Future imagined technologies and/or infrastructure can't help you with balancing the power on the grid today.
The recent rolling power outages in California came from the fact that they are too dependent on renewables and basically ran out of power generating capability as the sun was setting in the evening but everyone wanted to keep running their air conditioning.
Actually it's more complicated than that:
"Several gas plants that were supposed to provide power failed to operate or tripped off, the CAISO said in a press conference last Wednesday. ... The CAISO also confirmed that demand was no greater than on previous very hot days."[0]
You could equally make the case that the state was too dependent on unreliable gas plants.
[0] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/why-renew...
I found this article helpful: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-8-16-h7249j4l4...
From that article:
Take out all of the solar and wind capacity, and California has
only about 43 GW of capacity to meet demand that could well
exceed that on any hot summer day. And to get to that 43 GW,
you would need all other facilities up and running at absolutely
full capacity with no scheduled or unscheduled outages, which
is not realistic. Yes, you could try to import some power from
the neighboring states, but at times of peak usage they probably
need all of their own power. In short, you have put yourself
in a position where regular intentional blackouts are inevitable.
And, as more and more reliable fossil fuel and nuclear facilities
get closed in favor of wind and solar, the problem looks set
to worsen dramatically over the next several yearshttps://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-4-15-what-is-t...
Doesn't it seem like the author is reasoning backward from a preferred conclusion, the way a lawyer might?
I'm not sure what to make of your "reasoning backward" statement. Just not sure what it means.
It’s actually a really great idea. Here’s a white paper that’s especially relevant for California (forgive the hokey graphic in the executive summary):
https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/White%20Paper%20-%...
This is widely known to be false, and I wrote to correct that.
> What is imagined is that it can be expanded at scale...
No power generation method that we have is a universal solution, and as long as we have nation-states we shouldn't expect it to be.
But pumped hydro has indeed been expanded at scale, and it is in operations, as the wikipedia page I linked demonstrates.
It's not helpful to say things that are obviously false.
I also said:
> Future imagined technologies and/or infrastructure
Sure I could have been clearer but the entire thrust of my message was to say that you can't solve todays grid problems due to intermittent renewables with future technologies (not yet invented) and/or future infrastructure (not yet built).
I certainly agree with you that pumped hydro is viable is some very specific locations. I would also insist that if you want to advocate for more renewables you better include the cost of a combined renewable + pumped hydro to save the intermittent supply problem. And if you are going to advocate for building the renewable generation in one location and the pumped hydro in another location, then you need to include the cost of the transmission lines to get the power to where it is needed and adjust your capacity calculations for the energy lost in transmission lines. Along the way you are going to have also plan for the litigation costs and delays the moment you suggest damming a valley to turn it into a reservoir.
Almost every glowing report about renewables, especially if it is about how "cheap" it now is, fails to account for the alternate generation capacity that must be maintained/built or for the effective generating capacity (i.e. not the peak capacity on the sunniest or windiest day).