It seems obvious that the great glen with Lock Ness and Lock Lochy is an ideal region for pumped storage. There are high hills north and south of the glen and the volume of Lough Ness is massive. The construction of reservoirs will be expensive and you will need specific topography and stable rock strata. High voltage dc power lines will be needed to conduct the power to where it is needed. If you want to rely on wind and solar you need pumped storage and nuclear.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 why is pumped hydro so much more costly? The big pumped storage station in Wales has been running since the early 1980s In That time dungeness B has come and gone.
I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation. The lady certainly knows the subject inside out. Her passion was infectious. There were times however I wasn't sure what language was being spoken. The jargon was confusing and off putting. The TLA'S, Three Letter Abbreviations, were everywhere. Cap and floor was popular, Capex, Devex also. So much was spoken, to me the amateur viewer, which went over my head. I thought the comments at the end resolved some of my confusion. Thank you.
Unfortunately it’s just a complicated field, if someone stopped to explain every term this would have gone on for hours. My suggestion - get the transcript, paste it into chatgpt.
Flow batteries can provide 6-10 hour storage and the Oxford Energy Super hub uses them in conjunction with lithium ion batteries to give grid stabilisation alongside energy storage. 40 MWh of Invinity Energy flow batteries have been seleced as one of six technologies by the government for the LoDES (long duration energy storage) Stream 1 demonstration project.
(1)These pumped storage systems in the past backed up Nuclear and coal, nuclear can not be turned off. Going forward they will be required to back up wind. Bearing in mind that when the wind speed doubles the o/p power from wind turbines trebles .My question to Kate is ,would a variable pump speed generator be a better solution? If the the wind blows harder then the PSU pumps harder and reservoirs fill faster. (2)The upper lakes can suffer from evaporation(although in the British climate this is often replenished).By putting floating solar on the reservoirs evaporation could be reduced substantially. Other advantages would be improved power density, reduced wave height. You could also look at sealing the reservoir to reduce water leakage. The goal, brining energy efficiency above 90%. and eliminating the need for curtailment on the grid.
Co-location with hydrogen generation and batteries would be ways to burnish the bottom line. Hybrid business plans can be marked differences in profit streams.
Hydrogen gen in Scotland makes sense if they can get lower prices for the location… which is currently limited by a national price Not sure if I see the co-locate with PH; but in the same geography, yes.
I’ve not seen that - one of the new PH sites is an old coal mine though in Scotland. The other option for old mines is gravitational but it’s at an early technology readiness level as it isn’t commercially viable yet
With a few niche exceptions, long duration storage, as related to pumped Hydro, basically means up to a day or two of generation and cycled reasonably frequently to recoup capital investment. In terms of storage capacity it is likely that we would need the equivalent of something in the region of 5,000 Dinorwig facilities (~1.8GW/9GWh) to meet the expected energy storage requirement by 2050. PHS will be neither technically nor economically viable for this scale of storage.
Haven’t had a nuclear expert on - will look into it, thanks Think there’s is a limited role for nuclear on transmission grids, France for example continues to power UK for much of the year with their excess
Yes look at germany they have soo cheap power👍 and the nordic and france are not help there grid. And they are soo good for the climate not started coal plant. You have to look at death per kwh. Coal is not cause canser and not radioactive.
@@EdPorterModo There is no excess, they can provide cheaper than the oil and gas and coal power in the UK and certainly much cheaper than the new Hinkley Point C
Pumped hydro storage is the best but limited in where it’s feasible. Possibly the next best, I suggest, is combining green hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen to make ammonia, Amonia provides a cheap easy way to transport and store hydrogen. Hydrogen can be separated from the nitrogen of the amonia using fuel cells and then used as a clean combustible fuel. I need to do some research to find out the overall efficiency of this energy storage method.
Ammonia is a complete bastard to deal with: toxicity and corrosiveness make sure the safety procedures will be expensive and prone to costly human errors. Read Paul Martin from Spitfire Consulting on it, he's a venerable chemical engineer and has looked into it carefully. As for PHS, the limits of its feasibility have probably been exaggerated: look up Australian National University's study, they now have a global atlas with various durations.
