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

301–310 of 397 posts

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#301

Post by pencilguin »

7952 wrote: post #186
throwaway894345 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression as a layperson is that the economic feasibility of pumped hydro is very location-dependent, and our electrical grid isn't so fungible that storage in one region can meaningfully store energy generated in another region. Is my understanding correct? And if so, how do we tackle that?

Pumped hydro is very dependent on location. But the supply of energy would not need to be. Electricity grids and DC interconnectors work really well. Having a few massive sites spread across a continent could work well.

Pumped hydro is not, in fact, very dependent on location. You just need a hill. There are a lot of hills.

Even places without hills often have deep underground cavities, which also serve.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#302

Post by pencilguin »

laverya wrote: post #74
99_00 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does not, in fact, need to destroy any ecosystem.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#303

Post by pencilguin »

zizee wrote: post #161
agumonkey wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about artificial hydro ? make a big large raised water retention thing with generators.. it will take space but not harm existing natural spaces. Even in europe there's a lot of unused land.

Pumped hydro needs to be truely massive scale, both in the amount of water (read: lots of depth AND surface area), and the height differential between the two reservoirs. To make it cost feasible we really need very favourable natural geography. Building such structures ourselves would be astronomically expensive.

Pumped hydro does not, in fact, need "lots of depth". 10m is typical, for which cheap earthen dikes suffice.

It does not, in fact, need "very favourable natural geography". It needs an elevation difference, something found almost everywhere, Holland and Kansas excepted. Kansas has deep underground cavities, which also suffice.

Building dikes is cheap and low tech. Dikes predate written language.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#304

Post by DocTomoe »

tialaramex wrote: post #124
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…

> I understand that hydroelectricity is used to supply the basic power need, say 80% and a water reservoir with turbines to cover power peak needs This seems like you either didn't understand what pumped storage is, or you've confused several related technologies. A typical pumped storage scheme goes like this: We find a mountain with a high lake and a low lake. We dam the high lake so that its natural outflow (perha…

> This seems like you either didn't understand what pumped storage is, or you've confused several related technologies.

What adds to the confusion is that Germans - OP used a common typo that hints at his native language - casually use "water power" ("Wasserkraft") both for hydroelectric dams ("Wasserkraftwerk") and pumped storage ("Pumpspeicherkraftwerk"). It's one of these fascinating little insights in how different languages form different train of thoughts.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#305

Post by ciphol »

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.

Nuclear was perfectly affordable until laws were passed to make it unaffordable (specifically: if nuclear power happened to be cheaper than other energy sources for any reason, then it was considered to be not spending enough on safety, so it was required to spend money on marginal safety measures until it cost the same as other forms of energy).

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#306

Post by pencilguin »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #162
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…

Totally agree on pumped power storage capacity being needed. But those are massive infrastructure projects. Erecting a damn, to store the potential energy is bound to meet resistance. Alternative solution: Build Lots of pressure-piston, that are stable standing on its own. Basically, a pillar of ice, coated in insulation, standing upon a small lake that provides water at pressure. If additional energy is needed after…

Pumped-hydro need not, in fact be any sort of "massive infrastructure project".

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#307

Post by pencilguin »

civilized wrote: post #233
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 is hydroelectricity massively damaging while hydro pumped storage is great?

One destroys an ecosystem and fishery. The other moves water between ponds.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#309

Post by pencilguin »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #269
muaytimbo wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mostly smaller dams that were built a long time ago. They would need to be replaced anyways, so just tearing them down and not replacing them is economical and ecological. But the big ones built in the last 100 years are going to stick around for awhile.

Not because they are less damaging, but because Big Ag has enough influence to keep them in place.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#310

Post by fomine3 »

pencilguin wrote: post #294
theptip wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For Japan, many pumped storages have been built to store energy generated by nuclear plant mainly at night. Now few nuclear plants running but many PVs are deployed, so it stores energy at noon. It's reversed but anyway it's useful!
Post reply on HN