Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 397 posts

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#71

Post by animal_spirits »

99_00 wrote: post #66
idiotsecant wrote: post #37

Obviously hydroelectricity is massively damaging to ecosystems. My day job includes designing hydroelectric control systems and even I can admit that. That's a big part of the reason that hydro is a non-starter in much of the western world, which is probably a reasonably good thing (although there are certainly some exceptions where hydro development seems like a no-brainer to me but I digress) What's not so clear to…

Why doesn't hydroelectric pumped storage have the same obvious and massive ecosystem damage as hydroelectric when it is hydro electric + the environmental damage caused by producing solar panels or wind turbines?

The difference is because hydroelectric generation depends on currently existing rivers, damming them and turning them into electricity sources has to change the natural ecosystem in the river.

For pumped storage, we can essentially build it anywhere there is an elevation change. So we can avoid harming river ecosystems where they naturally exist and create pipes and tanks where it would be the least damaging to the ecosystem

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#72

Post by burkaman »

idiotsecant wrote: post #31
pavon wrote: post #6

This isn't hard to understand. * Most of the best sites for hydro (and geothermal) in western countries already have damns. * Between climate change and growing population, fresh water is becoming more and more scarce, making hydro a less dependable source of energy. * These projects take a long time to plan and build. Between these there is little opportunity for hydro to play a significant role in our short-term de…

for some definition of the word 'best' - we have plenty of places that would be perfectly suitable other than all the pesky people it would displace. If we really cared about carbon-free energy that would be a solvable problem.

But the only reason we care about carbon-free energy is because of the pesky people. If displacing people isn't a big deal, then climate change isn't a problem and we don't need to care about carbon-free energy at all. We'd just move populations as the climate changes.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#73

Post by creato »

theptip wrote: post #52
idiotsecant wrote: post #37

Obviously hydroelectricity is massively damaging to ecosystems. My day job includes designing hydroelectric control systems and even I can admit that. That's a big part of the reason that hydro is a non-starter in much of the western world, which is probably a reasonably good thing (although there are certainly some exceptions where hydro development seems like a no-brainer to me but I digress) What's not so clear to…

Since you’re in the industry I’m interested in your perspective on this report from Lawrence Berkeley lab on integrated battery storage for wind/solar projects: https://emp.lbl.gov/hybrid It seems to me that high capacity integrated battery projects are being built in large numbers, and they are much closer to cost-competitive than I would have though from the general sentiment in the press/HN comments. Obviously the…

> If that’s true then we might not need to fight the environmental battles on pumped storage (which for the record I do agree could be used more).

Are pumped storage environmental battles really that much less of an obstacle than those for solar, wind, or transmission line installations?

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#74

Post by laverya »

99_00 wrote: post #66
idiotsecant wrote: post #37

Obviously hydroelectricity is massively damaging to ecosystems. My day job includes designing hydroelectric control systems and even I can admit that. That's a big part of the reason that hydro is a non-starter in much of the western world, which is probably a reasonably good thing (although there are certainly some exceptions where hydro development seems like a no-brainer to me but I digress) What's not so clear to…

Why doesn't hydroelectric pumped storage have the same obvious and massive ecosystem damage as hydroelectric when it is hydro electric + the environmental damage caused by producing solar panels or wind turbines?

Pumped Hydro doesn't have to be built on a river - you just need a pair of reservoirs that you can fill and transfer water between. This obviously destroys the ecosystem of the valley you use, but at least you're not impacting river water temperatures/sedimentation/fish spawning/etc.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#75

Post by bpodgursky »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #58
bpodgursky wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the Yosemite valley has significant hydro potential.

Isn't that all protected wilderness though?

