Its a neat idea, but the devil is always in the detail.The idea of pumped hydro as n energy storage for excess solar/wind is important. One option that won't be environmentally ugly or prohibitively costly is the system developed by Rheenergise. There are plenty of small hills that would suit this option.
Engineering news
High-density pumped hydro ‘could be installed on thousands of small hills’
08 Feb 2021
Professional Engineering
Unlike conventional hydro power, the system from RheEnergise uses dense liquid instead of water. The fluid is two-and-a-half-times denser than water, and could therefore potentially provide two-and-a-half-times the power of equivalent conventional systems.
The High-Density Hydro systems would be built underground. Its developers said it could offer long-term energy storage at relatively low costs, with high energy efficiency
Like conventional pumped hydro, it would use excess energy – such as that generated by wind turbines on a windy day with low demand – to pump the liquid uphill from underground storage tanks. After travelling uphill through underground pipes, the liquid would then be released to power downhill turbines when electricity demand is higher.
Its a neat idea, but the devil is always in the detail.
The part that is not mentioned is that the 2.5 times as dense fluid will require somewhat more than 2.5 times the energy to raise it up to the required height. Not being a fluid dynamics guy, I don't know what sort of efficiency losses there are with higher density fluids, but I am going to take an educated guess that the boundary layer losses are going to be significant.
Mick
Good point.Its a neat idea, but the devil is always in the detail.
The part that is not mentioned is that the 2.5 times as dense fluid will require somewhat more than 2.5 times the energy to raise it up to the required height. Not being a fluid dynamics guy, I don't know what sort of efficiency losses there are with higher density fluids, but I am going to take an educated guess that the boundary layer losses are going to be significant.
Mick
You are right Mick, there will be a lot of new ideas floated and at the end of the day it all becomes an energy flow equation.Its a neat idea, but the devil is always in the detail.
The part that is not mentioned is that the 2.5 times as dense fluid will require somewhat more than 2.5 times the energy to raise it up to the required height. Not being a fluid dynamics guy, I don't know what sort of efficiency losses there are with higher density fluids, but I am going to take an educated guess that the boundary layer losses are going to be significant.
Mick
That Mick is the very reason for the big push into hydrogen, it all boils back to energy density, hydrogen has a similar energy density to fossil fuel and can be used to operate engines/turbines in the same way that fossil fuel does.If you can convert the no cost solar or wind energy to some other form of immediate use energy (chemical storage, batteries storage etc), then in some ways the efficiency is not so critical. Our current difficulties are in reliable quick startup backups for when the intermittent suppliers of electricity such as wind, solar and to some extent hydro are not providing the required outputs.
And because we have such a large electricity use, the size of these backups need to be of a large scale, which can put a bit of a dampener on things.
Coal for a myriad of reasons, is not expected to take up that role.
Gas, diesel. biofuels etc are slightly more acceptable, but they all still produce that dreaded Co2.
Nuclear does not produce CO2, is reliable, has a very small footprint, but is expensive and politically unacceptable.
Mick
Our current difficulties are in reliable quick startup backups for when the intermittent suppliers of electricity such as wind, solar and to some extent hydro are not providing the required outputs.
Maybe this is a chance to patch it up with the French by buying some reactors.France to ramp up small modular reactor development, as we said a few years ago, they seem to be the obvious goto solution.
From the article:France aims to lead in green energy, small nuclear reactors with $47b plan
France wants to be a leader in green hydrogen by 2030 and build new, smaller nuclear reactors as part of a road map aimed at decarbonising the country’s industry, President Emmanuel Macron said.www.theage.com.au
Setting out some of the plan’s targets, Macron said France would by 2030 build a low-carbon plane, a small modular reactor as well as two megafactories for the production of green hydrogen. It would also produce large numbers of electric vehicles.
“We must wage the battle of innovation and industrialisation at the same time,” Macron told a group of entrepreneurs, adding: “We need a country that produces more.”
Macron said the plan will give a key role to small, agile start-ups in building France’s industrial future alongside well-established giants.
Macron said the plan will give a key role to small, agile start-ups in building France’s industrial future alongside well-established giants.
Pointing to a shortage of face masks when the COVID-19 pandemic first erupted, Macron said the crisis had shown, on one side, a real vulnerability for all, and, on the other side, how crucial innovation and industrial production close to home are.
“We must rebuild the framework for productive independence for France and Europe,” he said, adding that innovation would be key amid global competition for leadership and access to raw materials. “The winner takes it all,” he added.
Other 2030 objectives include investing in semi-conductors and beefing up innovation in the French health sector, including biomedicine.
I doubt it. The 40 needed to power Perth or the 100 needed to power Sydney are not likely to be welcome additions - the nimby syndrome - and there are no levels of politics supporting a nuclear pathway atm.France to ramp up small modular reactor development, as we said a few years ago, they seem to be the obvious goto solution.
