Modelling wind turbines and pumped-storage hydro for renewables-only 24/7 electrical power

[Kittamaru]

Your mistake was in using the words "the full farm" when you said

"Do you not think that if you are capable of pointing out that it is 80 times too small to handle the full farm"​

I am indeed pointing out that Musk's battery farm is too small to serve as a wind-powered baseload system by these factors -
* 80 times too small for South Australia's 1600MW of wind power
* 15 times too small for Hornsdale's 315MW
* 5 times too small for Hornsdale's third stage of 109MW

The pop-science media were misled by what was represented to them in the news conference attended by SA Premier Weatherill and Elon Musk on Friday 7 July 2017, Adelaide, South Australia.

It was the duty of those in the know to state clearly that this was a temporary fix for a mostly fossil-fuel powered system that did not and could not offer any way forward to 100% renewable energy grid in South Australia.

So your issue isn't with Musk or Tesla, but rather the media for not knowing what they were talking about. Musk has said, repeatedly, that this is meant as a test bed and as something to help with peak load demand and power leveling; he has no more control over people misunderstanding him than your or I do over the moon rising.

A sticking plaster to fossil fuel back-up to wind. I know that, you know that but that's not the impression that was given.

... by the media. Don't attribute things to Tesla that were never said - it just makes you look foolish and gets peoples hackles up.

It wouldn't be the first time a snake oil salesman has fooled the customer, no.

Again, you are blaming Tesla for something they didn't do. Their explanation was pretty thorough... if you want to go after a snake oil salesmen, well, I gave you a few examples, yet you have been oddly silent on them.

 

[Baldeee]

I am indeed pointing out that Musk's battery farm is too small to serve as a wind-powered baseload system by these factors -
* 80 times too small for South Australia's 1600MW of wind power
* 15 times too small for Hornsdale's 315MW
* 5 times too small for Hornsdale's third stage of 109MW

So too small to do a job it hasn't been designed to do.
Fair enough.

I must remember to castigate all projects for not solving problems they were never envisaged to solve.

Do your designs solve world hunger?

 

[Kittamaru]

So too small to do a job it hasn't been designed to do.
Fair enough.

I must remember to castigate all projects for not solving problems they were never envisaged to solve.

Do your designs solve world hunger?

It feels like he thinks this battery bank is meant to be able to take the place of the Wind Farm entirely in times of peak load... which it isn't. I think that's the big disconnect here.

 

[Scottish Scientist]

I don't think that battery storage has been hyped any more than any other form of storage has.

For example, here in Southern California we've been hearing a lot of hype about the LEAPS (Lake Elsinore Pumped Storage) project over the past ten years. It would generate 500 megawatts! Create a new lake! Be environmentally friendly! Generate jobs!

Great minds think alike. Here's my proposal for California's pumped-storage needs.

Edmonston Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme (Energy storage 500GWh, power anything from the modest power Edmonston Pumped Plant uses now (835MW) up to all the power California can generate - 45GW or more) .

This is my proposal to upgrade the Edmonston Pumping Plant to dual-use as a pumped-storage hydro scheme.

Such a scheme requires a new dam to create an upper reservoir (an example location is shown in the map above) and a new lower reservoir (not shown) at the same elevation as the Edmonston Pumping Plant.

An intake tower with intake pump sited at Pastoria Siphon allows for a greater reservoir working depth and a working volume percentage of over 60%.

The Upper Reservoir

A much smaller reservoir than the one shown here would suit Edmonston's existing power and tunnel flow capacities in better proportion, but I have suggested such a large reservoir here for use with the possible much bigger pumped hydro scheme projects, to increase power by multiple factors, installing new pumps and turbines and increasing the flow capacity between Edmonston and the upper reservoir, whether by making new tunnels or by using surface pipes.

Such a large reservoir as that shown here would require a fill time of 48 days at Edmonston's current full pumping rate, or 4 months 23 days at 1/3 of flow for filling, 2/3 of flow for water customers.

So the minimum project would be with a much smaller reservoir than the one shown, that would fill up and empty much more quickly - in days rather than months -using the same pumps and tunnels as now and installing generating turbines to suit.

The site appears to be suitable for modest or very ambitious schemes.

For the future needs of California to transition to 100% renewable energy, ambitious energy storage schemes will be required and that's why I am thinking big here.

What should be clear to us all - is that pumped storage hydro is the method of choice to store large quantities of electrical energy from the electricity grid. So if this is not done here at Edmonston then California may have to consider similar plans to do something similar at Lake Elsinore and other places that are suitable for large capacity energy storage. Electric batteries simply don't have the energy storage capacity needed to store all the solar and wind energy that we will need to store.

