Welcome to the web version of Need to Know: Science & Insight, a new form of personal journalism that looks at what we Need-to-Know at this time of pandemic, existential crisis of climate change and unravelling of nature’s life supports. Learn more.
I'm a retired water engineer and pumped storage for electricity generation has been around for about a century. During that time it was used to help even out daytime and night-time electricity demands so that power stations could run more efficiently on a steady output. In the UK there are a few big schemes (Dinorwic in Wales, Falls of Cruachan in Scotland are fabulous examples). However, there are obvious limits! No good expecting to use it in flat territory - you need mountainous country to make the technique feasible and the suitable siting of a large enough elevated reservoir will often be difficult to find, never mind the construction costs. Such mountainous regions also tend to be located well away from population centres, so you've got the two way transmission costs. Using it to overcome the intermittency of renewables suffers these same limitations. Large wind farms are best sited offshore and large scale solar needs flat territory, so there will be few places in the world where renewables and pumped storage can be located alongside each other.
It sounds very impressive, but as the disclaimer states:
“Disclaimer: None of the sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is not known whether any particular site would be suitable. The commercial feasibility of developing these sites is unknown. As with all major engineering projects, diligent attention to quality assurance would be required for safety and efficacy. There has been no investigation of land tenure apart from exclusion of some environmental areas and urban areas, and no discussions with land owners and managers. Nothing in this list of potential site locations implies any rights for development of these locations.”
As someone who has worked on the engineering of the two largest water supply reservoirs in the UK (Rutland Water in Leicestershire and Kielder in Northumberland – which is also the largest in western Europe), the two most crucial items in the list are geology and environmental. Dams have to be constructed on suitable foundations and the water they impound must not be able to leak away. Fairly obvious, but geology rules out most sites that look OK on initial investigation. Once you find a good site, you then have to convince the authorities to allow you construct the reservoir, and that’s when every environmentalist in the nation will try to stop you. The Roadford Scheme in south west England took 25 years to get through the promotion stages before construction could start. The Kielder Scheme started promotion in the mid-1960s and was finally completed in 1982 having undergone two public inquiries several years apart.
Ontario gets 96% of its electricity from emissions free sources, has used no coal in generation since 2014 and has electricity prices of about 10 cents per kWh. I would say that is far better than Germany.
Yes when it comes to electricity that's true but not transport & heating emissions. Ontario's total emissions were 163Mt in 2019. Ontario per cap emissions 12 tons; Germany 9.5 So, still work to do in Ontario to catch up ;]
I'm a retired water engineer and pumped storage for electricity generation has been around for about a century. During that time it was used to help even out daytime and night-time electricity demands so that power stations could run more efficiently on a steady output. In the UK there are a few big schemes (Dinorwic in Wales, Falls of Cruachan in Scotland are fabulous examples). However, there are obvious limits! No good expecting to use it in flat territory - you need mountainous country to make the technique feasible and the suitable siting of a large enough elevated reservoir will often be difficult to find, never mind the construction costs. Such mountainous regions also tend to be located well away from population centres, so you've got the two way transmission costs. Using it to overcome the intermittency of renewables suffers these same limitations. Large wind farms are best sited offshore and large scale solar needs flat territory, so there will be few places in the world where renewables and pumped storage can be located alongside each other.
Thanks for your note -- You make good points. As it happens a recent study looked at the pumped hydro potential world-wide and found 530,000 sites https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/anu-finds-530000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-worldwide and it found enough to support low-cost, secure, 100 per cent renewable electricity grid.
It sounds very impressive, but as the disclaimer states:
“Disclaimer: None of the sites discussed in this study have been the subject of geological, hydrological, environmental, heritage and other studies, and it is not known whether any particular site would be suitable. The commercial feasibility of developing these sites is unknown. As with all major engineering projects, diligent attention to quality assurance would be required for safety and efficacy. There has been no investigation of land tenure apart from exclusion of some environmental areas and urban areas, and no discussions with land owners and managers. Nothing in this list of potential site locations implies any rights for development of these locations.”
As someone who has worked on the engineering of the two largest water supply reservoirs in the UK (Rutland Water in Leicestershire and Kielder in Northumberland – which is also the largest in western Europe), the two most crucial items in the list are geology and environmental. Dams have to be constructed on suitable foundations and the water they impound must not be able to leak away. Fairly obvious, but geology rules out most sites that look OK on initial investigation. Once you find a good site, you then have to convince the authorities to allow you construct the reservoir, and that’s when every environmentalist in the nation will try to stop you. The Roadford Scheme in south west England took 25 years to get through the promotion stages before construction could start. The Kielder Scheme started promotion in the mid-1960s and was finally completed in 1982 having undergone two public inquiries several years apart.
And yet Ontario is doing far better than Germany in reducing emissions.
Hi Rod -- not sure that's the case. Ontario reduced emissions 21% since 2005; Germany about the same from 1000Mt to 810 in 2019 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/indicator-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Ontario gets 96% of its electricity from emissions free sources, has used no coal in generation since 2014 and has electricity prices of about 10 cents per kWh. I would say that is far better than Germany.
Yes when it comes to electricity that's true but not transport & heating emissions. Ontario's total emissions were 163Mt in 2019. Ontario per cap emissions 12 tons; Germany 9.5 So, still work to do in Ontario to catch up ;]