Of course, I'm saying

> We just don't have reasonable places to keep daming

Isn't super true from an energy perspective.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#76

Post by rr808 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #37

Obviously hydroelectricity is massively damaging to ecosystems. My day job includes designing hydroelectric control systems and even I can admit that. That's a big part of the reason that hydro is a non-starter in much of the western world, which is probably a reasonably good thing (although there are certainly some exceptions where hydro development seems like a no-brainer to me but I digress) What's not so clear to…

Agreed we need hydroelectric pumped storage - what is a typical efficiency number for that? I'd think its super inefficient, but not sure what the numbers should be.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#77

Post by muaytimbo »

onepointsixC wrote: post #17

Hydro isn't unfashionable. We just don't have reasonable places to keep daming, so there's little really to talk about. Nuclear is unfashionable, because there's huge growth potential among wealthy industrial countries, but because it's not "liked" there's very little actual growth.

It IS unfashionable, dams are actively being removed across the US in order to restore the ecosystems they shattered. Migratory fish and all predators higher up the trophic chain are devastated by any type of dam.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#78

Post by nicoburns »

arcticbull wrote: post #51
kortex wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who's spent any amount of time looking into industrial and engineering disasters knows about Bangqiao. It's up there among the greatest single event losses of human life from human-created (non-war, non-disease) catastrophies, along with Bhopal, Chernobyl, Wanggongchang explosion, Halifax explosion, and a few other big ones.

I knew about it, but I don't think if you asked an average individual on the street, they'd have any clue - unlike asking any American or Canadian about Chernobyl, or any Canadian about Bhopal or Halifax. I think Chernobyl has a much bigger influence on nuclear policy than Bangqiao on hydro despite the latter causing two orders of magnitude more deaths.

> I think Chernobyl has a much bigger influence on nuclear policy than Bangqiao on hydro despite the latter causing two orders of magnitude more deaths.

IMO thats entirely rational. Dying is not what I'm scared of when it comes to a Chernobyl-like accident. Dying slowly and painfully of radiation poisoning is. It's hard to imagine a worse fate. Drowning in a huge flood, while unfortunate, is something I'd be much more willing to risk. It'd at least likely be quick.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#79

Post by theptip »

idiotsecant wrote: post #53
theptip wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you’re in the industry I’m interested in your perspective on this report from Lawrence Berkeley lab on integrated battery storage for wind/solar projects: https://emp.lbl.gov/hybrid It seems to me that high capacity integrated battery projects are being built in large numbers, and they are much closer to cost-competitive than I would have though from the general sentiment in the press/HN comments. Obviously the…

Too little, too late unfortunately. The amount of storage available from these projects is tiny and even though it's accelerating it's not accelerating at nearly the level required for the physics of a primary renewable grid to work. Chemical storage of energy is expensive and requires a long supply chain. It's huge that the costs are trending in a favorable direction and maybe eventually we can do all our load balan…

Is this supported by the report though? We have yet to build most of the solar we need, and IIUC almost half of new solar is now being built with storage:

> At the close of 2021, there were more than 670 GW of solar plants in the nation’s queues; 285 GW (~42%) of this capacity was proposed as a hybrid, most typically pairing PV with battery storage (PV+storage represented nearly 90% of all hybrid capacity in the queues).

This is the surprising fact for me from that report. Of course, “built with some storage” is not the same as “built with 100% storage” but the report shows the distribution is not terrible, with ranges of 50-100% storage being built. (With %age being something like “daily maximum variance from demand curve” but I don’t understand exactly how this is computed).

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#80

Post by theptip »

creato wrote: post #73
theptip wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you’re in the industry I’m interested in your perspective on this report from Lawrence Berkeley lab on integrated battery storage for wind/solar projects: https://emp.lbl.gov/hybrid It seems to me that high capacity integrated battery projects are being built in large numbers, and they are much closer to cost-competitive than I would have though from the general sentiment in the press/HN comments. Obviously the…

> If that’s true then we might not need to fight the environmental battles on pumped storage (which for the record I do agree could be used more). Are pumped storage environmental battles really that much less of an obstacle than those for solar, wind, or transmission line installations?

Based on the number of pumped hydro vs solar projects I see approved in the US, I’d say so. We are building LOTS of solar. Not much (any?) pumped hydro.

The US has plenty of land that it could use for pumped storage if it didn’t care about the environment. (See, Hetch Hetchy in CA). AIUI it’s (justified) concern about environmental impact that holds this technology back.

Post reply on HN