I think pumped storage makes a lot of sense in many places. I think that it is important to point out,however, that it is highly constrained by geography. Many regions do not have large amounts of hydro resources.
You're correct that they are more ideally suited for countries with lots of hydro resources and notably large dams. The dictum that "geography is destiny" is definitely applicable to Africa and the Middle East.
But there are locations such as abandoned mine shifts and mountain springs that can be exploited. How one builds there remains a challenge and the difficulty with getting costs is that each project is so unique that the cost varies significantly between project.
South Africa's Drakensberg Area has a lot of locations for pumped storage, government has been talking about exploiting them for a long term, but there seems to be no concrete actions to advance them. China for example has built out pumped storage at an incredible rate to incorporate renewables.
If you care about the environment it is painful to support pump storage, especially when combined with low density energy sources such as wind and solar power. Nuclear power has vastly smaller carbon footprint.
you can install it in existing dams or within the drakensberg, it's not as environmentally damaging as people think, but it won't occur overnight. 10 years lead time, and cost overruns have occurred in places such as Australia.
Dec 29, 2023·edited Dec 29, 2023Liked by Hügo Krüger
It is more damaging than pure hydro as you need a second reservoir and the levels need to change continuously, making the reservoirs less useful for recreation and less amenable to wildlife/vegetation. Also the number needed to balance solar and wind are mind-boggling. The resistance to damaging mountain valleys will be fierce. What exactly is the point of harming the environment in order to protect it?
We need to balance harms in a rational way. Most people would prefer to stick with fossil fuels than flood many pristine river valleys. Nuclear is best for the environment and also would provide the lowers emissions at the lowest price.
We need to educate people about how incredibly safe it is. Even nuclear engineers are clueless about the relative risks of radioactivity versus air pollution, my area of expertise.
I totally agree, but one reason why I would advance PS schemes is that it's an ideal method to dispatch the excess from baseload capacity if demand drops, and it can be used to quickly stabilize the grid.
PS schemes assist all energy sources, but it's obviously a question of cost and construction expertise. The plants also last for 50 years, but can probably go up to 80 years if you regularly overhaul them.
The chinese for example are building their PS schemes out at an astonishing rate,
I think pumped storage makes a lot of sense in many places. I think that it is important to point out,however, that it is highly constrained by geography. Many regions do not have large amounts of hydro resources.
You're correct that they are more ideally suited for countries with lots of hydro resources and notably large dams. The dictum that "geography is destiny" is definitely applicable to Africa and the Middle East.
But there are locations such as abandoned mine shifts and mountain springs that can be exploited. How one builds there remains a challenge and the difficulty with getting costs is that each project is so unique that the cost varies significantly between project.
South Africa's Drakensberg Area has a lot of locations for pumped storage, government has been talking about exploiting them for a long term, but there seems to be no concrete actions to advance them. China for example has built out pumped storage at an incredible rate to incorporate renewables.
If you care about the environment it is painful to support pump storage, especially when combined with low density energy sources such as wind and solar power. Nuclear power has vastly smaller carbon footprint.
you can install it in existing dams or within the drakensberg, it's not as environmentally damaging as people think, but it won't occur overnight. 10 years lead time, and cost overruns have occurred in places such as Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/31/snowy-hydro-2-project-scheme-billion-cost-blowout-kosciuszko-national-park
It is more damaging than pure hydro as you need a second reservoir and the levels need to change continuously, making the reservoirs less useful for recreation and less amenable to wildlife/vegetation. Also the number needed to balance solar and wind are mind-boggling. The resistance to damaging mountain valleys will be fierce. What exactly is the point of harming the environment in order to protect it?
We need to balance harms in a rational way. Most people would prefer to stick with fossil fuels than flood many pristine river valleys. Nuclear is best for the environment and also would provide the lowers emissions at the lowest price.
We need to educate people about how incredibly safe it is. Even nuclear engineers are clueless about the relative risks of radioactivity versus air pollution, my area of expertise.
I totally agree, but one reason why I would advance PS schemes is that it's an ideal method to dispatch the excess from baseload capacity if demand drops, and it can be used to quickly stabilize the grid.
PS schemes assist all energy sources, but it's obviously a question of cost and construction expertise. The plants also last for 50 years, but can probably go up to 80 years if you regularly overhaul them.
The chinese for example are building their PS schemes out at an astonishing rate,
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=57360#:~:text=China%20is%20building%20pumped%2Dstorage,more%20than%20any%20other%20country.
Having some PS capacity makes sense. It works well and is affordable. My concern is trying to balance a mainly solar/wind powered grid with PS.