this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
402 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
59086 readers
3431 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dams are a whole another story ecologically but even leaving that aside, we are talking 200-300GW capacity currently in the world for PHES, even if you construct damns on every possible lakes, estimates are around 1000GW that world can build. World currently consumes close to 8000GW on baseload. We won't even cover 15% of baseload with PHES.
If you're trolling with your storage as magical solution keep trolling.
Not sure if you are being willfully obtuse, I'm going to assume good faith.
A dam is a hydroelectric plant. you need a river a ravine and a lot more conditions to be met.
This is what I was talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
and technically speaking potential energy could be stored by lifting bolders and then harvest the released energy when they are allowed to come down. There are many ways to device systems like such. You could even go underground and use drilled wells with two reservoirs at different levels for this.
You are mistaken to dismiss this outright without at least looking at the wiki i linked.
I'm not saying storing potential energy doesn't work, it works and even though we lose some energy in conversion it's still better than chemical batteries. No question there, my point is simple, we don't have enough infrastructure to cover the world's baseload demand by releasing stored energy. We need something that can produce baseload power 24x7. Geothermal and tidal(debatable but close enough) are the only viable renewable energy sources we have that run 24x7 and they're not enough to cover the world's energy demands. Adding PSEH doesn't cover it either. We need something more and nuclear (fission or fusion) are the only other options that don't emit CO2.
Here is where my disagreement lies. There is multitude of ways to store potential energy. I understand your point that only 16% of the world's energy usage can be covered by natural sites that lend themselves to this. There are other ways to do this though, for one there is old coal mines that may be repurposed for this. There is also already existing systems like the sewers that can be outfitted to also allow stormdrains to double for this after repurposing them. There is many more way to store potential energy physically than just pumping water up a hill or between different levels of underground ravines...
You could use electrolysis, I am not sure how feasible that would be, however the assertion that this simply won't work I do not buy. You could simply wind a large number of springs or other such maybe natural systems to create the same effect.
All of our energy comes either from the sun or from other stars that ceased. The amount of energy that hits the earth in the form of sunlight is massive and is imho the only presently available energy source we could use today on a large scale. This of course would require a massive engineering effort, but to outright dismiss this sounds like trolling to me.