All the research in the world isn't going to make the sun shine at night. The main problem with solar isn't solar cell efficiency, it's the expense of energy storage to get through periods when solar insolation is low. Same with wind, the problem is storage to get through calm periods. Plus windmills installed in the wrong place kills endangered birds.
Efficiency research? Private industry already has the motivation to increase efficiency and has made far more progress than the Federal Government.
Clean cars? We already have them.
Climate "Science"? Hasn't that resulted in very few successful predictions so far?
Batteries? Yeah, ok. We need better batteries and other forms of energy storage.
4 comments:
"In addition to traditional hydropower, pumped-storage hydropower (PSH)—A type of hydropower that works like a battery, pumping water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir for storage and later generation—is an important piece of DOE's renewable energy portfolio because it acts as a utility-scale grid storage technology. DOE's Water Power Program plays a supportive role in demonstrating the benefits of PSH and its role in our nation's clean energy portfolio. As a renewable form of energy storage, PSH facilitates grid stabilization allowing a high penetration of variable renewables such as wind and solar into existing electrical grids."
http://energy.gov/eere/water/pumped-storage-hydropower
PSH doesn't work where it's flat. PSH doesn't work where water is in short supply. PSH doesn't work in the desert Southwest where all the large solar farms are.
To use PSH for solar energy storage, the solar generated electricity has to be wheeled over the grid from the desert Southwest to places many 100's of miles away where there are large elevation gradients and water. That requires a higher capacity grid, building larger hydroelectric generators, and it will result in power losses from moving massive amounts of power many hundreds (or thousands) of miles.
No further research is needed, we already know how to do PSH. No further "demonstrations" are needed either, they are a total waste of money. The reason PSH hasn't been adopted on a large scale is because it's very costly, energy wasteful, and it uses valuable water resources because of increased evaporation from the storage ponds.
Im not walking this path until the sacrifice appears to be justified by the benefit.
PSH is mature and widely used:
http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects?utf8=%E2%9C%93&technology_type_sort_eqs=Pumped+Hydro+Storage&technology_type_sort_eqs_category=Pumped+Hydro+Storage&technology_type_sort_eqs_subcategory=&country_sort_eq=&state_sort_eq=&kW=&kWh=&service_use_case_inf=&ownership_model_eq=&status_eq=&siting_eq=&order_by=&sort_order=&search_page=1&size_kw_ll=&size_kw_ul=&size_kwh_ll=&size_kwh_ul=&show_unapproved=%7B%7D
It is the most cost-effective method for utility-scale storage. In the US, I have read there are not many more suitable sites for additional systems.
Post a Comment