John Petersen Article Slamming Grid Battery Storage

[nwdiver]

Peterson is a troll. Don't feed the trolls.

 

[NinjaVece]

It is taking a very long time for pumped hydro to make headway. Twelve years have passed since the great surge in project planning and licensing, and I don't recall a single completed project of more than nominal capacity. Those slated for California died because there is no rate mechanism to capture the value of the functions provided. Even unregulated public utilities like SMUD and TID/MID shelved their projects. The private and licensed Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage Project has perfect siting and the two reservoirs readymade, but can't get off the ground.

Some kind of paradigm shift is needed to build that third leg. Maybe we have to wait for the wearing-out of the first generation of 10-year battery banks to grasp the value of funding 100-year infrastructure.

(A retired hydropower engineer)

NanoGrid, Helms is the largest pumped-hydro storage project in California and holds over 1,200 megawatts.

www.energy.ca.gov/tour/helms/

But there is also the Castaic Pumped-Storage Plant nearer me but it only has between 3-6 hours of backup.

 

[NinjaVece]

That is discouraging that so many have not been able to get off the ground. Here is one I found, although this is a standalone hydro-storage facility that seems to be using grid energy to pump the water up, rather than integrated into a power generator facility. They say they pump the water up at night and feed it back into the grid during the day, the reverse of what you would expect for balancing solar generation.

Britain has a lot of wind generation which excels at night. Thus the pump return mainly at night.

 

[NanoGrid]

Helms ... and Castaic Pumped-Storage Plants

My point was that large PSPs in California are all of that 1960s-1970s vintage. There have been no new >50MW projects since the two paired to their nuclear plants, and those of the State Water Project that recover energy for water conveyance. Implementing the proposed portfolio of renewable energy most cost-effectively will be hamstrung until it is expanded to include new pumped hydro storage, plus maybe Compressed Air Storage. Economics require large scale storage with low unit cost and long useful life, and pumped hydro as spinning reserve provides an array of ancillary services to the grid.

 

[VValleyEV]

I posted a comment to the Petersen article asking him about pumped hydro. Here is his reply:

—reply by John Petersen, not me!——
Pumped hydro is feasible and quite economic today, but it is woefully unscalable unless you believe the Sierra Club and other environmental groups will be happy to cooperate with large scale build out of pumped hydro dams and reservoirs throughout the mountains. Even if that were to happen along the east and west coasts, flyover country in the middle would be left holding the bag. it's all well and good to talk about theoretical possibilities but a rational plan must lay out a rational path to overcome all likely objections. I have not seen one of those, but if conditions change so will my opinions.
—————

Please comment on both his points, the first that environmental preservation groups will block pumped hydro power, and the second that it doesn’t work across the plains. Also what are some other good long-term storage mechanisms other than pumped hydro?

 

[VValleyEV]

Peterson is a troll. Don't feed the trolls.

We can probably agree not to chase down every troll spewing hit pieces, but I do not agree that we should ignore all of them. Mr Petersen appears to have a strong following, I see him using real data, albeit sometimes in misleading ways, and I don’t see ad hominem attacks. I suspect he really believes his own arguments, although he uses clickbait skillfully enough.

Hi presents a coherent argument against the economic feasibility of replacing fossil fuel with renewables for the baseline utility power supply, without much longer-term large-scale energy storage than we have now. I think we need an answer to that argument, and I don’t think “well there will be some power interruptions and you should put up with it for the sake of the planet” will sell - that will make you lose to the fossil fuel industry.

I urge you to hold your nose, read the article carefully and fairly, and help find a way to move those with John Petersen’s reservations about renewables.

 

[nwdiver]

We can probably agree not to chase down every troll spewing hit pieces, but I do not agree that we should ignore all of them. Mr Petersen appears to have a strong following, I see him using real data, albeit sometimes in misleading ways, and I don’t see ad hominem attacks. I suspect he really believes his own arguments, although he uses clickbait skillfully enough.

Hi presents a coherent argument against the economic feasibility of replacing fossil fuel with renewables for the baseline utility power supply, without much longer-term large-scale energy storage than we have now. I think we need an answer to that argument, and I don’t think “well there will be some power interruptions and you should put up with it for the sake of the planet” will sell - that will make you lose to the fossil fuel industry.

I urge you to hold your nose, read the article carefully and fairly, and help find a way to move those with John Petersen’s reservations about renewables.

His objective is an emotional response and to get clicks. That's a text-book troll. There is no way he thinks this is true... he's making statements he knows to be absurd to illicit an emotional response and get clicks. He's a troll.

There is no amount of information or evidence that will deviate him from his narrative. He's a troll. His purpose is not informed discourse but to muddy reality and create strife. He's a troll. Please don't feed the trolls.

