Pumped Hydro Storage For Solar and Wind

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Hamloc, how many acres of farmland was flooded by the building of the Brazeau dam mentioned by others in this thread? The dam created a reservoir about 13 km long and 6 km wide to put out about the same power as the solar farm. I don't know the surface area of the reservoir, but based on the measurements it likely uses more acres per mw of production than the solar farm.

And the site C dam being built on the Peace will flood 100 kms of river valley, some of the most productive land in the Peace River region of BC and in fact the only class 1 soils in northern BC. Published planned reservoir surface area behind this dam will be 23,100 acres of a whole lot more productive land than that at Lomond. So are you opposed to Site C? BTW 23,100 acres/900mw = 25.67 acres/mw double the land/mw used for the solar farm Ooops!

And another note, since 1965 a pumping system has been used at Brazeau to pump water back up from below the outflow when reservoir levels are low. "In order to deal with the sometimes challenging water supply on the Brazeau, the plant includes a pump-back system capable of lifting water from the outflow below the dam back up to the 20 kilometres (12 mi) long reservoir, allowing the power plant to maintain capacity at low reservoir water levels."


Now if only the pump back system was solar powered to ensure water levels available for hydro production when water levels are low.

Your BS detector must need calibrated again.

The nearest farmland to the Brazeau dam is 32 km away. And even calling that farmland is generous. I've crossed it countless times, and worked in the area a lot. It was not farmland, it was pristine muskeg and bush that was flooded.

And you may have neglected the capacity factor for solar. lifetime capacity factor for Brooks, the only solar farm with a long enough track record, is 14.4%. So you need to multiply your acres/MW number by a factor of 7 to compare apples to apples.

As for site C, according to Wikipedia:

Permanent losses are estimated at 541 ha (1,340 acres) of currently cultivated land

Not the 23,000 you are using.
And Ironically enough, the only reason that river bottom land is farmable to start with is because of another dam further upstream controlling the floods for the past 40 years. So, one dam is good, next dam is bad. It wouldn't be farmland without the first dam, which has a reservoir 20 times bigger than site C.

But why does Chuck keep including hydro electric in his list of green renewable energy, when everyone else, especially your cherished NFU and every environmentalist is against it? Do you not invite him to the meetings anymore?

Edit, if anyone is checking my numbers, there is what appears to be farmland slightly closer (25 km) north east of the Brazeau dam, but that is all community pasture. Not technically farmland. Either way, all the farmland is downstream from the dam, none was flooded.

[dmlfarmer]

AF5, You are right, I should not have called it farm land but rather agricultural land. I find it interesting that agricultural land used for pasture and grazing such as where the Lomond solar farm you consider lost due to a solar installation, but flooding of agricultural land in the Peace River valley that has been used for both farming and grazing you do not feel should be considered. Great spin.

I only used Brazeau as an example that land used for agricultural purposes including raising livestock is lost just as land is lost due to solar installations because someone mentioned Brazeau. There are lots of examples where actual farm land has been displaced, especially in southern Alberta because of the construction of dams.

[dmlfarmer]

Another question AF5. Why do you not also look at the efficiency/capacity/output of Brazeau output as you do for solar. Brazeau does not generate its rated 355 MWs continually. In fact it average annual output is 397,000 MW hours. Maybe you should compare apples to apples too.

From transalta website:
"Brazeau
The Brazeau Plant is TransAlta’s largest hydro plant. It is one of two TransAlta hydro plants on the North Saskatchewan River System in Alberta. It generates an average of 397,000 megawatt hours.

TransAlta’s hydroelectric plants primarily provide electricity during periods of peak electrical demand and ensure system stability.

[chuckChuck]

Considering the good news that Chuck keep presenting on the energy storage front, I assume we will be seeing all renewable energy projects bidding dispatchable power available 24/7 on demand. At a cost cheaper than the fossil fuel.
I wonder what the hold up is? If this method is so cheap( as Chuck's article claims), why doesn't every solar facility install enough of these to put fossil fuels out of business?

I thought you said that you would support renewables if some storage became available and the price came down? Both conditions are here. But don't expect immediate and rapid adoption.

And I have no idea whether the claims made by Energy Vault are true. But the idea that we will never figure out how to store renewable energy on a large scale is going to change.

Charging EVs is just one of the storage options that is already available. Unlike the chronic naysayers, batteries don't care where their electricity supply comes from.

But it seems as if the glass half full crowd on agrisilly can't even accept that intermittent solar works quite well. Several energy cost studies show that wind and solar are some of the lowest cost utility scale generation sources available in many places in the world.

[fjlip]

How much surcharge should EV's pay as road tax? Wickedly subsidized if they don't.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I thought you said that you would support renewables if some storage became available and the price came down? Both conditions are here. But don't expect immediate and rapid adoption.

