23 3 chuck (i think) had eluded to this , pumping water back up to the top of hydro dam when power not needed
    very cheap battery !
    Last edited by caseih; Mar 5, 2021 at 09:25.
    Reply With Quote
    Mar 5, 2021 | 09:24 4 You boys still using party lines or what? LOL Reply With Quote
    Mar 5, 2021 | 09:44 5 https://energyvault.com/
    Apparently Switzerland ran out of mountains and lakes, and is making a tower to store energy instead.
    Pumped hydro makes a lot of sene where you have mountains and water.
    For anyone not familiar with Switzerland, check out their topography. Reply With Quote
    Mar 5, 2021 | 09:59 6 A5, did hell just freeze over? Is that you or did someone hack your agriville account? LOL

    Are the Swiss good engineers? What a bunch of radical environmentalists!

    "Our Solution

    For the first time in history, our transformative energy storage technology enables renewables to deliver around-the-clock baseload power for less than the cost of fossil fuels. Energy Vault’s ready-to-deploy solution combined with low cost solar or wind renewable generation is lower than the most economical existing, fully-amortized fossil fuel-based power plants (i.e. combined cycle natural gas).

    Our breakthrough technology was inspired by pumped hydro plants that rely on gravity and the movement of water to generate power.

    The Energy Vault solution utilizes the same fundamentals of physics and kinetic energy as pumped hydro but replaces the water with custom made composite blocks utilizing an extremely innovative use of low-cost materials.

    These low-cost blocks, combined with our patented system design and some very clever control software, has allowed us to deliver all the benefits of a pumped hydro system but at a much lower price, starting size and without the need for hard to find topography."
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Mar 6, 2021 at 10:28.
    Reply With Quote
    Mar 5, 2021 | 09:59 7 Has anyone looked at the liquid metal battery technology developed at MIT. It seems like the best solution to the storage problem. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • jazz's Avatar Mar 5, 2021 | 10:40 8 Sure doesnt take chuck long to come in and defend insanity.

    Hmm, I wonder if there was a way to store water for power. What about a hydro dam? Nah, how about a man made tower that holds 0.00000000001% of the water a dam would. Yes. Reply With Quote

  • Mar 5, 2021 | 10:50 9 Jazz, it was A5 who brought up the Swiss stored renewable power solution. I said nothing about it, I just posted what was on the website A5 linked. Details Details

    A5 bad bad bad. What a traitor to the coal and gas workers for posting a storage system! LOL Reply With Quote
    Mar 5, 2021 | 11:43 10 No Chuck, all information on innovation is valuable. No matter who posts it. Reply With Quote

  • Mar 5, 2021 | 12:52 11 No way pumping water from the bottom of the dam after it goes through turbines back to the top is effective, profitable or otherwise.
    I don’t think there is a perpetual motion system yet. Maybe if your short of water for drinking, or heaven forbid irrigation. Reply With Quote
    Mar 5, 2021 | 13:32 12 My apologies Chuck, I neglected to use the sarcasm tag, I thought it was obvious.
    The only existing economic grid scale storage technology we have is pumped hydro. Which requires only two geographic features, elevation and water.
    Switzerland is almost entirely mountains and water. So they built this mechanical contraption instead.

    This is in the same category as burning north American trees in British power plants and pretending it doesn't emit CO2.
    Anything can be justified in the name of green energy. And Chuck can be counted on to defend it.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Mar 5, 2021 at 20:39.
    Reply With Quote
  • 3 Likes


  • Mar 5, 2021 | 17:37 13
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    My apologies Chuck, I neglected to use the sarcasm take, I thought it was obvious.
    The only existing grid scale storage we have is pumped Hydro. Which requires only two geographic features, Mountains and water.
    Switzerland is almost entirely mountian and water. So they built this mechanical contraption instead.
    Holes work just as well as mountains. The one proposed and still being studied here would use an old open pit iron mine, use the spoil piles already sitting up top to make a storage lake above ground level, and use the water that’s already in the mine that they quit pumping out when the iron ran out. Average fall through the turbines would be 2.5 times the height of NiagaraFalls. Reply With Quote