Watch 'Behind the curve' on Netflix. Once someone is committed to a narrative you're just wasting time and effort....

 

[VValleyEV]

His objective is an emotional response and to get clicks. That's a text-book troll. There is no way he thinks this is true... he's making statements he knows to be absurd to illicit an emotional response and get clicks. He's a troll.

There is no amount of information or evidence that will deviate him from his narrative. He's a troll. His purpose is not informed discourse but to muddy reality and create strife. He's a troll. Please don't feed the trolls.

Watch 'Behind the curve' on Netflix. Once someone is committed to a narrative you're just wasting time and effort....

View attachment 406031

Wow, I had not seen that Petersen response. Holy crap that is pretty blatant,

Do you have a list of naysayers that you believe deserve a response? There must be some that have swallowed the fossil Kool-Aid and don’t know it.

 

[NanoGrid]

Please comment on both his points, the first that environmental preservation groups will block pumped hydro power, and the second that it doesn’t work across the plains.

"...woefully unscalable..."
Mr. Petersen uses "unscalable" incorrectly here, but has a point on the environmental constraints upon new on-river reservoirs. He is however forgetting some other, less-impacting options which have been licensed by FERC, or are proposed: use of surface and subsurface mines, off-stream upper impoundments paired with existing dams, and connecting existing reservoirs. FERC appears to be committed to streamlining permitting of such alternatives.

"...flyover country in the middle would be left holding the bag..."
Appears unaware of HVDC (high-voltage, direct current electric power transmission).

"...a rational plan must lay out a rational path to overcome all likely objections."
IMHO the real obstacles to pumped hydro are:
1) absence of incentivizing tariffs (rates), and
2) capital in billion-dollar increments.

Addressing #1 would draw #2. The French (EDF) dallied with a recently-licensed Pacific Coast PSP, but sold out to a Dutch(?) utility. China (planning and investing more wisely than the USA) might see the opportunity to extend its Third World capital finance/build/hold infrastructure program to the United States grid.

 

[NinjaVece]

My point was that large PSPs in California are all of that 1960s-1970s vintage. There have been no new >50MW projects since the two paired to their nuclear plants, and those of the State Water Project that recover energy for water conveyance. Implementing the proposed portfolio of renewable energy most cost-effectively will be hamstrung until it is expanded to include new pumped hydro storage, plus maybe Compressed Air Storage. Economics require large scale storage with low unit cost and long useful life, and pumped hydro as spinning reserve provides an array of ancillary services to the grid.

Agreed. I think over time that non-river based Pumped-Hydro will become more and more important as we move away from 'always-on' solutions like coal, nat gas and nuclear. Lots of challenges but humans thrive with a challenge. We simply have to accept that carbon based fuels are not going to be viable due to climate change and work around them. And nuclear with its radiation issues will always consume too much time and money to start up - better to simply over-subscribe in solar and wind at lower pricing and use pumped-hydro to absorb high volumes of power from them pumping water uphill when its windy and bright out.

 

[NinjaVece]

I posted a comment to the Petersen article asking him about pumped hydro. Here is his reply:

—reply by John Petersen, not me!——
Pumped hydro is feasible and quite economic today, but it is woefully unscalable unless you believe the Sierra Club and other environmental groups will be happy to cooperate with large scale build out of pumped hydro dams and reservoirs throughout the mountains. Even if that were to happen along the east and west coasts, flyover country in the middle would be left holding the bag. it's all well and good to talk about theoretical possibilities but a rational plan must lay out a rational path to overcome all likely objections. I have not seen one of those, but if conditions change so will my opinions.
—————

Please comment on both his points, the first that environmental preservation groups will block pumped hydro power, and the second that it doesn’t work across the plains. Also what are some other good long-term storage mechanisms other than pumped hydro?

Environmentalists generally fret about RIVER-based pumped-hydro (as in dams that block river systems). NON-RIVER based pumped-hydro simply takes two different height regions next to each other and form a top dam and bottom dam out of them. After the initial water fill, they are generally inert as evaporation can be matched with rainfall especially considering various balls and mats than can be placed on the water to retard evaporation. Then, turbines in the upper dam provide power and pumps in the lower dam replace the water into the upper dam. Very simple.

Again, his statement about the 'middle' of the country is false. See:

www.iflscience.com/technology/500000-possible-pumped-hydro-sites-show-we-can-easily-store-renewable-energy/

Note that there are sites all over the US to use. And any REALLY flat areas can use stationary H2 generation / storage / electrical generation as a store. H2 can be made somewhat efficient with a large project were storage is central and economies of scale. H2 is not viable for motive purposes but here it would likely work.

