Re:US Government funds pilot project for heated sand energy ...
by sandworm101 on Thursday April 04, 2024 @01:03PM
(#39933061)
And, if you inundate an area of wilderness to create reservoir you have to also count the lost carbon capture of the growing plants, and the significant methane emissions of the now dead and rotting plant matter under the water. In dry deserts this may be negligible, but the mountains where people most want to install hydro projects are generally very forested.
Re:US Government funds pilot project for heated sand energy ...
by pfdietz on Thursday April 04, 2024 @02:31PM
(#39934181)
The "vast basin" part of that is an exaggeration.
Look at https://www.whitepinepumpedstorage.com/ and the sizes of the upper and lower reservoirs there. This is to be a 8 GWh, 1 GW facility.
Re:US Government funds pilot project for heated sand energy ...
by mecsred on Thursday April 04, 2024 @03:10PM
(#39934576)
"vast" is a pretty non specific word so I can maybe see why you would think that? I feel like it's pretty obvious from context I'm not talking about an inland sea here. The quoted 5000 "acre-feet" in that project is a considerable amount of water for a man-made structure!
Either way, the details page[1] supports all of my above points. It even comments on the page how rare it is to find a suitable site like the one they've chosen.
Heat sinks meanwhile can be built wherever you have a big rock by drilling some holes. Additionally, gravity definitely does lose stored energy in its "stable state", through evaporation and water entering the water table. Losses depend on geology and local climate, but it's not negligible.
Not to say that pumped hydro is a bad technology, it's just got it's own challenges and uses. It's most applicable in the form of electrical grid storage. But specifically on the scale of keeping towns and cities warm, heatsinks outperform almost across the board.