  • Mar 5, 2021 | 20:39 14
    Quote Originally Posted by dalek View Post
    Holes work just as well as mountains. The one proposed and still being studied here would use an old open pit iron mine, use the spoil piles already sitting up top to make a storage lake above ground level, and use the water that’s already in the mine that they quit pumping out when the iron ran out. Average fall through the turbines would be 2.5 times the height of NiagaraFalls.
    Yes thanks, I meant to say elevation, not mountains. Edited accordingly. Reply With Quote
    Mar 6, 2021 | 08:39 15
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    You boys still using party lines or what? LOL
    It is interesting to me that nobody ever challenges you on this statement. There was certainly a progression from party lines to private lines and now cell phones. In your world solar and wind are a technological advancement. But are they really?! We are going from power sources that can produce dependable electricity 24 hours a day in any season of the year. Coal, natural gas, nuclear can all provide power on demand any hour of the day any season of the year! Solar and wind are intermittent. In the case of solar they require a very large land footprint to create power on an industrial scale, not a problem in the desert in the southern U.S. but where I live land is $5000 an acre. All the hardware will be manufactured in a foreign country. In a Northern country like Canada our largest power requirement in the middle of winter when solar produces the least. Every megawatt of solar requires a megawatt of power from another source to be available when the sun isn’t. So solar has a larger land footprint and is intermittent how is that a technological advancement? If I had to buy 3 combines to do the job of one would that be more efficient? Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Mar 6, 2021 | 10:18 16 Solar, intermittent or not, the fuel source is free and unlimited. The cost per kwh is very low and going lower. And panels can go on top of buildings and roofs of which there are thousands of acres across North America.

    So of all the things you buy are they all made in Canada? i doubt it. Where is your engine and other components made for your farm equipment and vehicles?

    Matched with Electric Vehicles and PHEVs, which can be often charged during the day while workers are working, there will be growing demand for solar electricity which can be stored in EVs.

    And we will still need fossil fuels, hydro, wind, geo-thermal, co-generation and probably nuclear and all the other options as well.

    But why not use solar where it is cost effective?

    https://energyvault.com/#about-us

    "For the first time in history, our transformative energy storage technology enables renewables to deliver around-the-clock baseload power for less than the cost of fossil fuels. Energy Vault’s ready-to-deploy solution combined with low cost solar or wind renewable generation is lower than the most economical existing, fully-amortized fossil fuel-based power plants (i.e. combined cycle natural gas)."
    Last edited by chuckChuck; Mar 6, 2021 at 10:34.
    Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar Mar 6, 2021 | 10:32 17 Can we at least support our current infrastructure somewhat until technology catches up. Winter doesn't care how many points we've earned. Reply With Quote
    Mar 6, 2021 | 10:39 18 Do you really think they would shut off the fossil fuel plants without viable and reliable alternatives?

    Texas after their gas supply froze and demand skyrocketed proved that its not a good idea.

    But i know this is the either or club. And many posters can't get their head around the fact that we can transition to lower fossil fuel use. Its not either fossil fuels or renewables. Its all sources as we transition. Reply With Quote
    jazz's Avatar Mar 6, 2021 | 10:48 19 Read the studies chuck, there is no way in hell that solar and wind can keep 8B people at our current lifestyle let alone let the poorest of us advance any further. And nuclear is totally ignored for some reason. Never hear a peep about it.

    But thats not the plan anyway; the plan is to get the public to accept living at something around the lifestyle of 1910 or so. Make that assumption and boom, solar and wind work like gangbusters.

    Funny thing is, after covid, a lot of people will accept that Faustian bargain no problem. They will shelter in place, take their UBI pittance and take the bus and spend their days eating tofu and watching netflix and they will be content. They will have no problem rationing for the greater good when it comes time, because we are all in this together. Reply With Quote
    blackpowder's Avatar Mar 6, 2021 | 10:50 20 No one immune to the either or club.
    Your "side" can get way out there sometimes too chuck.
    Last edited by blackpowder; Mar 6, 2021 at 13:55.
    Reply With Quote
    Mar 6, 2021 | 13:50 21
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    Solar, intermittent or not, the fuel source is free and unlimited. The cost per kwh is very low and going lower. And panels can go on top of buildings and roofs of which there are thousands of acres across North America.

    So of all the things you buy are they all made in Canada? i doubt it. Where is your engine and other components made for your farm equipment and vehicles?

    Matched with Electric Vehicles and PHEVs, which can be often charged during the day while workers are working, there will be growing demand for solar electricity which can be stored in EVs.

    And we will still need fossil fuels, hydro, wind, geo-thermal, co-generation and probably nuclear and all the other options as well.