He simply has not REALLY looked into how many locations pumped-hydro is viable and the H2 alternative for storage.

 

[NinjaVece]

"...woefully unscalable..."
Mr. Petersen uses "unscalable" incorrectly here, but has a point on the environmental constraints upon new on-river reservoirs. He is however forgetting some other, less-impacting options which have been licensed by FERC, or are proposed: use of surface and subsurface mines, off-stream upper impoundments paired with existing dams, and connecting existing reservoirs. FERC appears to be committed to streamlining permitting of such alternatives.

"...flyover country in the middle would be left holding the bag..."
Appears unaware of HVDC (high-voltage, direct current electric power transmission).

"...a rational plan must lay out a rational path to overcome all likely objections."
IMHO the real obstacles to pumped hydro are:
1) absence of incentivizing tariffs (rates), and
2) capital in billion-dollar increments.

Addressing #1 would draw #2. The French (EDF) dallied with a recently-licensed Pacific Coast PSP, but sold out to a Dutch(?) utility. China (planning and investing more wisely than the USA) might see the opportunity to extend its Third World capital finance/build/hold infrastructure program to the United States grid.

Also, pumped-hydro is designed as a NON-RIVER based system. Only connection to water is for initial fill and possible refill due to evaporation. No need for it to be on a river, damming it up.

I agree that HVDC mitigates most of this but also on-site H2 storage can do well in really flat areas.

Considering the subsidies we have put forward for coal and natural gas over the last 100 years (significant), it makes sense to invest in a system that isn't carbon based, even if it has big up-front costs. The payoff is long-term.

 

[VValleyEV]

Environmentalists generally fret about RIVER-based pumped-hydro (as in dams that block river systems). NON-RIVER based pumped-hydro simply takes two different height regions next to each other and form a top dam and bottom dam out of them. After the initial water fill, they are generally inert as evaporation can be matched with rainfall especially considering various balls and mats than can be placed on the water to retard evaporation. Then, turbines in the upper dam provide power and pumps in the lower dam replace the water into the upper dam. Very simple.

Again, his statement about the 'middle' of the country is false. See:

www.iflscience.com/technology/500000-possible-pumped-hydro-sites-show-we-can-easily-store-renewable-energy/

Note that there are sites all over the US to use. And any REALLY flat areas can use stationary H2 generation / storage / electrical generation as a store. H2 can be made somewhat efficient with a large project were storage is central and economies of scale. H2 is not viable for motive purposes but here it would likely work.

He simply has not REALLY looked into how many locations pumped-hydro is viable and the H2 alternative for storage.

Thanks I had seen that article about possible pumped hydro sites.

To be fair, there is a large gap maybe 1000 miles wide in the middle of the country, with only a thin band across the lower middle. As you say there are alternate storage technologies for those locations, but are there any real projects using them on the drawing board in that area?

 

[NinjaVece]

Thanks I had seen that article about possible pumped hydro sites.

To be fair, there is a large gap maybe 1000 miles wide in the middle of the country, with only a thin band across the lower middle. As you say there are alternate storage technologies for those locations, but are there any real projects using them on the drawing board in that area?

View attachment 406230

This is what I found from FERC:

www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/pump-storage.asp

Looks like 24 projects are looking for licences at this time. Don't know the status of each but you can look further into their documentation.

As to the flat portions, there are a number of HVDC lines are that are going across the middle of the country, for example, linking Kansas wind farms with Missouri, etc. Connections like these mitigate the need for pumped-hydro / H2 facilities as it is unlikely that the sun is not shining (during the day) across the entire US and HVDC is great especially for wind, which runs (intermittently) 24 / 7. Pulling wind power from a vast area mitigates any single area that is without wind.

 

[NinjaVece]

Thanks I had seen that article about possible pumped hydro sites.

To be fair, there is a large gap maybe 1000 miles wide in the middle of the country, with only a thin band across the lower middle. As you say there are alternate storage technologies for those locations, but are there any real projects using them on the drawing board in that area?

View attachment 406230

As to HVDC, here is the Kansas project that is on the cusp of being implemented:

www.grainbeltexpresscleanline.com/site/home

Also, you can see all the HVDC lines completed and being developed here:

List of HVDC projects - Wikipedia

 

[JohnRatsey]

Britain has a lot of wind generation which excels at night. Thus the pump return mainly at night.