Here in New Zealand, we are considering a giant pumped hydro scheme. 5 TWhr of storage to help solve our "dry year" problem that occurs every 5-10 years which greatly reduces our existing hydro output causing increased coal burning and 10-50 fold increase in spot prices . The lower lake is in fact a river (our largest by flow rate) and low cost electricity would be used, as and when available, to pump 800m uphill to a natural basin in the hills. Unfortunately, our new "right wing" government has canned further work on the project due to pressure from the existing generator companies(half state owned) that make a fortune when the dry year occurs.
It's always the same in this country no one will build anything unless they are guaranteed a high return to cover the costs in say 5 to 10 years these last for a long time how about long term economics, With fixed price contracts for the build, with exemptions like the oil crisis etc.
The amount of storage capcity to offset renewables' intermittency is not at all feasible, the required capacity is so large in the order of thousands of gigawatt hours. Storage is useful and does valuable work, but just to assist in grid stability requires a capacity that is only required because of the second and third rate generators we have connected to our grid, wind and solar respectively. In other words the expensive, contrary to government's claim, renewables require even more money from the electricity bills to try and keep the grid stable, when is this going to end? Even then we cannot say we will have a reliable grid as weather is so variable. Government policy on energy has been dreadful for decades and bring us to the current fragile grid we have now. They say renewables are more reliable and secure because we do not rely on foreign countries for our fuel or power yet expand interconnectors! And we are sitting on vast amounts of shale gas and the government do all they can to stifle the existing North sea operations, is there any logic whatsoever? Coal capacity has declined purely because of government policy but subsidies are paid for bio fuel which even emits more CO2 per Mwatt hour than even coal, and they call that green. Fuel from logging in the Americas, further processing and transport and they think that doesn't count? Coal is one of the best and most economical ways of generating electrcity. All this because of the unproven hypothesis that CO2 is altering our weather. Indeed humanity during history prospered when the climate was warm and declined during the cold spells.
Pumped hydro needs 40% more electricity to pump the water upto the top, than is can generate. Grid owners charge for transmitted electricity energy at upto 10 times the generation costs. Then charges to transmit the electricity energy away from the pumped hydro. My feed-in 5cents kWh vs my 50cents kWh grid supply. Grids are valued in the $TRILLIONS. Grid cashflow is in the $100sBILLIONS. Generation is in the $10sBILLIONS. But obviously grid economics is part of every commentators expertise. Happy days 😊😊😊😊😊😊
Unlike chemical batteries.Mechanical batteries can hold energy for more than a year.And the capacity does not decrease during cold or hot Temperature . So it's more reliable
Round trip efficiency of pumped hydro storage is about 75%, so it takes about 33% surplus energy above what can be recovered, not 40%. The cost of pumped hydro is about 25% of the cost of electrical battery energy storage, and can last for 50 or 60 years, whereas a battery will last for what, 15-20 years at most. Also, there is a round trip efficiency of charging and discharging batteries, which I doubt is any better than 80%
@@brendanpells912 Battery prices are still dropping now in China Cheapest BESS systems are $62/kwh. Average $68/kWh. And unlike hydro pumps, Chemical batteries can be increased number without limited by location. And topography. Chemical battery production is also faster to Build And can be place anywhere.Including in flat countries such as the Netherlands and island countries as malta /fiji.
As i have said before on this sight the gov departments were informed of the proof of concept test 2016 for a multi turbine hall system yet bsa and most others are disinterested in using this system. why i cant say but the education of the bosses seams to get in the way their told to use my system will make issues to the turbine hall this is not correct
34:00 Now she is in lala-land! Batteries are so cheap, they will provide all the energy storage needed on every level, from the tiny earpiece to the scale of nuclear powerplants...
