[cogman10]

It's not just nepa. Citizens really don't like pumped hydro which negatively impacts it's ability to be deployed (you need local permits as well as federal).

Bear lake Idaho has been talking about putting in pumped storage since the 2000s. On paper, it's pretty much the perfect geography for it. However, various concerns from the impact on local fishing to the impacts on the lakebed have ground that process to a halt. It's a 20+ year project that's gone nowhere.

That's why I'm largely negative on pumped hydro. On paper it seems nice, in practice it's almost impossible to get off the ground. Batteries, on the other hand, take almost no effort to install.

[theptip]

Yep, agreed. We probably need new chemistries to get the seasonal storage potential of pumped hydro. But I’m quite bullish on batteries in general, it seems while folks have been gnashing teeth on how expensive they are, a substantial proportion of renewables installs in the US include 4-6H of battery capacity, which at least substantially helps with the duck curve.

[cogman10]

> We probably need new chemistries to get the seasonal storage potential of pumped hydro.

Yup. It might be possible to overbuild solar/wind to solve the problem (just need enough juice to offset the night). Won't be possible with current chemistries to have enough power to cover cloudy days or snow-covered solar panels.

> it seems while folks have been gnashing teeth on how expensive they are

This to me seems like a fixed perception based on outdated information. Batteries were quite expensive and required loads of rare earth/horrible chemicals to produce... 30 years ago when NiCd was fairly prominent. Now they are dirt cheap and due to get even cheaper with sodium ion coming to market. We are already manufacturing TWh of batteries yearly. Enough that we could theoretically have a full day backup everywhere in 10 to 20 years without any growth in manufacturing capacity.