Natural gas, a bridge to nowhere?

[SageBrush]

From the article

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation’s largest municipal utility, says its proposal would increase the productivity of the dam, which operates at just 20 percent of its potential, to avoid releasing too much water at once and flooding towns downstream.

Of course we could just use the wind and PV energy directly ... and save the ~ 20% pumping/conversion costs.

Unless this project can help solve the 5-9 pm load peak, I still do not see the benefit.

 

[mspohr]

From the article
Of course we could just use the wind and PV energy directly ... and save the ~ 20% pumping/conversion costs.

Unless this project can help solve the 5-9 pm load peak, I still do not see the benefit.

I think the point of this project is to solve the 5-9 pm load peak by using surplus power generated earlier in the day. Also possible to use it for "long term" (days, weeks, months) power storage.

 

[EinSV]

The other issue to factor in is that natural gas may not provide any global warming benefit over coal at least in the short term, since methane leaks and therefore warming effects of natural gas apparently have been drastically underestimated. The argument for fracking as a climate solution just went down in flames

 

[SageBrush]

Ignoring for now the effects of climate change on Lake Mead and Hoover dam operation ...

Hydro generation has lower bounds, the river flow requirements
And upper bounds, to not flood coastal communities.

The 5-9pm peak load could theoretically enjoy the Hoover's participation up to it's upper bound if it had enough water. That could be from either pumped water or from letting less through during the day. The net river flux would be the same. Reduced power output during the day would be offset by the PV and wind that would otherwise be used for pumping.

Still not seeing it.

 

[SageBrush]

The other issue to factor in is that natural gas may not provide any global warming benefit over coal at least in the short term, since methane leaks and therefore warming effects of natural gas apparently have been drastically underestimated. The argument for fracking as a climate solution just went down in flames

Yeah ...

I mentioned this years ago and was mobbed by the NG advocates.

 

[Brando]

The pumped storage system doesn't use water like agriculture, etc. It just moves it up hill then down.

What could possibly go wrong? Keep the water working all the time - no more "wasted" water just going down a river. Who needs rivers anyway?

 

[SageBrush]

What could possibly go wrong? Keep the water working all the time - no more "wasted" water just going down a river. Who needs rivers anyway?

Well .... that is not an accurate representation.
Think of it as akin to a new steady state for the upper reservoir. Flow is reduced for a while to build up a reserve and then flow returns to prior rates. My stumbling block is not understanding why not just reduce flow during the day if the river supports that intervention.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Ignoring for now the effects of climate change on Lake Mead and Hoover dam operation ...

Hydro generation has lower bounds, the river flow requirements
And upper bounds, to not flood coastal communities.

The 5-9pm peak load could theoretically enjoy the Hoover's participation up to it's upper bound if it had enough water. That could be from either pumped water or from letting less through during the day. The net river flux would be the same. Reduced power output during the day would be offset by the PV and wind that would otherwise be used for pumping.

Still not seeing it.

It's a system for refilling the tank of a large fuel cell. I don't know how big the tank is.

A few years ago it would be a no brainer. Now it's pumped hydro v batteries.

The pump station would be 20 miles downstream. I don't know how fast the river flows.
That distance could provide a significant delay between generation at the dam's plant and storage.
Also, it might be a lot easier to control the pump than control the dam's output.
Plus, if it rains, that's 20 miles of rain and run-off between dam and pump that can be collected.

 

[SageBrush]

That distance could provide a significant delay between generation at the dam's plant and storage.

That was my thought too, but PV production falls off a cliff after 4pm while the evening peak load is about 5 - 9pm in CA or about 6 - 10 pm Hoover time.

Also, it might be a lot easier to control the pump than control the dam's output.

Yep, that ended up being my guess as well.

 

[Brando]

It's a system for refilling the tank of a large fuel cell. I don't know how big the tank is.

A few years ago it would be a no brainer. Now it's pumped hydro v batteries.

The pump station would be 20 miles downstream. I don't know how fast the river flows.
That distance could provide a significant delay between generation at the dam's plant and storage.
Also, it might be a lot easier to control the pump than control the dam's output.
Plus, if it rains, that's 20 miles of rain and run-off between dam and pump that can be collected.

