[dredmorbius]

Doesn't scale. Not enough sites.

Mind, where it does work, it's phenomenally effective, efficient, and responsive.

There are a few sites at which seawater-based systems might be possible, in which the ocean forms the "lower reservoir". These are dependent on suitable terrain. Matching terrain to consumption patterns is difficult: the Netherlands and much of Britain are sorely lacking. Some of the best potential sites are along the Balkan coast in Serbia and Croatia. Chile's Atacama Desert, along the Pacific coastline, is nearly ideal geographically, but is far from most use (North America, Europe, Asia). Portions of the US West Coast might be suitable, though would all but certainly face major political resistance for environmental impacts.

And: working with seawater is complex from an engineering standpoint: it's corrosive and sea life has a pronounced tendency to foul large-scale water-handling systems, though this may be tractable. There've been several pilot projects, though those have since been decomissioned, excepting Rance in France, designed as a tidal power plant, though capable of working as a pumped-hydro facility.

[keanzu]

> Doesn't scale. Not enough sites.

Terrible energy density, massive land use.

To store the energy contained in 1 gallon of gasoline requires over 55,000 gallons to be pumped up 726 feet (CCST 2012). [1]

Itaipu Dam has 14,000 MW installed power, 1,350 square kilometres (520 sq mi) were flooded. [2]

[1] http://energyskeptic.com/2015/hydropower-has-a-very-low-ener...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam

[dredmorbius]

Itaipu (or comparable impoundages such as Three Gorges) provide both capacity, indicated as installed GWe of generating capability, a measure of power, and storage, indicated as GWH of energy generation. These are equivalent to the capabilities of an automobile's engine (power) and fuel tank (storage).

Hydroelectric projects also virtually always provide additional services such as flood control, irrigation water, recreation, and waterways management (ensuring water flows, etc.), which also account for design elements including scale, etc.

Pumped hydro should provide a sufficient level of both capacity and storage, though in general the storage requirements are far smaller than traditional hydroelectric dams aimed at generation. There are quite small pumped hydro facilities, the compensation being that water levels can rise or fall considerably, often many metres in a single day's storage/generation cycle.

Gravity is in general a weak force, but water is relatively massive, largely non-toxic, and can be utilised through large-scale pump-generator units (~800 MW per generator IIRC), which is a scale few other options can match. Again, on balance, pumped hydro is a good solution, there's just not enough of it to go around.

[nerpderp82]

Pumped hydro is 70-80% efficient at storing energy. [1]

Converting to sensible units gives

mass = 55e3 * 3.79kg/gallon ~ 208450kg

height = 221 meters

mass * height * 9.8m/s^2 ~ 452043210 joules (watt-seconds)

or 125KwH, 70% of that is 87KwH. What does gasoline have to do with energy storage on the grid? Furthermore, a gallon of gas has 33KwH [2].

What does the Itaipu Dam's installed power have to do with stored energy?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

[keanzu]

> What does the Itaipu Dam's installed power have to do with stored energy?

Nothing. Was there something to suggest otherwise? I listed two weak points for hydro: Terrible energy density, massive land use.

My first reference supported the first point and my second reference addressed the second point. Land use: 1,350 square kilometres were flooded. The installed power was to give context of how big the plant is.

[dredmorbius]

Again: the size is incidental to that specific dam. Pumped hydro facilities can be vastly smaller.

Ffestiniog Power Station in the UK is on the order of 1 hectare (1/100 km^2) in area (based on 170,000 m^3 storage and a 34m dam height). It's a modest and early pumped-hydro facility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station

Bath County Pumped Storage in the US has an upper reservoir of 107 and a lower of 226 hectares respectively, or 1 km^2 and 2 km^2, roughly. It is the largest in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...

There is no reason for a purely pumped-hydro facility to be anywhere remotely near the size of Itaipu. Which is not in fact a pumped hydroelectric storage facility, but a hydroelectric generating station with no pumped-hydro storage capabilities or functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam

A red herring.

[keanzu]

You are reading words that aren't there. The top level comment this thread started with is:

>You couldn't be more Dam wrong.

I am talking about dams, not pumped storage.

[dredmorbius]

And that comment responded to "Energy storage isn't really feasible".

And was followed up, by the same author, with another post specifically about pumped storage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21479576

That we're still discussing this over 24 hours later may strike someone as amusing, but the jokes gone rather stale.

Cheers.

[nerpderp82]

Does it have to scale? What does scaling mean? Could the existing 2400 dams in the United States be used for PSH? [1]

How many sites do we need? Why would the Netherlands need pumped hydro, isn't the European grid interconnected?

See my comment below.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/04/f51/Hydropow...

[dredmorbius]

I'm going to suggest you think through what I've written, the general problem of power grids, generation, and storage, energy uses, and consequences of power outages. The answer may reveal itself to you.

Likewise, you seem to have failed to grasp what I'd hoped would be a rather evident reason for mentioning the Netherlands in the context of pumped hydro and terrain.