    But why not use solar where it is cost effective?

    https://energyvault.com/#about-us

    "For the first time in history, our transformative energy storage technology enables renewables to deliver around-the-clock baseload power for less than the cost of fossil fuels. Energy Vault’s ready-to-deploy solution combined with low cost solar or wind renewable generation is lower than the most economical existing, fully-amortized fossil fuel-based power plants (i.e. combined cycle natural gas)."
    Case in point Travers Solar Farm Lamond, Alberta. 4750 acres. 400 megawatts. 11.88 acres/ megawatt.
    Last edited by Hamloc; Mar 6, 2021 at 22:09.
    Reply With Quote
    ajl
    Mar 6, 2021 | 20:25 22 Brazeau dam near Drayton Valley AB is Alberta's largest hydro facility. They have 350 MW of installed capacity. There is a proposal to pump water back into the reservoir from downstream to boost generation up to 900MW. All for it if I don't have to subsidize it. Right now Brazeau hydro is putting 77 MW into Alberta's grid. AB power pool price is around 3.5 cents per KWh right now. Reply With Quote
    Mar 6, 2021 | 20:34 23 Considering the good news that Chuck keep presenting on the energy storage front, I assume we will be seeing all renewable energy projects bidding dispatchable power available 24/7 on demand. At a cost cheaper than the fossil fuel.
    I wonder what the hold up is? If this method is so cheap( as Chuck's article claims), why doesn't every solar facility install enough of these to put fossil fuels out of business? Reply With Quote
    Mar 6, 2021 | 23:07 24
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
    Case in point Travers Solar Farm Lamond, Alberta. 4750 acres. 400 megawatts. 11.88 acres/ megawatt.
    Hamloc, how many acres of farmland was flooded by the building of the Brazeau dam mentioned by others in this thread? The dam created a reservoir about 13 km long and 6 km wide to put out about the same power as the solar farm. I don't know the surface area of the reservoir, but based on the measurements it likely uses more acres per mw of production than the solar farm.

    And the site C dam being built on the Peace will flood 100 kms of river valley, some of the most productive land in the Peace River region of BC and in fact the only class 1 soils in northern BC. Published planned reservoir surface area behind this dam will be 23,100 acres of a whole lot more productive land than that at Lomond. So are you opposed to Site C? BTW 23,100 acres/900mw = 25.67 acres/mw double the land/mw used for the solar farm Ooops!

    And another note, since 1965 a pumping system has been used at Brazeau to pump water back up from below the outflow when reservoir levels are low. "In order to deal with the sometimes challenging water supply on the Brazeau, the plant includes a pump-back system capable of lifting water from the outflow below the dam back up to the 20 kilometres (12 mi) long reservoir, allowing the power plant to maintain capacity at low reservoir water levels."


    Now if only the pump back system was solar powered to ensure water levels available for hydro production when water levels are low. Reply With Quote
    Mar 7, 2021 | 00:42 25
    Quote Originally Posted by dmlfarmer View Post
    Hamloc, how many acres of farmland was flooded by the building of the Brazeau dam mentioned by others in this thread? The dam created a reservoir about 13 km long and 6 km wide to put out about the same power as the solar farm. I don't know the surface area of the reservoir, but based on the measurements it likely uses more acres per mw of production than the solar farm.

    And the site C dam being built on the Peace will flood 100 kms of river valley, some of the most productive land in the Peace River region of BC and in fact the only class 1 soils in northern BC. Published planned reservoir surface area behind this dam will be 23,100 acres of a whole lot more productive land than that at Lomond. So are you opposed to Site C? BTW 23,100 acres/900mw = 25.67 acres/mw double the land/mw used for the solar farm Ooops!

    And another note, since 1965 a pumping system has been used at Brazeau to pump water back up from below the outflow when reservoir levels are low. "In order to deal with the sometimes challenging water supply on the Brazeau, the plant includes a pump-back system capable of lifting water from the outflow below the dam back up to the 20 kilometres (12 mi) long reservoir, allowing the power plant to maintain capacity at low reservoir water levels."


    Now if only the pump back system was solar powered to ensure water levels available for hydro production when water levels are low.
    Your BS detector must need calibrated again.

    The nearest farmland to the Brazeau dam is 32 km away. And even calling that farmland is generous. I've crossed it countless times, and worked in the area a lot. It was not farmland, it was pristine muskeg and bush that was flooded.

    And you may have neglected the capacity factor for solar. lifetime capacity factor for Brooks, the only solar farm with a long enough track record, is 14.4%. So you need to multiply your acres/MW number by a factor of 7 to compare apples to apples.

