[Greenbuilding] Abandoned mine turned into a pumped storage system...

[Corwyn]

On 3/1/2013 2:55 PM, RT wrote:
> Why do I think it's a greenwashing scam ?
>
> The mine pit is about 200 kms from Toronto, Toronto presumably being the
> beneficiary of the battery storage since I doubt that the communities
> near the pit need that capacity.

The important issue is distance to nearest supplying power station.  If 
there is a nearby station with excess capacity during off peak, that is 
what matters.

> So besides the losses due to inefficiencies in the pumping paraphernalia
> (WatJohn mentioned a ballpark figure of ~25%  as a guesstimate ?) there
> would presumably be transmission losses both ways (ie charging and
> discharging the "battery") which I'm assuming would be an additional
> ~10% each way ?
> So are we talking about ~40% loss before anyone has benefited from the
> "battery" ?

Essentially, yes.  The fact that this can still be a good deal, tells us 
something about our (or rather your) grid.  40% losses are a lot better 
than 100% losses that would be incurred if wind power for example was 
shut down at low peak times.

> Second over half the electricity in Ontario is produced by nukes. The
> Green power produced by windmills and PV arrays would likely never ever
> play a role in charging the battery.. most definitely not the PV power
> plants.

Nuke plants benefit from storage as well.  They are very difficult to 
shut down for short periods, and go down for refueling for *long* 
periods.  But in the final analysis, it doesn't much matter what power 
plant produces the power.  It might bias your electricity mix slightly 
in favor of energy systems which benefit more from storage (i.e. wind, 
nukes, coal, as opposed to methane, and solar)

> Who would pay for the construction of the new,
> larger-capacity infrastructure ? I doubt that it would be the promoters
> of the pumped storage idea. (Rhetorical question -- the consumers would
> be tagged with the bill.)

If the plan is not including those costs, you are right to complain, but 
every power plant requires infrastructure, and *all* costs are *always* 
borne by the consumer.  If it is a choice between this storage facility 
and some other power plant, I don't see that it makes much difference 
(in general).
>
> The basic premise behind the battery is that the pumps to fill the
> reservoir run at night when electricity rates are lower and then the
> electricity is sold back to the utility during high-demand periods.

Yes.  Or alternatively it could be that the power company is doing it 
all internally, and shunting power there when capacity exceeds demand 
and vice versa.  If the power company is doing that, it is likely a 
reasonable proposition.

> I'm not sure what the rate for hydro projects under the FIT program but
> if it's anything like the MicroFIT program

It seems unlikely to me that a massive storage facility would qualify 
for "microFIT".  Never know about you cannucks though.

> Seems that in both examples, the ratepayers and the farmer are getting
> "scammed" if not "screwed".
> No ?

No.  Or rather, maybe not.  It is no more a scam as a theoretical thing 
than any other power plant.  It could still be a scam in a more normal 
sense.

> And where does all the water to "charge" the battery come from ? You
> can't take that much water from some place and not have an effect on
> that water system.

Most derelict mines accumulate rain water.


Thank You Kindly,

Corwyn

-- 
Topher Belknap
Green Fret Consulting
Kermit didn't know the half of it...
http://www.greenfret.com/
topher at greenfret.com
(207) 882-7652