Think batteries will dominate everything up to 10 hours, think there’s a case for PH if you have hills, an inertia need and have system need for say 30 hours of duration
As Kate repetitively said, we need a lot of everything if we're going to decarbonise our complex grid. I agree. In terms of timescales, Hydro schemes operate for +100 years vs different Battery chemistries that currently last between 5 and 30 years vs Nuclear lasting say 60 years. If you take a long term view, Batteries and Nuclear come with a multiplier. In terms of deployment, Hydro's could be operational in 1 - 5 years (depending on their size) v Battery storage with similar or shorter timeframes (depending on supply) v Hinkley Point C at 17-18 years. Nuclear has another multiplier. Batteries store power, Nuclear generates power, Hydro has the capability of doing both. We also have environmental impact assessments, scaleability issues, affordability, operational constraints, decommissioning etc etc etc. to consider. It'd be great if there was a simple solution to this huge problem, but there isn't. I'm agnostic to workable solutions. But they do need to work and be scaleable within the timeframe we have for our rapidly dwindling carbon budget. And let's not forget, time is not on our side.
@@mikeKirwin No, you don't understand how the grid works. Batteries don't just store power, they also provide power to stabilise and expand the grid in it's ability. Batteries in a grid act like power plant. I don't have the numbers for the UK, but for Germany, which is twice the size and has no nuclear anymore: Germany now has applications to plug into the grid over 100x the current battery capacity. That's enough to power over 125 million homes. Germany only has 45 million homes. The Chinese produce batteries where over 98% of all delivered raw materials go into the shipped battery. Northvolt (T junk managers) couldn't get over 60% and went bankrupt. Just another play to rip off tax payer money! Do the math: Currently installed in Germany is 1.7GW. Applied for 160GW this year alone. Total need to move the entire grid to renewables is about 500GW now and more later on for all the EVs and other usage. A single 20 foot container from CATL, LGChem, etc, with grid connection ready battery holds 5MW power. A single large container ship can hold 16000 40 foot containers, or 32000 20 foot containers. That means to install 500GW power in Germany, we only need 4 container ships full of these batteries from China, job done! The costs: All these batteries for current costs are about 100 billion. That sounds like much, but the estimated costs for enhancing the grid, which is mostly not necessary anymore was estimated to be over 700 billion. Once the dust settles and it becomes clear to all actors, nobody touches anything else but "Wind+Solar+Battery+UHV" because it is cheaper than anything else!
@@cyberslim7955 You make some interesting observations but I think you make this sound far easier than it is. How long do you think it would take China to manufacture and export 4 x container ships full of nothing other than batteries to install and bring online just in Germany? And then the rest of the world??? How big would the capacity need to be to get your country through a becalmed three weeks in the middle of winter??? To be clear, I think we need all the wind, solar and batteries as possible. But would this be enough? Having lived off grid (where we run our own grid) since 2012, with solar PV, micro hydro, battery bank and fire wood, my experience is that switching from fossil fuels to renewables is difficult. Only with a change in lifestyle, energy efficiencies and home renovation have we just about made this possible. But then we don't manufacture anything, we still drive ICE vehicles, cook on LPG and are only self sufficient in maybe 30% of our own food.
@@EdPorterModo batteries will eventually dominate everything to 100 h, why? Price! Why price so cheap? 1 because big mining companies around the world come online with big mining projects. That means prices will keep falling! 2. Chinese manufactures get over 98% raw materials into the shipped battery, that means no waste in an highly automized manufacturing process. 3. Chinese economy currently is standing on it's last leg - the export industry. Every official on every level is focused to expanding it. So rolling overcapacities will keep the price low and the ability to produce whatever raw material they can get. Expert says price long term is $20 per kWh for current manufacturers to stay in the business! You guys should do the math. If you need 500GW of battery, you need 100000 20ft containers. This is 4 full container ships and currently would be around 100 billion. That is cheap comparing to the cost of building lots of power lines...