It is a desert. For Las Vegas:
Average annual precipitation - rainfall‎: ‎4.17 inch
Days per year with precipitation - rainfall‎: ‎21 days
Which is why most ANY chemical battery is probably better/cheaper.
(not necessarily Lithium Ion - but so far I suspect the largest R&D is being spent on Li-Ion.)
I'm with @SageBrush - I really, really don't get it.

Tesla battery; $3 billion/$80 KWh = 37,500,000 KWh = 37,500 MWh
Hoover Dam has a nameplate capacity of about 2,080 MWh
ARE THESE calculation correct ?
Any idea how long it takes to "spin up" Hoover Dam? How long to sync with the grid? You know batteries in ms.

I'm with @SageBrush - just don't get it. Seems a very bad idea compared to other methods.

 

[SageBrush]

Hoover Dam has a nameplate capacity of about 2,080 MWh

MW.
Power, not capacity.
Capacity would be ~ Lake Mead ;-)

 

[rays427]

California used 292,000 Gwh of electricity in 2017. This is an average 800,000 Mwh per day. If you look at the current wind and solar output in the US by month it's about 2 times higher in some months versus others. This means that you are going to have a heck of a lot of storage or extra capacity to take care of the day to day and especially the month to month differences in wind and solar power output. 37,500 Mhw of storage is a drop in the bucket to what would be needed.

 

[mspohr]

California used 292,000 Gwh of electricity in 2017. This is an average 800,000 Mwh per day. If you look at the current wind and solar output in the US by month it's about 2 times higher in some months versus others. This means that you are going to have a heck of a lot of storage or extra capacity to take care of the day to day and especially the month to month differences in wind and solar power output. 37,500 Mhw of storage is a drop in the bucket to what would be needed.

Hoover dam generates between 2.5 and 10 Billion kilowatt hours a year. Average 4 Gigawatt hours a year.
Hoover Dam | Bureau of Reclamation
So it uses all of the water. The pumped hydro would enable reuse of the water.

 

[SageBrush]

Average 4 Gigawatt hours a year.

4000 GWh I think.

 

[mspohr]

4000 GWh I think.

Math is hard! (Do I have this right now?)
Billion = 10^9
Giga = 10^9
There's my mistake.
The ten-year annual average for 1999 through 2008 was about 4.2 billion kilowatt-hours.
4.2 billion kWh = 4200 GWh

 

[SageBrush]

Math is hard!

I find that I have to translate into Wh in scientific notation to have a hope of not making these errors.

The more interesting point to me is that your error demonstrates an inability I also share to have an intuitive feel for these large numbers. Big is big, even if they differ by 1000x. I've gotten a little better with giga scale watt values ever since I learned that a Nuke plant is in the ~ 2 GW range.

 

[mspohr]

California has only one fossil fuel (natural gas) project in its queue (under study):

California has only one fossil fuel plant in its future queue

 

[SageBrush]

California has only one fossil fuel (natural gas) project in its queue (under study):

California has only one fossil fuel plant in its future queue

I looked at the SS and found 4.12 GW of NG, 87% of it combined cycle.

For context though, ~ 30 GW was in the list as 'Solar.'
I'm sad to say less than 7 GW wind. That strikes me as short sighted.

 

[mspohr]

I looked at the SS and found 4.12 GW of NG, 87% of it combined cycle.

For context though, ~ 30 GW was in the list as 'Solar.'
I'm sad to say less than 7 GW wind. That strikes me as short sighted.

The article is referring to the C11 round of applications for future projects. For C11, there is only one Natural Gas plant. The other gas plants are for prior applications.
Looks like only one NG plant in the prior C10 applications also. None in C09, one in C08.
You have to go back to C06 (about 2012) to find three.

 

[mspohr]

The latest news on natural gas is that the idiots are flaring off record amounts of natural gas because they can't make a profit on it.
The main concern seems to be lack of profit, not any environmental damage.

Permian Drillers Are Literally Burning Profit | OilPrice.com