    As for site C, according to Wikipedia:
    Permanent losses are estimated at 541 ha (1,340 acres) of currently cultivated land
    Not the 23,000 you are using.
    And Ironically enough, the only reason that river bottom land is farmable to start with is because of another dam further upstream controlling the floods for the past 40 years. So, one dam is good, next dam is bad. It wouldn't be farmland without the first dam, which has a reservoir 20 times bigger than site C.

    But why does Chuck keep including hydro electric in his list of green renewable energy, when everyone else, especially your cherished NFU and every environmentalist is against it? Do you not invite him to the meetings anymore?

    Edit, if anyone is checking my numbers, there is what appears to be farmland slightly closer (25 km) north east of the Brazeau dam, but that is all community pasture. Not technically farmland. Either way, all the farmland is downstream from the dam, none was flooded.
    Last edited by AlbertaFarmer5; Mar 7, 2021 at 01:39.
    Reply With Quote
  • 2 Likes


  • Mar 7, 2021 | 06:54 26 AF5, You are right, I should not have called it farm land but rather agricultural land. I find it interesting that agricultural land used for pasture and grazing such as where the Lomond solar farm you consider lost due to a solar installation, but flooding of agricultural land in the Peace River valley that has been used for both farming and grazing you do not feel should be considered. Great spin.

    I only used Brazeau as an example that land used for agricultural purposes including raising livestock is lost just as land is lost due to solar installations because someone mentioned Brazeau. There are lots of examples where actual farm land has been displaced, especially in southern Alberta because of the construction of dams.
    Last edited by dmlfarmer; Mar 7, 2021 at 06:58.
    Reply With Quote
    Mar 7, 2021 | 07:50 27 Another question AF5. Why do you not also look at the efficiency/capacity/output of Brazeau output as you do for solar. Brazeau does not generate its rated 355 MWs continually. In fact it average annual output is 397,000 MW hours. Maybe you should compare apples to apples too.

    From transalta website:
    "Brazeau
    The Brazeau Plant is TransAlta’s largest hydro plant. It is one of two TransAlta hydro plants on the North Saskatchewan River System in Alberta. It generates an average of 397,000 megawatt hours.

    TransAlta’s hydroelectric plants primarily provide electricity during periods of peak electrical demand and ensure system stability.
    Last edited by dmlfarmer; Mar 7, 2021 at 08:48.
    Reply With Quote
    Mar 7, 2021 | 08:06 28
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    Considering the good news that Chuck keep presenting on the energy storage front, I assume we will be seeing all renewable energy projects bidding dispatchable power available 24/7 on demand. At a cost cheaper than the fossil fuel.
    I wonder what the hold up is? If this method is so cheap( as Chuck's article claims), why doesn't every solar facility install enough of these to put fossil fuels out of business?
    I thought you said that you would support renewables if some storage became available and the price came down? Both conditions are here. But don't expect immediate and rapid adoption.

    And I have no idea whether the claims made by Energy Vault are true. But the idea that we will never figure out how to store renewable energy on a large scale is going to change.

    Charging EVs is just one of the storage options that is already available. Unlike the chronic naysayers, batteries don't care where their electricity supply comes from.

    But it seems as if the glass half full crowd on agrisilly can't even accept that intermittent solar works quite well. Several energy cost studies show that wind and solar are some of the lowest cost utility scale generation sources available in many places in the world. Reply With Quote
    fjlip's Avatar Mar 7, 2021 | 08:26 29 How much surcharge should EV's pay as road tax? Wickedly subsidized if they don't. Reply With Quote
    Mar 7, 2021 | 08:51 30
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
    I thought you said that you would support renewables if some storage became available and the price came down? Both conditions are here. But don't expect immediate and rapid adoption.
    Since both conditions are here now, you must be in favour of leveling the playing field then. There is no longer any impediment to renewable sources providing dispatchable reliable energy, on demand.
    The regulators need to immediately remove any regulations that allow certain generation sources to not provide dispatchable electricity. All must now bid the same way. Yet when I checked the AESO website today, the total dispatchable Contingency Reserve for wind and solar is still a grand total of zero.

    Will you be lobbying for the rules to change now that economics dictate there is no reason to have such a one sided bidding process. The same would of course apply to grid tied solar such as yours. You have no reason not to install storage and take full advantage of the higher prices offered during peak demand times. Reply With Quote