Nice backpedal, blaming other for your not reading or knowing anything about what you are attacking. What part of 2GW, 240-350GWh says diurnal to you, can you not divide?
The part where I'm responding to a commenter talking about a storage system that "turns non-disparchable [sic] power into dispatchable." Cyclical storage could effectively turn solar power into dispatchable power. If you have enough storage to store half the solar energy you generate and release it at night you've effectively turned solar energy into a dispatchable source. Seasonal storage does not do this. So it's pretty clear that this [1] comment is talking about cyclical power.
The word is diurnal storage, and it provides this for the same 2 GW it provides week long storage for.
It can diurnally cycle around 7% of australia's electricity production, it can provide several days power (about 5) at times when the dams are slightly lower (ie. The only time it is needed) and has the capability to provide a week of power (at the same 7%) if circumstances are not par for the course. It can regenerate any water it needs to expel in such a situation in a few weeks using Tumut 2's regular output. Only in conditions of severe drought does its capacity stay down at the 240GWh range.
Anyone with the ability to use arithmetic and basic logic can infer this from the diagram you linked.
Also there is plenty of precedent for something called a battery where using the full nameplate capacity has a high cost and is not easily reversible. It's called a lead acid battery and was one of the most common chemistries for the better part of a century
> It can regenerate any water it needs to expel in such a situation in a few weeks using Tumut 2's regular output.
But it regenerates this very slowly. It'd take over a month to recharge. Again, you can't compare a pumped storage reservoir with a precipitation-based reservoir (aka a dam). With the former you put energy in and energy is stored. With the latter you just have to wait for the rains to fall. This is not useful for cyclical, or as you insist we word it, diurnal storage. Anyone with a solid grasp of logic can see that, too.
> Also there is plenty of precedent for something called a battery where using the full nameplate capacity has a high cost and is not easily reversible. It's called a lead acid battery and was one of the most common chemistries for the better part of a century
Lead acid batteries only last ~300 cycles so you'd have to replace them every year if used for cyclical storage. This is why lithium based battery chemistries are used.
> But it regenerates this very slowly. It'd take over a month to recharge. Again, you can't compare a pumped storage reservoir with a precipitation-based reservoir (aka a dam). With the former you put energy in and energy is stored. With the latter you just have to wait for the rains to fall. This is not useful for cyclical, or as you insist we word it, diurnal storage. Anyone with a solid grasp of logic can see that, too.
The refill comes from tumut 2. And again, it's a 2GW storage that provides diurnal, five day, and seasonal. Do try to comprehend basic concepts like 'water that goes through a dam goes to the lower reservoir'.
> Lead acid batteries only last ~300 cycles so you'd have to replace them every year if used for cyclical storage. This is why lithium based battery chemistries are used.
This doesn't matter. It's called a battery and you can't typically use nameplate capacity. It's exactly the thing you keep acting outraged about. It's also probably the thing most associated with the word battery other than single use cells.
> The refill comes from tumut 2. And again, it's a 2GW storage that provides diurnal, five day, and seasonal. Do try to comprehend basic concepts like 'water that goes through a dam goes to the lower reservoir'
And for the fourth time, this water is from precipitation. You can't supply electricity to it and pump more water. It's not storage in the sense that you can supply it with a GWh of electricity and later tap the energy you put into it. You're literally saying every single dam is a "pumped storage" facility even if there's no way to pump water into the upper reservoir. Do try to comprehend the difference between pumped storage and a dam.
> This doesn't matter. It's called a battery and you can't typically use nameplate capacity. It's exactly the thing you keep acting outraged about. It's also probably the thing most associated with the word battery other than single use cells.
If you're not running them at full depth of discharge then you're cutting down your usable storage capacity. If you're running 1 GWh of batteries but you're only going to 50% depth of discharge to extend longevity then you've really only provisioned 500 MWh of storage.
> If you're not running them at full depth of discharge then you're cutting down your usable storage capacity. If you're running 1 GWh of batteries but you're only going to 50% depth of discharge to extend longevity then you've really only provisioned 500 MWh of storage.
But they're sold and advertised based on the emount of energy they can dispense when full. Once you use that much energy you can never store that much again. And everyone is fine with this. Snowy 2 is less limited than this.
> And for the fourth time, this water is from precipitation. You can't supply electricity to it and pump more water. It's not storage in the sense that you can supply it with a GWh of electricity and later tap the energy you put into it. You're literally saying every single dam is a "pumped storage" facility even if there's no way to pump water into the upper reservoir. Do try to comprehend the difference between pumped storage and a dam.
Every single dam is storage. It's why so many were built in the nuclear boom. The 40GWh can be cycled any time, the 240GW can be cycled at any point it is needed in any real scenario (ie. When water levels are not at max and tumut 3 is also using its storage in the same direction). The rest is recharged by curtailing normal hydroelectric flow later (by putting renewable energy into the grid) on seasonal timescales. The system needs to dispense a certain amount of water anyway so the full 350 is available cosistently on a seasonal basis. You may have a point if you were asserting calling it 350 rather than 240 was a bit misleading without further context and caveats (ie. Only once or twice a year and only for that 'week long renewable drought' so beloved of stans of generation technologies that go offline for weeks unexpectedly like coal), but you weren't. Instead you were yelling that it was 40.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33636358