None of her opinion is valid. Why? On vs off grid. On grid 100% RE costs 60 cents/kwh for a house, 90 for super charge. On demand is the problem. RE is NOT on demand. The overbuild for RE is 4x in RE resources (Tony Seba's RE u-curve), and 3.5x for battery (storage). Total ON grid costs are 7.5x more than X, the demand. On grid RE costs 5 c/kwh for resource and 3 for line, for a total of 8 for each part. 8 x 7.5=60. You end up with 4x over capacity to lower the battery costs to get the minimum costs (u-curve), all while having to pay all to not generate with no place to store it all. Off grid electricity is 1.5 cents/kwh, NOT like ON grid at 8 x 7.5 = 60. This is due to no inverters and remote locations that have better RE resources. There are no demand balance issues or line charges OFF grid...key factor. Fuel is 2x the source off grid with DC (no inverters), or 3 cents/kwh with NO line charges. 60/3 = 20 times MORE for ON grid vs Off grid. Game over for EVs...reality. The ideal fuel is Ethanol for many reasons, but all oil fuels, chemicals and plastics will be needed to end oil. New combustion tech will be 75% with combined cycle and 60% efficient at 50% to 100% of torque. Old ICE is 15% (Otto cycle) to 18% (Diesel) on average low loads. Diesels loaded are 35 to 42%. Turbines are 45%. Turbines with combined cycle are 63%. New combustion is 81:1 expansions with 3 stage intercooling, Isochoric combustion, near isothermal compression. All doable. 75% is doable. The CO2 is also captured in the secondary. EVs are a total waste of time and money. They will cost 10 to 30 times more for energy input, and purchase price is 1.5 to 2x more, if not 5x for cars like Lucid. As for CO2, RE fuels are 1% of the CO2 of gasoline. New combustion tech captures CO2 as part of the secondary combined cycle and thus is "free" as it were. It costs 40 cents/gallon to capture the need CO2 for 1 gallon of gasoline if pulled from air. That means nuclear fuel (e-gasoline) can be 6 cents/kwh retail.
I don’t really understand most of what you are saying because I am a bear of little brain but I would say that my 7 yr old EV is charged with my 15 yr old solar panels in the summer and by North Sea wind at night in the winter. How can that be 10 to 30 times more expensive than drilling, shipping, refining, road tankering and then burning at 30 % efficiency with no regenerative brakes? Apart from the cost and carbon considerations what about air quality and energy security without relying on corrupt undemocratic countries like Russia, Venezuelan and Saudi?
@@guygillmore2970 I explained already that Tony Seba from Stanford is the globalists top RE guy. To get to 100% RE requires overbuild of 4 times and battery costing around 3.5 more than a single RE resource. The Cost curve is U shaped where the minimum cost is a combination of widely disbursed RE sources with a certain amount of battery to cover loads. The cost is 7.5 times MORE than what a single RE resource would produce over a year, I call X. Making fuel costs 2x. Grid is 7.5x. 7.5/2=3.75x more for grid with both using inverters. Fuel making does NOT need inverters (DC USED) so the cost factor is 1.33x. 3.75 x 1.33 = 5x more for grid. New solar THERMAL tech will cost 3x less than PV and last 3x longer for a 9x factor. 5 x 9 = 45 times MORE for grid vs fuel making. New combustion tech will make a car 1.5x better MPGe than an EV. 45 x 1.5 = 67.5 times more for Grid based EV vs fuel from stand alone RE per distance. Game over for EVs. Again, RE and nuclear made fuels is the future. Key to getting off oil is making from electricity and CO2: 1) fuel, 2) chemicals, and 3) plastics. EVs just rob cash flow to help end oil. Again, the fastest way OFF oil is via oil and new combustion tech that I am working on. HINT.
Total and utter nonsense! Keep your oil and gas propaganda! Battery prices are down to $60/kWh and falling long term to around $20/kWh this coincides with falling raw material costs with massive mining coming online. The Chinese battery manufacture yield 98% of raw material ending up in the shipped battery, and they are perfecting this even more. Wind+Solar+Battery+UHV is way cheaper than anything else and we will power EVERYTING (except long haul flights) with electricity within the next 10-20 years. Once can see in Hawaii, how Wind+Solar+Battery make electricity cheaper and cheaper. Any country which does not switch fast enough, will not be competitive and run it's economy into the ground.
It seems obvious that the great glen with Lock Ness and Lock Lochy is an ideal region for pumped storage. There are high hills north and south of the glen and the volume of Lough Ness is massive. The construction of reservoirs will be expensive and you will need specific topography and stable rock strata. High voltage dc power lines will be needed to conduct the power to where it is needed. If you want to rely on wind and solar you need pumped storage and nuclear.
Pumped hydro is massively expensive just look at the failed attempts to see it's problems.
But in the right locations it works and works well. Once you have built, it is quite cheap to run.
