Could you describe this suitable energy storage method(s) ?

.

BP had a report in 2007 that said there was 147 years of proven reserves. 200 years including unproven reserve estimates probably isnt far off.

There are various methods which can be used at varying degrees of efficiency. From the basics such as flywheels to pumping water upwards such as in hydroelectric dams and then letting gravity generate electricity when you need it. Basically any task which can use electric, then reclaim some of that energy back when the process is reversed.

Interesting, thanks.

As we've learned, BP is full of shyt, and is more than likely counting basic peat in their reserve totals estimate (from 2002, and based on models often 15 years earlier than that). Peat. You know, brown stuff that wouldn't light a fart, let alone maintain ever growing electricity demand.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2396

The USA, then, as we have all heard, has reported proven coal reserves that would allow continued production at current rates for more than 200 years. Three federal states (Wyoming, Montana, Illinois) hold about 60% [4] of US coal reserves, but the low production rates relative to reported reserves in Montana and Illinois cast some doubt on the reliability or suitability of those reported reserves. As many of these reserves are of low quality, with high sulphur content and/or other drawbacks, it may be considered doubtful that they will ever be produced. Measured in terms of produced tons per miner, US productivity steadily increased until 2000, but has declined since, which also implies that ‘easy coal’ is running short.

The USA had passed peak production of anthracite (by far the rarest form) by 1950 and peaked in bituminous coal in 1990, but sub-bituminous coal more than made up for this decline in terms of tonnage. However, due to the lower energy content of softer coals, the total energy content of annual US coal production peaked in 1998.

The thing about energy storage is that all the methods that could possibly be used are terribly inefficient and would lead to us having to generate way more electricity than is needed with more reliable sources

There is a 25% premium for hydro pump storage. I'm well versed in this, as what I do most of the day deals with our hydro pump storage unit.

It costs a LOT of energy to pump all that water uphill. Then it's stored. Then it's used as generation when prices are higher later in the day (prices lower at night, higher during the day).

It's not used in the way you are describing. It's not stored for long periods of time as "backup". it's used constantly throughout the day/week. Also, there are times (drought conditions) where the entire plant is wittling their thumbs until we get more water downstream.

Quite Frankly Chief Engineers not only look at the laws of physics differently...they can change them !!!!!!

OP, source linked in OP, and do the math.

Source says 3.1M deaths per year from air pollution. I attribute only a fraction of that pollution to power generation from coal.

I'm talking average annual rate over the lifetime of nuclear power. If Fukushima results in a significant number of deaths, the annual rate for 2011 alone will be about two decimal orders of magnitude higher. There have been commercial nuclear reactors for electricity generation for nearly 60 years.

Method:

It's rough and ready, but that's one of the reasons I am only giving things in orders of magnitude. Another reason is that some of the data is controversial.

Assume the current figure of deaths per TWh for nuclear doesn't include any for the Fukushima disaster, but does for Chernobyl etc. Calculate the number you'd need to add to the current death toll to get the death toll to reach 15 or 150/ TWh. from the current 0.04 (or 0.4 if you believe the Green Party over the UN, IAEA and WHO). Remember to average that over nearly 50 years (not 60 because we have to wait until production gets significant), et voila!

jiggs,

(sincere q)

does the u.s. have enough natural gas (shale) or is that a big misconception also

There are a number of heat capture techniques that can be used with solar. The key is to capture heat rather than convert heat to electricity, then convert the electricity to some form of stored energy and then convert that back again to electricity. The two extra conversions use up power.

The problems with energy storage are safety and availability of the storage medium, and the efficiencies of conversion and retention.

Pumped water is quite safe and the technology exists, but the required water or geography is not always available. I think the picture is currently unclear on the conversion efficiency of the method. The retention efficiency is site dependent, but probably is quite good in most cases for short-term storage.

Heat storage is less safe than water storge, though perhaps not by very much. It seems to often involve toxic elements. There maybe a problem with media avalablity. Conversion efficiency woudl seem to be reasonably goood, but storage retention less good.

As I said in another post, I think we'll end up going to either chemical or geothermal storage, but that's just uneducated speculation.

Yes. The problem is that almost all those "reliable" methods are not renewable. Also, other than nuclear, they all produce greenhouse gases.

Where I think this points is that moving to non-greenhouse gas emitting renewable energy production is going to require a theoretical maximum generation capacity that is much greater than peak demand.

Can you clarify for us the loss of energy at each stage in this process:

• Pumping water up hill,
• Storing the water above the turbine
• Running the water through the turbine

plus any other energy losses that occur in the ystem?

What is the generating efficincy of the turbines used to produce electricity in a pumped water storage unit? Are these reversible to do the pumping, or do you use separate units for the pumping?

Enough for what?

I want my nuclear jetpack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-..._b_837172.html

Wind turbines are also earthquake/tsunami proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec

What are you thinking about this project? And wouldn't it be perfect for some southern parts of US as well?

i wish they hadn't killed Tesla
he had discovered perpetual renewable energy
damn corporations

I'll try my best. I'm not a technical guy with the units I'm more on the financial side.

Here are some examples, using 1 pump/generator. It "costs" 120 MWs of energy to pump water up into the reservoir. When generating, it produces approx 110 MWs on power. This means we have to pay for each MW we use. We pay at the market price, so its' obviously best to pump the water up at times when prices are lowest - after midnight. So, during the day when there is peak demand during the morning pickup and the peak (4pm) we produce MWs and get PAID the market price. So let's say at 1am the market price of energy is 28 dollars. During the day the market price is, say, 43 dollars. So the issue is you can't generate power at a lower cost than what you paid to pump it, you'll lose money.

The unit can do either mode, pump or generate.

With turbines that are run with nat gas there is a heat rate curve. The unit is inefficient at very low levels and very high levels, it's most efficient I think near the middle. It's like a car, an engine is less efficient when you're trying to do 100mph than 55 mph.

So do I. So do I.

Plenty... but at what cost (including devastating environmental destruction), and what rate of extraction?

If you're given 100 million dollars, but with the stipulation that you can only withdraw $1,000 of it per month... You may be a multi-millionaire, but you'll never live like one.

Wind and solar are the 90lb weaklings of the energy.
Barring a major technology breakthrough, no one would use these backward energy sources without massive govt subsidies...
When the wind isn't blowing and when the skies get cloudy you get no power.
And energy storing technology is extremely primitive to the point where wind and solar does not work in a free market... Take away the govt subsidies and the whole house of cards falls down. This is not me talking. This is math talking...

With regard to biofuels only work in one place that I know of and that is in Brazil.
But we do not have the fresh water resources that Brazil has to make it work here...

Hydro, nuclear, coal, and gas are our only reliable sources.
So you windheads and solarheads need to wake up and smell the pragmatism...

no, it's you talking... if it was the math talking, you'd have linked to some.

No one said wind and solar would fully replace fossil fuels. This is about supplementing the vastly over-burdened grid to increasing degree, ... and having fall-back infrastructure in place in the event of a supply shock.

My town put wind turbines up at the local sewage treatment plant. Guess what? Smart.

To this day tesla coils are the most amazing soviet defense apparatus...NOD too