_____
In case you are wondering why a Scottish Scientist has taken such an interest in California's electricity needs, I'm simply following the lead of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and California's governor Jerry Brown who have made an agreement that California and Scotland should cooperate with such matters.

BBC:Sturgeon signs climate agreement with California

Before leaving the topic I wish to note that California ought to harvest wood for biomass fuel in power stations to use as back-up power for intermittent solar and wind power.

In one fell swoop, wood for biomass fuel, would solve the wild-fire problem and enable a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy grid, meeting climate change targets.

While the sun goes down and the wind is becalmed, the biomass furnaces are firing up and getting steam up from cold, which is when the system needs some increased energy storage to keep the lights on, from
* pumped-storage hydroelectricity
* power to gas (hydrogen)

But batteries can't cut it - they don't have enough energy storage capacity at low cost.

 

[Kittamaru]

Great minds think alike. Here's my proposal for California's pumped-storage needs.

Edmonston Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme (Energy storage 500GWh, power anything from the modest power Edmonston Pumped Plant uses now (835MW) up to all the power California can generate - 45GW or more) .

This is my proposal to upgrade the Edmonston Pumping Plant to dual-use as a pumped-storage hydro scheme.

Such a scheme requires a new dam to create an upper reservoir (an example location is shown in the map above) and a new lower reservoir (not shown) at the same elevation as the Edmonston Pumping Plant.

An intake tower with intake pump sited at Pastoria Siphon allows for a greater reservoir working depth and a working volume percentage of over 60%.

The Upper Reservoir

A much smaller reservoir than the one shown here would suit Edmonston's existing power and tunnel flow capacities in better proportion, but I have suggested such a large reservoir here for use with the possible much bigger pumped hydro scheme projects, to increase power by multiple factors, installing new pumps and turbines and increasing the flow capacity between Edmonston and the upper reservoir, whether by making new tunnels or by using surface pipes.

Such a large reservoir as that shown here would require a fill time of 48 days at Edmonston's current full pumping rate, or 4 months 23 days at 1/3 of flow for filling, 2/3 of flow for water customers.

So the minimum project would be with a much smaller reservoir than the one shown, that would fill up and empty much more quickly - in days rather than months -using the same pumps and tunnels as now and installing generating turbines to suit.

The site appears to be suitable for modest or very ambitious schemes.

For the future needs of California to transition to 100% renewable energy, ambitious energy storage schemes will be required and that's why I am thinking big here.

What should be clear to us all - is that pumped storage hydro is the method of choice to store large quantities of electrical energy from the electricity grid. So if this is not done here at Edmonston then California may have to consider similar plans to do something similar at Lake Elsinore and other places that are suitable for large capacity energy storage. Electric batteries simply don't have the energy storage capacity needed to store all the solar and wind energy that we will need to store.

_____
In case you are wondering why a Scottish Scientist has taken such an interest in California's electricity needs, I'm simply following the lead of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and California's governor Jerry Brown who have made an agreement that California and Scotland should cooperate with such matters.

BBC:Sturgeon signs climate agreement with California

Before leaving the topic I wish to note that California ought to harvest wood for biomass fuel in power stations to use as back-up power for intermittent solar and wind power.

In one fell swoop, wood for biomass fuel, would solve the wild-fire problem and enable a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy grid, meeting climate change targets.

While the sun goes down and the wind is becalmed, the biomass furnaces are firing up and getting steam up from cold, which is when the system needs some increased energy storage to keep the lights on, from
* pumped-storage hydroelectricity
* power to gas (hydrogen)

But batteries can't cut it - they don't have enough energy storage capacity at low cost.

You keep insisting batteries can't cut it (and it feels like you are saying they never will). Here's a question though; as land acreage continues to increase in value due to development et al, what is the residual cost of cordoning off such a huge swatch of land for an artificial reservoir? Are there better ways to store this water for a pumped-hydro plant, or perhaps better ways to store the energy overall?

As for 'harvesting the wood' for biomass and the like - that's a great idea, but a non-starter currently due to the issues with getting into the regions in question. Most heavy equipment simply can't get in there, and manhandling the logs out would be quite the endeavor, and one that simply wouldn't be profitable. I don't think you could convince most companies that it would be a worthwhile endeavor, sadly, even with the 1-2 punch of reducing wildfire fuel and providing biomass for wood-gas or other types of plants.

 

[billvon]

But batteries can't cut it - they don't have enough energy storage capacity at low cost.

That's fine.

Maybe someday pumped hydro will get off the ground and serve as a good buffer for unreliable generation. In the meantime, we will continue to install those batteries that "can't cut it" to do the same.