@@buildmotosykletist1987
@@buildmotosykletist1987but once you have built. It works for decades and it is cheap to run.
@@patdbean : Nope. You are thinking of "Hydro" NOT "Pumped Hydro" which is very maintenance heavy.
@@buildmotosykletist1987 why is pumped hydro so much more costly? The big pumped storage station in Wales has been running since the early 1980s
In That time dungeness B has come and gone.
I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation. The lady certainly knows the subject inside out. Her passion was infectious. There were times however I wasn't sure what language was being spoken. The jargon was confusing and off putting. The TLA'S, Three Letter Abbreviations, were everywhere. Cap and floor was popular, Capex, Devex also. So much was spoken, to me the amateur viewer, which went over my head. I thought the comments at the end resolved some of my confusion. Thank you.
Unfortunately it’s just a complicated field, if someone stopped to explain every term this would have gone on for hours.
My suggestion - get the transcript, paste it into chatgpt.
Flow batteries can provide 6-10 hour storage and the Oxford Energy Super hub uses them in conjunction with lithium ion batteries to give grid stabilisation alongside energy storage. 40 MWh of Invinity Energy flow batteries have been seleced as one of six technologies by the government for the LoDES (long duration energy storage) Stream 1 demonstration project.
(1)These pumped storage systems in the past backed up Nuclear and coal, nuclear can not be turned off. Going forward they will be required to back up wind. Bearing in mind that when the wind speed doubles the o/p power from wind turbines trebles .My question to Kate is ,would a variable pump speed generator be a better solution? If the the wind blows harder then the PSU pumps harder and reservoirs fill faster. (2)The upper lakes can suffer from evaporation(although in the British climate this is often replenished).By putting floating solar on the reservoirs evaporation could be reduced substantially. Other advantages would be improved power density, reduced wave height. You could also look at sealing the reservoir to reduce water leakage. The goal, brining energy efficiency above 90%. and eliminating the need for curtailment on the grid.
Co-location with hydrogen generation and batteries would be ways to burnish the bottom line. Hybrid business plans can be marked differences in profit streams.
Hydrogen gen in Scotland makes sense if they can get lower prices for the location… which is currently limited by a national price
Not sure if I see the co-locate with PH; but in the same geography, yes.
Are the recently disused mines in the Selby area being consided for pumped storage hydro schemes?
I’ve not seen that - one of the new PH sites is an old coal mine though in Scotland.
The other option for old mines is gravitational but it’s at an early technology readiness level as it isn’t commercially viable yet
@@EdPorterModo seen that map by Australian National University? Lots of A-grade options, unless you're in Germany 😀
With a few niche exceptions, long duration storage, as related to pumped Hydro, basically means up to a day or two of generation and cycled reasonably frequently to recoup capital investment. In terms of storage capacity it is likely that we would need the equivalent of something in the region of 5,000 Dinorwig facilities (~1.8GW/9GWh) to meet the expected energy storage requirement by 2050. PHS will be neither technically nor economically viable for this scale of storage.
Very insightful discussion!
If you want to make energy cheaper, why are you guys for nuclear power, considering the cost explosion of Hinkley Point C???
Haven’t had a nuclear expert on - will look into it, thanks
Think there’s is a limited role for nuclear on transmission grids, France for example continues to power UK for much of the year with their excess
Yes look at germany they have soo cheap power👍 and the nordic and france are not help there grid. And they are soo good for the climate not started coal plant.
You have to look at death per kwh. Coal is not cause canser and not radioactive.
@@EdPorterModo There is no excess, they can provide cheaper than the oil and gas and coal power in the UK and certainly much cheaper than the new Hinkley Point C
@@lis0028 Coal is incredibly polluting!
Pumped hydro storage is the best but limited in where it’s feasible. Possibly the next best, I suggest, is combining green hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen to make ammonia, Amonia provides a cheap easy way to transport and store hydrogen. Hydrogen can be separated from the nitrogen of the amonia using fuel cells and then used as a clean combustible fuel. I need to do some research to find out the overall efficiency of this energy storage method.
Ammonia is a complete bastard to deal with: toxicity and corrosiveness make sure the safety procedures will be expensive and prone to costly human errors. Read Paul Martin from Spitfire Consulting on it, he's a venerable chemical engineer and has looked into it carefully.
