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

291–300 of 397 posts

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#291

Post by b4je7d7wb »

gwbas1c wrote: post #261
jhoechtl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive me my lack of understanding of the englisch language, but I do not understand the distinction you make. Hydroelectricity: Is this power you obtain by placing turbines behind a huge concrete wall of a large river? If so, how is the scenario of building a large concrete dam in the mountains where water is pumped up a hill to covert it into kinetic energy any more better? I understand that hydroelectricity is us…

Think of pumped storage like a battery: In areas with a lot of solar, pumped storage runs when there is a lot of daylight to store the energy for nighttime use. Pumps run when the sun is out, turbines run at night.

Or the opposite in areas with wind/nuclear. Pump it up during the night when demand and prices are low, then run turbines during day when demand and prices are higher. Arbitrage.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#292

Post by pencilguin »

7952 wrote: post #178
idiotsecant wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No one technology is accelerating fast enough. But I think battery storage has amazing potential for scalability. It is very suitable for mass production in a factory and produces small components that are relatively fungible. Battery storage sites can be built anywhere, require little civils works, have tiny environmental impact and are very quick to install. And they have the benefit of research and production for…

Lots of smaller projects work better than a few monsters.

There is absolutely no shortage of terrain suitable for pumped hydro storage. The smaller the project is, the easier it is to find a good item for it.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#293

Post by jhoechtl »

cwkoss wrote: post #138
jhoechtl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the damage overweight the benefit? Would nuclear have been better? Do you want your bread toasted or light your room with candles?

How can you quantify that? How many gigawatt hours is halving an ecosystem's biodiversity worth?

That's exactly the point. I think there is a trade-off which has to be quantified. Claimimg to be unable to quantify this trade off is a death argument to any discussion.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#294

Post by pencilguin »

theptip wrote: post #80
creato wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

We are not building much storage because it would be stupid to spend on storage that we have not spare renewable generating capacity to charge up. After we have plenty, then we will need storage, and will build it then.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#295

Post by silon42 »

credit_guy wrote: post #260
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need storage and pumped storage is the only practical way to get there with current supply chains and technology. This really cannot be enphasised enough - this is the only game in town. The solutions are needed yesterday, and must be built on a massive scale - there is no time for a 20 year R&D to production cycle of a miracle technology. Only hydro does not require any new minerals and mining. The only other c…

> this is the only game in town. There is another game in town. Emphasis on "is", as in present tense, not future. Natural gas power plants. They emit much, much less CO2 than coal. If we use them to only generate electricity when solar and wind are not enough, we end up with much lower emissions than what the trees remove from the atmosphere. We also end up needing to overbuild solar and wind by only about 30%, not…

Pumped hydro has 70-80% efficiency. I just looked up the number for a local one (smallish, ~180MW) and it claims 77% It operates on a weekly cycle, pumping up at night and weekends.

You do need a hill to build one, though. But you don't need Putin.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#296

Post by jhoechtl »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #270
jhoechtl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear fell out of fashion because people do not understand statics and were unable to address peoples concern about their safety.

Nuclear was simply too expensive for the other side to bother debating with the environmental opposition. Unless the government subsidizes it (construction costs), private companies aren’t going to go near it. Other renewables are simply so much more profitable these days.

Power should be a public good and not in the hands of private companies.

Macroeconomics has unfortunately fallen out of fashion on todays curricula at schools/universities.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#297

Post by jhoechtl »

api wrote: post #140
BurningFrog wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 72 meters below, but it's not very big, and once it's full you'll have to wait for the water to evaporate away, I assume? If it could be made a permanent bay of the ocean, that might make the area less of a disaster. But it seems real hard...

If it's below then the answer is no, so that answers my question. :) I was assuming it would be above sea level since it's inland.

Actually all.you need is a height difference, the direction doesn't matter. 72 meters is the limiting factor here.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#298

Post by pencilguin »

jjk166 wrote: post #125
whatshisface wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a good thing then that nature has already done the excavation for us by providing high and low spots.

Yep, now we just need to excavate the reservoirs on those high and low spots, a mere 100% of the work required.

Maybe you could read up, instead of guessing.

Dikes are a technology older than writing.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#300

Post by pencilguin »

plorg wrote: post #180
idiotsecant wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entirely wrong. All pumped storage requires is a big high spot and a big low spot*. Take a look at this, for example: https://www.gordonbuttepumpedstorage.com/ There are a lot of good pumped storage sites out there. *exaggeration, but close enough.

Yes, that is the whole concept. The question is, is this something that has been re-evaluated? Are there more site locations available than previously thought? Have the economics changed significantly? Was this a known-wrong assumption 15 years ago? Has the public perception changed re: the environmental costs vs benefits of this land use? I would much rather we build a bunch of pumped hydro than a bunch of chemical…

It is not "more sustainable". It is just, likely, cheaper.

Siting, operational, and land use concerns for pumped hydro are, generally, trivial. If one site is bad, another is good. There is absolutely no shortage of sites, so only the best need be even considered.

Post reply on HN