 

[Scottish Scientist]

Using these results, I have written a web-page script on-line calculator -

Wind, storage and back-up system designer (my Scottish Scientist Wordpress blog post for documentation and discussion)

Wind, storage and back-up system designer (the actual calculator web-page which has to be hosted separately because it uses javascript which Wordpress, the blog host, don't allow).

Now renamed as the “Wind, solar, storage and back-up system designer” to mark solar’s debut.
http://scottish.scienceontheweb.net/Wind power storage back-up calculator.htm

I’ve re-programed my (formerly wind-only) grid systems designer to include solar power and I’ve added a few other useful features too.
If readers have any questions, problems etc arising with the new version then please reply to this comment.

 

[Bob-a-builder]

A few weeks ago I was looking at the history of static generators from the Electrophorus to the Cyclotron.. and I barely have a rudimentary understanding.

"EWICON" - seemed like it might be of interest to some here. From the wikipedia site on Electrostatic generators.

It seems to be a new take on wind power and it is still newish I imagine.

Unsure how practical it is, but it does seem interesting and they have working models. It harnesses wind power without any moving parts. No noise, no dead birds. Could be placed on the roof of buildings in various sizes.

Here is a cartoon on it. Perhaps this will be of interest to any interested in wind power, but I'm only mentioning. Not endorsing.

Perhaps it's all hooey. I do not know. If it is viable it could be fun.

From Wikipedia,

EWICON[edit]
An electrostatic wind energy converter, the EWICON, has been developed by The School of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science atDelft University of Technology(TU Delft). Its stands near Mecanoo, an architecture firm. The main developers were Johan Smit and Dhiradj Djairam. Other than the wind, it has no moving parts. It is powered by the wind carrying away charged particles from its collector.[13]The design suffers from poor efficiency.[14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_generator

Poor efficiency sounds bad. Still fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_generator#cite_note-14

 

[Benson]

Renewables will not save the planet, nuclear power will.

Wind power is not efficient and it kills too much wildlife.

 

[Ocelot]

Does anyone know much about stored kinetic energy systems as an option to pumped hydro?
It seems like a more immediate alternative.

 

[Ocelot]

Does anyone know much about stored kinetic energy systems as an option to pumped hydro?
It seems like a more immediate alternative.

Bump

 

[Bob-a-builder]

Renewables will not save the planet, nuclear power will.

Wind power is not efficient and it kills too much wildlife.

Your solution was not available 100 years ago. If people took your attitude back then we might not have nuclear power as a "planet saving" option.

Glad to see youre an optimist though.

 

[billvon]

Renewables will not save the planet, nuclear power will.

Wind power is not efficient and it kills too much wildlife.

Nuclear power kills "too much" wildlife too, with the birds that collide with the structures and the fish killed by heating river and ocean water. (Not to mention the fish squashed and/or chopped up by the cooling pumps.)

Both nuclear and renewables have their place. The big reason renewables will win is that they are just plain cheaper. Solar+storage is now considerably cheaper than new nuclear power plants.

 

[Benson]

Your solution was not available 100 years ago. If people took your attitude back then we might not have nuclear power as a "planet saving" option.

Glad to see youre an optimist though.

The guy that championed renewable energy which resulted in Obama pushing the idea disagrees with you.

Glad to see a pessimist though.

 

[Benson]

Nuclear power kills "too much" wildlife too, with the birds that collide with the structures and the fish killed by heating river and ocean water. (Not to mention the fish squashed and/or chopped up by the cooling pumps.)

Both nuclear and renewables have their place. The big reason renewables will win is that they are just plain cheaper. Solar+storage is now considerably cheaper than new nuclear power plants.

Please see my post above ^^^

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

How about reef barrier design wave and wind power renewable energy. Like a wall surounding the coast. When the wave hits it swings the door to cross it. When the hinge is moved it moves the cog which moves the magnet or copper plate to cause induction and wind turbines on the wall. Back draw is that should there is ever a leakage of electrcity, people swimming on the coast will be shoked.

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

The guy that championed renewable energy which resulted in Obama pushing the idea disagrees with you.

Glad to see a pessimist though.

How about making water in desert like sahara desert using solar panel and freezing air like freezer at homes?

 

[billvon]

Please see my post above ^^^

I did; it did not conflict with anything I said.

Nuclear has its place providing baseload power. However, solar+storage is cheaper than nuclear power - fact.

 

[billvon]

How about making water in desert like sahara desert using solar panel and freezing air like freezer at homes?

That doesn't make water. It just moves water from one place to another. And there's no water in the Sahara to begin with.

Want to "green" the Sahara? Use solar powered pumps to pump seawater to low-lying areas. Make big salt lakes. Water evaporates and it rains elsewhere.