As for PHS, the limits of its feasibility have probably been exaggerated: look up Australian National University's study, they now have a global atlas with various durations.
Here in New Zealand, we are considering a giant pumped hydro scheme. 5 TWhr of storage to help solve our "dry year" problem that occurs every 5-10 years which greatly reduces our existing hydro output causing increased coal burning and 10-50 fold increase in spot prices . The lower lake is in fact a river (our largest by flow rate) and low cost electricity would be used, as and when available, to pump 800m uphill to a natural basin in the hills. Unfortunately, our new "right wing" government has canned further work on the project due to pressure from the existing generator companies(half state owned) that make a fortune when the dry year occurs.
It's always the same in this country no one will build anything unless they are guaranteed a high return to cover the costs in say 5 to 10 years these last for a long time how about long term economics, With fixed price contracts for the build, with exemptions like the oil crisis etc.
The amount of storage capcity to offset renewables' intermittency is not at all feasible, the required capacity is so large in the order of thousands of gigawatt hours.
Storage is useful and does valuable work, but just to assist in grid stability requires a capacity that is only required because of the second and third rate generators we have connected to our grid, wind and solar respectively.
In other words the expensive, contrary to government's claim, renewables require even more money from the electricity bills to try and keep the grid stable, when is this going to end? Even then we cannot say we will have a reliable grid as weather is so variable.
Government policy on energy has been dreadful for decades and bring us to the current fragile grid we have now.
They say renewables are more reliable and secure because we do not rely on foreign countries for our fuel or power yet expand interconnectors!
And we are sitting on vast amounts of shale gas and the government do all they can to stifle the existing North sea operations, is there any logic whatsoever?
Coal capacity has declined purely because of government policy but subsidies are paid for bio fuel which even emits more CO2 per Mwatt hour than even coal, and they call that green. Fuel from logging in the Americas, further processing and transport and they think that doesn't count? Coal is one of the best and most economical ways of generating electrcity.
All this because of the unproven hypothesis that CO2 is altering our weather. Indeed humanity during history prospered when the climate was warm and declined during the cold spells.
Pumped hydro needs 40% more electricity to pump the water upto the top, than is can generate.
Grid owners charge for transmitted electricity energy at upto 10 times the generation costs.
Then charges to transmit the electricity energy away from the pumped hydro.
My feed-in 5cents kWh vs my 50cents kWh grid supply.
Grids are valued in the $TRILLIONS.
Grid cashflow is in the $100sBILLIONS.
Generation is in the $10sBILLIONS.
But obviously grid economics is part of every commentators expertise.
Happy days 😊😊😊😊😊😊
Misleading comment. PHS is 70%~80% effcient
Unlike chemical batteries.Mechanical batteries can hold energy for more than a year.And the capacity does not decrease during cold or hot Temperature . So it's more reliable
Round trip efficiency of pumped hydro storage is about 75%, so it takes about 33% surplus energy above what can be recovered, not 40%. The cost of pumped hydro is about 25% of the cost of electrical battery energy storage, and can last for 50 or 60 years, whereas a battery will last for what, 15-20 years at most. Also, there is a round trip efficiency of charging and discharging batteries, which I doubt is any better than 80%
@@brendanpells912 Battery prices are still dropping now in China Cheapest BESS systems are $62/kwh. Average $68/kWh.
And unlike hydro pumps, Chemical batteries can be increased number without limited by location. And topography.
Chemical battery production is also faster to Build And can be place anywhere.Including in flat countries such as the Netherlands and island countries as malta /fiji.
@brendanpells912 good comment.
As i have said before on this sight the gov departments were informed of the proof of concept test 2016 for a multi turbine hall system yet bsa and most others are disinterested in using this system. why i cant say but the education of the bosses seams to get in the way their told to use my system will make issues to the turbine hall this is not correct
34:00 Now she is in lala-land! Batteries are so cheap, they will provide all the energy storage needed on every level, from the tiny earpiece to the scale of nuclear powerplants...
Think batteries will dominate everything up to 10 hours, think there’s a case for PH if you have hills, an inertia need and have system need for say 30 hours of duration
As Kate repetitively said, we need a lot of everything if we're going to decarbonise our complex grid. I agree.
