Among my broken-record themes is that the energy-storage solution of pumped hydropower is trivial compared to the potential value of dispatchable hydropower - that is, to stop treating hydro as a baseload energy to be released on a constant basis, and instead shape your releases around solar and other variable, renewable power sources. Looks like I babbled this here at Rabett first in 2019, and complained again in 2020 about there being no 24-hour variation in hydro use. So take a look at this chart from Mark Jacobson showing typical spring power deployment for California (light blue is hydro):
I see hydro dispatchability, without anyone proclaiming that to be the policy. The delta between daytime and nighttime hydro is comparable to the highly successful and policy-driven battery storage now happening in California (the dark blue).
What I didn't anticipate in 2019 was that dispatchable hydropower would just happen, without AFAIK a big policy decision to make it happen. I'm glad though! Maybe the invisible hand does work sometimes, even in utility operations. When you have solar (or sometimes wind) out the wazoo, then why wouldn't you cut back a bit on the reservoir releases and save them for a different time of day?
This doesn't mean we should just relax and let Adam Smith handle everything though. Achieving the next realization that reservoirs could be a seasonal battery and not just a daily one might take a little more effort. Flow releases also aren't solely for power but for water delivery and environmental purposes, both of which could be addressed over time by policy. Rights to take water at certain times could be renegotiated for a different time or location to allow dispatchability. Forebays and afterbays could be constructed to smooth out releases downriver for water delivery or environmental reasons. These would have a cost, and might not be possible in many cases, but they can be quite small compared to reservoirs, they could have their own turbines also, and you might even use cheap solar or wind power to pump water back up to the main reservoir, and get your pumped hydropower storage on the cheap.
Some of the comments in 2019 suggested dispatchable hydropower was already happening elsewhere. That's great if accurate. Some also thought it was part of Mark Jacobson's 2019 wind/water/solar plan, which it wasn't AFAICT, although it might be now, at least implicitly.
Onward. And maybe we'll call it dispatchable hydropower someday.
UPDATE: Mark Jacobson is on board:
Nuclear fuel rods offer a much smaller, portable, seasonal battery.
ReplyDeleteDoes the size of your smaller portable seasonal battery include the mines, processing facilities, waste disposal, etc?
ReplyDeleteThe 4 lower Snake River dams have more than 3 gigaWatts of dispatchable power, much cheaper than building pumped storage in limited spaces. The value is more than $3 billion. The native Americans deserve compensation, let them have the profits, but all of us need to help reduce global warming, while our Pacific Northwest is burning fossil fuel for maybe 30% of our electricity. The salmon would survive better if there weren't 1,000 seal lions in the lower Columbia each biting the stomachs out of a dozen salmon per day.
ReplyDeleteI am Bob Maginnis, haven't posted for 5 or 10 years, here supporting the Snake River and Columbia River dams.
ReplyDeleteIanR:
ReplyDelete"Does the size of your smaller portable seasonal battery include the mines, processing facilities, waste disposal, etc?"
Yes. I'm sure there's some sprawling uranium mines, but I'd doubt they'd be as big as lake Mead.
Well theoretically, the market should create dispatchable hydropower. To maximize profit, you should use your water when price is highest - and on average day, that should be when solar and wind cant generate. Since solar/wind can only generate when sun is shining or wind blowing, they have to accept whatever price the market will pay at time. Of course, that has to balanced with issue that if your storage is full and it rains, then you have to spill water which is effectively throwing money away. The reality is a complicated dance between not wasting water and maximizing price.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteI am not against nuclear power generation though it does seem a tad expensive at the moment. We probably need all forms of low carbon electricity to combat climate change.
But, as the devil's advocate, I might suggest that (i) those sprawling uranium mines are not bespoiling the USA which, according to Wiki, does not produce anywhere near enough uranium for its own needs, and (ii) a lake provides additional benefits (e.g. crop irrigation, leisure activities, more biodiversity) that a uranium mine cannot.
Ian
Phil: yes that's exactly right, and I should've anticipated that it wouldn't take a galaxy brain to realize you can make more money by waiting a few hours and selling after the sun gets low in the sky. Some of the other steps I mention though could take a bit more foresight, like constructing afterbays/forebays.
ReplyDeleteI think the other very necessary conditions include an efficient market mechanism where generators compete to contribute with appropriate regulations to prevent market manipulation (here in NZ we learnt that slowly through a few prosecutions).
ReplyDelete