Carbon offsetting [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
Printable View
Carbon offsetting [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
I read there is a proposal coming for a pumped hydro scheme for SA, but haven't seen any details. Basically, you just pump the water up a hill, then let it flow down to spin the turbines, then pump the same water back up again and so on in a closed system, so just need a lake and a hill. I assume it generates more than it consumes. Might be interesting.
Would be interesting if it did, but no. It can't generate more than it consumes. Just a means of storing surplus energy for a time when there is a deficient of energy - conversion of potential gravitational energy to mechanical energy and finally electrical energy. Always losses with every stage of energy conversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
not quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
if i understand it correctly, its like a big battery.
for example, you fill it up during the day when there is excess solar and wind.
and at night, (when there is no sun) use it and "drain the battery" to produce electricity.
Thanks. I don't know anything about pumped hydro, so I must do some reading.
EDT: Started reading. Very interesting. Basically, the stored water is like a big battery to be released when required to balance the system.
I see the latest schemes use solar to power the pumps, which sounds smart. I assume SA's wind could also power them. They can also run on seawater.
Interesting
Pumped hydro's efficiency is about how much energy is wasted on friction as the water is moved up and down the big pipes. The most efficient pumped hydro systems apparently run at up to 80% efficiency, ie you put in 10MWh of electricity to get out 8MWh. Clearly it's best to keep the pipes as short as possible so ideal pumped hydro reservoirs are separated by very steep slopes.
In SA the first contender for pumped storage seems to be at Cultana at the head of Spencer Gulf near Port Augusta. The sea is the lower pond and the storage would reside on the adjacent escarpment. The height differential is around 300 metres and because it's on an army base no public facilities would be in the way if a dam or pipe burst. There's no sign of any agriculture nearby so little chance of salt water leakage damaging valuable farming land.
There aren't too many places in SA with high sea facing cliffs and no agriculture. Sellicks Hill is one of the few places where height and good adjacent power infrastructure might make it attractive, also there is no road along the coast at that point. There is one spot that might be worth looking at where fresh water could be used, and that's adjacent to Kangaroo Creek reservoir. Behind the reservoir is a ridge high enough to provide sufficient altitude difference for storage to be viable. Can't see it happening though.
Snowy Hydro expansion won't be 'magical' solution to power problems, experts say - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
the PM's sudden interest in renewables is just to make the public happy.
He is making it sound like it he has been aware been of the Snowy idea for ages but wrong!!!!.
His offered contribution is only there if no one else wants to pick up the tab.
It will not get done for $200 million, won't get near it.
The concept being presented by Snowy Hydro is 100yrs old in world terms and has been used throughout Europe for ages.
Now that everyone is interested look up the proposal being presented in Queensland for solar/hydro power, and look at something new.
This can be done in any deep mine in South Australia...solve a lot of problems cheaply.
Snowy Hydro spokesman: 'We've been dusting off these old plans for years."
I note the plan is to use coal-fired electricity to power the pumps to lift the water, so that's not progress towards renewables. It is only 80 percent efficient too, so 20 percent is lost.
Why wouldn't they use wind and solar to power the pumps to lift the water so it can then spin the generators?
Thanks Eevo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
This has been discussed many pages ago in the same thread.
Yes it is like a big battery, yes it has been done for yonks in the US but also to some extent here in the Snowy from memory.
It is a brilliant political proposal because (if constructed) will:
Enable storage of excess renewable energy.
Enable coal fired generation to operate at max efficiency, and excess energy off peak to be stored. i.e. lower base load costs.
It could be the catalyst to get the religious coal haters to agree to one or two efficient modern coal fired stations to take up the slack until the renewable sector (and the grid) can demonstrably provide what is needed in the medium to long term, affordable and reliable supply.
Gas is never going to be a long term solution for major electricity generation. Its value lies elsewhere.
It's about time that people and political parties start working together to deliver outcomes that will benefit the greater 'all' in this country.
cheers, DL
i believe 60-80% of south america used this method and it works well for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by 350RRC