In terms of timescales, Hydro schemes operate for +100 years vs different Battery chemistries that currently last between 5 and 30 years vs Nuclear lasting say 60 years. If you take a long term view, Batteries and Nuclear come with a multiplier.
In terms of deployment, Hydro's could be operational in 1 - 5 years (depending on their size) v Battery storage with similar or shorter timeframes (depending on supply) v Hinkley Point C at 17-18 years. Nuclear has another multiplier.
Batteries store power, Nuclear generates power, Hydro has the capability of doing both.
We also have environmental impact assessments, scaleability issues, affordability, operational constraints, decommissioning etc etc etc. to consider.
It'd be great if there was a simple solution to this huge problem, but there isn't. I'm agnostic to workable solutions. But they do need to work and be scaleable within the timeframe we have for our rapidly dwindling carbon budget. And let's not forget, time is not on our side.
@@mikeKirwin No, you don't understand how the grid works. Batteries don't just store power, they also provide power to stabilise and expand the grid in it's ability. Batteries in a grid act like power plant.
I don't have the numbers for the UK, but for Germany, which is twice the size and has no nuclear anymore:
Germany now has applications to plug into the grid over 100x the current battery capacity. That's enough to power over 125 million homes. Germany only has 45 million homes.
The Chinese produce batteries where over 98% of all delivered raw materials go into the shipped battery. Northvolt (T junk managers) couldn't get over 60% and went bankrupt. Just another play to rip off tax payer money!
Do the math: Currently installed in Germany is 1.7GW. Applied for 160GW this year alone. Total need to move the entire grid to renewables is about 500GW now and more later on for all the EVs and other usage.
A single 20 foot container from CATL, LGChem, etc, with grid connection ready battery holds 5MW power. A single large container ship can hold 16000 40 foot containers, or 32000 20 foot containers. That means to install 500GW power in Germany, we only need 4 container ships full of these batteries from China, job done!
The costs: All these batteries for current costs are about 100 billion. That sounds like much, but the estimated costs for enhancing the grid, which is mostly not necessary anymore was estimated to be over 700 billion.
Once the dust settles and it becomes clear to all actors, nobody touches anything else but "Wind+Solar+Battery+UHV" because it is cheaper than anything else!
@@cyberslim7955 You make some interesting observations but I think you make this sound far easier than it is. How long do you think it would take China to manufacture and export 4 x container ships full of nothing other than batteries to install and bring online just in Germany? And then the rest of the world??? How big would the capacity need to be to get your country through a becalmed three weeks in the middle of winter???
To be clear, I think we need all the wind, solar and batteries as possible. But would this be enough?
Having lived off grid (where we run our own grid) since 2012, with solar PV, micro hydro, battery bank and fire wood, my experience is that switching from fossil fuels to renewables is difficult. Only with a change in lifestyle, energy efficiencies and home renovation have we just about made this possible. But then we don't manufacture anything, we still drive ICE vehicles, cook on LPG and are only self sufficient in maybe 30% of our own food.
@@EdPorterModo batteries will eventually dominate everything to 100 h, why? Price!
Why price so cheap?
1 because big mining companies around the world come online with big mining projects. That means prices will keep falling!
2. Chinese manufactures get over 98% raw materials into the shipped battery, that means no waste in an highly automized manufacturing process.
3. Chinese economy currently is standing on it's last leg - the export industry. Every official on every level is focused to expanding it. So rolling overcapacities will keep the price low and the ability to produce whatever raw material they can get.
Expert says price long term is $20 per kWh for current manufacturers to stay in the business!
You guys should do the math. If you need 500GW of battery, you need 100000 20ft containers. This is 4 full container ships and currently would be around 100 billion. That is cheap comparing to the cost of building lots of power lines...
None of her opinion is valid. Why? On vs off grid.
On grid 100% RE costs 60 cents/kwh for a house, 90 for super charge. On demand is the problem. RE is NOT on demand.