Since both conditions are here now, you must be in favour of leveling the playing field then. There is no longer any impediment to renewable sources providing dispatchable reliable energy, on demand.
The regulators need to immediately remove any regulations that allow certain generation sources to not provide dispatchable electricity. All must now bid the same way. Yet when I checked the AESO website today, the total dispatchable Contingency Reserve for wind and solar is still a grand total of zero.

Will you be lobbying for the rules to change now that economics dictate there is no reason to have such a one sided bidding process. The same would of course apply to grid tied solar such as yours. You have no reason not to install storage and take full advantage of the higher prices offered during peak demand times.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Another question AF5. Why do you not also look at the efficiency/capacity/output of Brazeau output as you do for solar.
TransAlta’s hydroelectric plants primarily provide electricity during periods of peak electrical demand and ensure system stability.

You answered my question in your own post. I bolded it for you.
There is no apples to apples. As we have been showing, renewables primarily provide electricity during periods of peak electrical SUPPLY, and low electrical DEMAND, to ensure grid INstability. So the dam and most fossil fuel plants are running at lower capacity factors because of solar and wind. They are being used as the storage. The under used capacity is artificial, to ensure system stability.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5, You are right, I should not have called it farm land but rather agricultural land. I find it interesting that agricultural land used for pasture and grazing such as where the Lomond solar farm you consider lost due to a solar installation, but flooding of agricultural land in the Peace River valley that has been used for both farming and grazing you do not feel should be considered. Great spin.

I only used Brazeau as an example that land used for agricultural purposes including raising livestock is lost just as land is lost due to solar installations because someone mentioned Brazeau. There are lots of examples where actual farm land has been displaced, especially in southern Alberta because of the construction of dams.

You bring up a good point about dams in southern Alberta. A few acres of borderline desert are lost to flooding in the dams, and millons of acres of former almost desert has been converted into some of the most productive land anywhere thanks to the irrigation provided by the dams. Electricity generation is a bonus, not the purpose.

The land at Brazeau was not grazing land, it is 25 km away from the closest grazing land. It was swamp and bush. Check google earth, or go for a drive.

And all of the farming and grazing land to be flooded by site C, only exists thanks to the previously construted dam that stopped it from being flooded constantly. Even though that dam created a reservoir 20 times larger than site C. Should we tear it down under the same logic?

[tweety]

Sure doesnt take chuck long to come in and defend insanity.

Hmm, I wonder if there was a way to store water for power. What about a hydro dam? Nah, how about a man made tower that holds 0.00000000001% of the water a dam would. Yes.

A water tower is a dam. Same as their 8MW brick towers. And lake to lake storage systems. Your little Sk brain can't understand that. A tiny country that generates twice the hydro power of SK, and has been doing water storage generation since 1890 might know what they are doing.

https://www.ge.com/news/reports/how-the-swiss-turned-an-alpine-peak-into-a-battery-the-size-of-a-nuclear-plant https://www.ge.com/news/reports/how-the-swiss-turned-an-alpine-peak-into-a-battery-the-size-of-a-nuclear-plant

[AlbertaFarmer5]

A water tower is a dam. Same as their 8MW brick towers. And lake to lake storage systems. Your little Sk brain can't understand that. A tiny country that generates twice the hydro power of SK, and has been doing water storage generation since 1890 might know what they are doing.

https://www.ge.com/news/reports/how-the-swiss-turned-an-alpine-peak-into-a-battery-the-size-of-a-nuclear-plant https://www.ge.com/news/reports/how-the-swiss-turned-an-alpine-peak-into-a-battery-the-size-of-a-nuclear-plant

Exactly. Switzerland is ideally suited to pumped hydro storage. A quote right from the article.

It’s the only grid-scale method of storing energy

So why would they be resorting to a mechanical machine when nature provides them with the almost ready made solution? The CBC article referenced at the beginning of the thread is a crane for lifting and lowering weights for energy storage. Water has an 80% round trip efficiency, how could this machine improve upon that when a full life cycle is considered?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5, You are right, I should not have called it farm land but rather agricultural land. I find it interesting that agricultural land used for pasture and grazing such as where the Lomond solar farm you consider lost due to a solar installation, but flooding of agricultural land in the Peace River valley that has been used for both farming and grazing you do not feel should be considered. Great spin.

You really should keep track of who you are arguing with. I said nothing about Lomond or the land lost to solar. I didn't spin anything. I just called our your blatant BS about dams. I thought you were in favour of calling out BS, but when I do it, it is "spin"?

[burnt]

You really should keep track of who you are arguing with. I said nothing about Lomondor the land lost to solar. I didn't spin anything. I just called our your blatant BS about dams. I thought you were in favour of calling out BS, but when I do it, it is "spin"?

.....