I agree with regard the hydrogen, it is definitely the way forward, however I also think small modular reactors will be the eventual backup to hydrogen production in a lot of places.I doubt it. The 40 needed to power Perth or the 100 needed to power Sydney are not likely to be welcome additions - the nimby syndrome - and there are no levels of politics supporting a nuclear pathway atm.
On the other hand, advances in hydrogen technology over the next decade are likely to see it steamroll battery technologies.
There are cost advances such as this.
And there are production innovations, such as modular electrolysers.
That's aside from Twiggy's mega hydrogen projects, which are being matched elsewhere.
On the vehicle front the move to electric at present rates will require that BEVs be supplemented by HEVs unless battery gigafactories grow like mushrooms around the world, and can be fed enough raw materials. Green hydrogen has no raw material constraints and its cost curve is dropping rapidly (much faster than Alan Finkel's report suggested).
COP 26 is likely to spur governments to make significantly greater investments in the hydrogen option.
Given that grid scale solar is already running at US$0.034/KWh and SMR might get as low as US$0.055/KWh there is no economic case for going nuclear. Moreover, the nuclear cost I have quoted is completely untested.I agree with regard the hydrogen, it is definitely the way forward, however I also think small modular reactors will be the eventual backup to hydrogen production in a lot of places.
Also as I mentioned a few years back, it makes sense to have a nuclear plant running flat out 24/7, during times of high renewable output have the nuclear plant making hydrogen, as the renewable output drops off the nuclear plant throttles back on hydrogen production and supplies the load. That would save having to install a huge amount of hydro or battery storage capacity.
By the way SMR are up to about 300MW size.
Small Nuclear Power Reactors - World Nuclear Association
There is revival of interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. This interest in smaller nuclear power reactors is driven both by a desire to reduce the impact of capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems.www.world-nuclear.org
This is the French idea on making hydrogen:
https://www.reuters.com/business/su...tor-green-hydrogen-plants-by-2030-2021-10-12/
From the article:
PARIS, Oct 12 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday that by 2030 France must be a leader in carbon-free power production, and will build one small modular reactor as well as two megafactories for the production of green hydrogen by then.
"We must be a leader in green hydrogen by 2030," Macron said in a speech.
Macron said that Europe will never have enough renewable energy capacity to produce sufficient green hydrogen for mobility, and that France's nuclear plants are a major asset for producing green hydrogen via electrolysis.
I'll re post what Macron said. I've highlighted the points that indicate nuclear, in Macron's opinion, is going to be required.Given that grid scale solar is already running at US$0.034/KWh and SMR might get as low as US$0.055/KWh there is no economic case for going nuclear. Moreover, the nuclear cost I have quoted is completely untested.
Green hydrogen also has the option of production from curtailment.
I don't discount the nuclear option for nations with limited renewable capacity, but France will be able to buy green hydrogen cheaper than they could produce it.
Indeed, which is why we need an independent person such as the Chief Scientist to provide the best solution.An issue here is that as with anything, if you ask a salesman then they'll almost certainly recommend you buy what they're selling. No surprises there.
In the Australian context well the big energy companies with a heritage and ongoing operations in gas supply have a very good reason to push the continued use of gas and for gas-fired generation to be the backup to renewables.
Unsurprisingly the established hydro operators will argue that large scale pumped storage is the way forward and that they ought to build it.
And of course if we ask a battery manufacturer well yep, no prizes for guessing what they suggest.
Same with anything. Ask an airline how to move some freight and I'll guarantee that whatever they come up with will involve it being put on an aircraft. They're not going to suggest trains or ships. Etc same with anyone.
That also extends to states and countries. Pick any place that has either a natural advantage or an established major industry focused on one technology and no surprise they'll advocate it as the solution.
A lot of the limitations are outside the control of the States and Countries e.g W.A ain't going to get much hydro. ?An issue here is that as with anything, if you ask a salesman then they'll almost certainly recommend you buy what they're selling. No surprises there.
In the Australian context well the big energy companies with a heritage and ongoing operations in gas supply have a very good reason to push the continued use of gas and for gas-fired generation to be the backup to renewables.
Unsurprisingly the established hydro operators will argue that large scale pumped storage is the way forward and that they ought to build it.
And of course if we ask a battery manufacturer well yep, no prizes for guessing what they suggest.
Same with anything. Ask an airline how to move some freight and I'll guarantee that whatever they come up with will involve it being put on an aircraft. They're not going to suggest trains or ships. Etc same with anyone.
That also extends to states and countries. Pick any place that has either a natural advantage or an established major industry focused on one technology and no surprise they'll advocate it as the solution.
WA's not as badly off as you might think there.A lot of the limitations are outside the control of the States and Countries e.g W.A ain't going to get much hydro. ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?