British wind has a mind of its own with the main factor being the weather conditions. You can see the generation status in real time here. There's currently high pressure over the North Sea and the wind turbines aren't producing much. However, there's less demand for power at night and while it's easy to throttle back the CCGT the remaining nuclear, biomass and, sometimes, coal power stations are hapiest running at near to full output plus electricity (probably nuclear) is imported from France. Lower demand means lower price and hence the best time to refill the storage reservoirs. There would also be an operational challenge associated with daytime pumping should there then be a sudden change in conditions causing a need for generation - the water going uphill has to reverse direction. Pumped storage is nowhere near as flexible as battery storage.

When UK built several of the pumped storage schemes (Dinorwig is by far the largest) around 4 to 50 years ago almost all the electricity was being generated from coal or nuclear power so there was plenty of cheap power at night. The key objectives were (i) to have the capacity to respond to short duration peaks such as those caused by millions of kettles being turned on during a break in some TV program and (ii) to help with grid stability should a major generator or even a power station suddenly go off-line. The response time can be reduced to a few seconds by either having the turbines running at low output or spinning in air (a separate motor is provided for this). Unless/until more nuclear power gets on line or there's a lot of wind (variable from one night to the next) there's not going to be the surfeit of night time electricity for charging all the batteries in cars, houses, etc. This will be reflected in what is currently a lower tariff for night-time electricity converging on the day-time price.

 

[NinjaVece]

British wind has a mind of its own with the main factor being the weather conditions. You can see the generation status in real time here. There's currently high pressure over the North Sea and the wind turbines aren't producing much. However, there's less demand for power at night and while it's easy to throttle back the CCGT the remaining nuclear, biomass and, sometimes, coal power stations are hapiest running at near to full output plus electricity (probably nuclear) is imported from France. Lower demand means lower price and hence the best time to refill the storage reservoirs. There would also be an operational challenge associated with daytime pumping should there then be a sudden change in conditions causing a need for generation - the water going uphill has to reverse direction. Pumped storage is nowhere near as flexible as battery storage.

When UK built several of the pumped storage schemes (Dinorwig is by far the largest) around 4 to 50 years ago almost all the electricity was being generated from coal or nuclear power so there was plenty of cheap power at night. The key objectives were (i) to have the capacity to respond to short duration peaks such as those caused by millions of kettles being turned on during a break in some TV program and (ii) to help with grid stability should a major generator or even a power station suddenly go off-line. The response time can be reduced to a few seconds by either having the turbines running at low output or spinning in air (a separate motor is provided for this). Unless/until more nuclear power gets on line or there's a lot of wind (variable from one night to the next) there's not going to be the surfeit of night time electricity for charging all the batteries in cars, houses, etc. This will be reflected in what is currently a lower tariff for night-time electricity converging on the day-time price.

I’m of the mind that it all can be done with solar and wind. Nuclear is so expensive and risky that the same funds can more quickly and more robustly be added to the wind network as over-subscribed.

 

[JohnRatsey]

I’m of the mind that it all can be done with solar and wind. Nuclear is so expensive and risky that the same funds can more quickly and more robustly be added to the wind network as over-subscribed.

Britain is relatively small and can be afflicted by the same weather pattern sitting over the whole country. Take the situation of high atmospheric pressure during the winter when the wind can be negligible which can also result in much of the coultry being blanketed by low cloud, mist or fog. This could result in both wind and solar running at less than 10% of potential which would necessitate massive over-capacity to compensate. The problem can be partly mitigated by continental and even intercontinental interconnectors (plenty of solar potential in northern Africa although that won't help at night).

 

[NanoGrid]

....There would also be an operational challenge associated with daytime pumping should there then be a sudden change in conditions causing a need for generation - the water going uphill has to reverse direction. Pumped storage is nowhere near as flexible as battery storage....
The response time can be reduced to a few seconds by either having the turbines running at low output or spinning in air (a separate motor is provided for this). ..

All true, showing that utility-scale battery banks like South Australia's Hornsdale Power Reserve (which on startup gutted the regional consumer-abusing market makers for ancillary services) complement pumped hydro. Hornsdale, for example, can respond a hundred times faster than hydropower to transient grid demands. But pumped storage can provide the gigawatthour capacities that make some types of renewable generation reliable.

 

[NinjaVece]

Britain is relatively small and can be afflicted by the same weather pattern sitting over the whole country. Take the situation of high atmospheric pressure during the winter when the wind can be negligible which can also result in much of the coultry being blanketed by low cloud, mist or fog. This could result in both wind and solar running at less than 10% of potential which would necessitate massive over-capacity to compensate. The problem can be partly mitigated by continental and even intercontinental interconnectors (plenty of solar potential in northern Africa although that won't help at night).

Actually, this is just what pumped-hydro does best. Basins can be created that store days worth of power and when the situation reverses and wind power is at a maximum, all that water can be pumped back up to be used again...