The overbuild for RE is 4x in RE resources (Tony Seba's RE u-curve), and 3.5x for battery (storage). Total ON grid costs are 7.5x more than X, the demand. On grid RE costs 5 c/kwh for resource and 3 for line, for a total of 8 for each part. 8 x 7.5=60. You end up with 4x over capacity to lower the battery costs to get the minimum costs (u-curve), all while having to pay all to not generate with no place to store it all.
Off grid electricity is 1.5 cents/kwh, NOT like ON grid at 8 x 7.5 = 60. This is due to no inverters and remote locations that have better RE resources. There are no demand balance issues or line charges OFF grid...key factor.
Fuel is 2x the source off grid with DC (no inverters), or 3 cents/kwh with NO line charges. 60/3 = 20 times MORE for ON grid vs Off grid. Game over for EVs...reality.
The ideal fuel is Ethanol for many reasons, but all oil fuels, chemicals and plastics will be needed to end oil.
New combustion tech will be 75% with combined cycle and 60% efficient at 50% to 100% of torque. Old ICE is 15% (Otto cycle) to 18% (Diesel) on average low loads. Diesels loaded are 35 to 42%. Turbines are 45%. Turbines with combined cycle are 63%.
New combustion is 81:1 expansions with 3 stage intercooling, Isochoric combustion, near isothermal compression. All doable. 75% is doable. The CO2 is also captured in the secondary.
EVs are a total waste of time and money. They will cost 10 to 30 times more for energy input, and purchase price is 1.5 to 2x more, if not 5x for cars like Lucid.
As for CO2, RE fuels are 1% of the CO2 of gasoline. New combustion tech captures CO2 as part of the secondary combined cycle and thus is "free" as it were. It costs 40 cents/gallon to capture the need CO2 for 1 gallon of gasoline if pulled from air. That means nuclear fuel (e-gasoline) can be 6 cents/kwh retail.
What are you talking about?
I don’t really understand most of what you are saying because I am a bear of little brain but I would say that my 7 yr old EV is charged with my 15 yr old solar panels in the summer and by North Sea wind at night in the winter. How can that be 10 to 30 times more expensive than drilling, shipping, refining, road tankering and then burning at 30 % efficiency with no regenerative brakes? Apart from the cost and carbon considerations what about air quality and energy security without relying on corrupt undemocratic countries like Russia, Venezuelan and Saudi?
@@guygillmore2970 I explained already that Tony Seba from Stanford is the globalists top RE guy. To get to 100% RE requires overbuild of 4 times and battery costing around 3.5 more than a single RE resource. The Cost curve is U shaped where the minimum cost is a combination of widely disbursed RE sources with a certain amount of battery to cover loads. The cost is 7.5 times MORE than what a single RE resource would produce over a year, I call X.
Making fuel costs 2x. Grid is 7.5x. 7.5/2=3.75x more for grid with both using inverters. Fuel making does NOT need inverters (DC USED) so the cost factor is 1.33x. 3.75 x 1.33 = 5x more for grid.
New solar THERMAL tech will cost 3x less than PV and last 3x longer for a 9x factor. 5 x 9 = 45 times MORE for grid vs fuel making.
New combustion tech will make a car 1.5x better MPGe than an EV. 45 x 1.5 = 67.5 times more for Grid based EV vs fuel from stand alone RE per distance. Game over for EVs.
Again, RE and nuclear made fuels is the future. Key to getting off oil is making from electricity and CO2: 1) fuel, 2) chemicals, and 3) plastics. EVs just rob cash flow to help end oil. Again, the fastest way OFF oil is via oil and new combustion tech that I am working on. HINT.
Total and utter nonsense! Keep your oil and gas propaganda!
Battery prices are down to $60/kWh and falling long term to around $20/kWh this coincides with falling raw material costs with massive mining coming online. The Chinese battery manufacture yield 98% of raw material ending up in the shipped battery, and they are perfecting this even more.
Wind+Solar+Battery+UHV is way cheaper than anything else and we will power EVERYTING (except long haul flights) with electricity within the next 10-20 years.
Once can see in Hawaii, how Wind+Solar+Battery make electricity cheaper and cheaper. Any country which does not switch fast enough, will not be competitive and run it's economy into the ground.
@@guygillmore2970tax breaks, endless subsidies, and the society-wide refusal to charge fossil businesses what they owe in damages?