Loch Ness monsters of energy storage

I came across one or two proposals over the last few weeks for mega sized pumped storage facilities in Scotland to back up intermittent renewables (such as wind), which I thought it would be worth commenting on.

Figure 1: Further energy storage will be needed to backup renewables in future, although how much storage is a matter of some debate

Figure 1: Further energy storage will be needed to backup renewables in future, although how much storage is a matter of some debate

The first proposal involves taking Loch Morar, a freshwater loch 300m deep, but one just a few hundred metres from the shores of Loch Nevis (salt water). The plan would be to build a dam 280m high across a narrow pass to the North, which would allow an upper reservoir to be created 300m high. Water could then be pumped in either direction to create 600m of head and provide up to 1800 GWh’s of energy storage. Further options to build another dam to the south and pump water in and out of Loch Nevis would also exist.

Figure 2: The Loch Morar proposal [Credit: Julian-Hunt, 2013 http://theenergycollective.com/julian-hunt/199896/energy-storage-solution-uk-large-scale-pumped-storage-site ]

Figure 2: The Loch Morar proposal [Souce: Julian-Hunt, 2013]

By comparison, the UK’s current storage capacity is about 30 GWh’s. The UK’s dams produce a further 5,700 GWh’s annually, so if we assume say 45 days of storage on average that implies a further 700 GWh’s of unreplenishible storage.

And if this proposal seems a little oversized, there’s what is appropriately billed as “the loch Ness monster of energy storage”. This proposal is to build a dam 300m high to impound Strath Dearn, a glen in the Monadhliath mountains in the North Highlands, about 400m above sea level. Water would then be pumped along a canal from the Firth of Forth (given the obvious complications with pumping so much seawater such a long distance, I’d argue it would be easier to pump water up from nearby Loch Ness instead).

Figure 3: The Monster of Monadhlaith Mountain [Source: Scottish Scientist, 2014 https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/ ]

Figure 3: The Monster of Monadhlaith Mountain [Source: Scottish Scientist, 2014]

Either way the resulting reservoir would be capable of holding 4.4 billion m3 of water at a height of as much as 650m above sea level, representing a pumped storage capacity of 6,800 GWh’s. Enough to not only back up the whole of the UK’s renewables, but most of Europe’s!

Certainly there are some obvious criticisms of these projects. For example, at peak output the Strath Dearn facility would be capable of delivering +255 GW’s to the grid (the UK currently averages about 30 GW’s with a peak of perhaps 50 GW’s in winter), which raises the small issue of how to transport that much power South or North (when sending it for storage). You’d be covering most of the Grampian’s in powerlines!

Figure 4: Sea water pumped storage is not a new idea, this facility in Japan has been operating since 1999 [Agency of Natural Resources and Energy Japan]

Figure 4: Sea water pumped storage is not a new idea, this facility in Japan has been operating since 1999 [Source: Agency of Natural Resources and Energy Japan]

There’s also the matter of pumping large amounts of sea water inland and the environmental effects of any leaks and spills. I would note that Sea water pumped storage is not a new idea, the Japanese have just such a plant operating on Okinawa, one they hoped eventually to become a string of such facilities to help their nuclear industry expand (nuclear reactors have essentially the oppose problem of renewables, they want to be on all the time, but grid demand fluctuates, meaning they need something to provide peaking power or some form of energy storage). While only 30 MW’s this facility has successfully operated for several years and many of the technical issues relating to leaks of sea water have been addressed.

I would also chuck in the need for another reservoir at the base of the dam, as a sudden swap from pump to power out (or visa versa) could cause problems, hence why relying on water pumped in from Loch Ness rather than sea water would probably be a better idea.

Certainly these proposals do get around one of the major myths you’ll hear put out about renewables – that we can’t store the energy and thus renewables can’t be relied upon. Of course this was always a myth put forward by those who don’t understand how renewables worked, nor indeed that all energy sources need some level of “backup”, nor that a number of renewable sources (Tidal, biomas, hydro, geothermal, solar CSP) aren’t intermittent and others such as solar and wind power tend to be complementary (i.e. if its not windy, its usually sunny, if its cloudy, its usually blowing a gale). In short, such issues are simply not going to be a problem for a future low carbon grid, assuming it has a good mix of different renewables, suitably spread out across the continent with good interconnection and use of “smart grid” technology.

Indeed my main criticism is just that these proposals are too darn big, we’ll simply never need that much storage capacity. And it won’t seem sensible to me to put all our energy eggs in one or two baskets. I suspect a series of storage facilities spread out across the UK and the rest of Europe would be a better idea. Indeed there are a number of proposals floating around for new energy storage facilities across Europe (although none on this scale admittedly).

For example a proposed 6.8 GWh sea water pumped storage facility on Glinsk mountain in Mayo, Ireland. There’s also proposals to identify a number of coastal valleys around the Irish coast and flood them in a similar manner to the above Loch Morar scheme, gaining 100-200 GWh’s of storage at a time. And this report from the European commission indicates how the EU’s PHS capacity could be increased significantly. In Turkey alone (hardly a country known for its heavy rain!) 3,800 GWh’s could be added.

Figure 5: Two potential pumped storage facilities with a capacity in excess of 1.8 GW's are evident in this picture, with another few potential sites the other side of the valley []

Figure 5: Two potential pumped storage facilities with a capacity in excess of 1.8 GW’s are evident in this picture, with another few potential sites the other side of the valley

While it is often said that there are no suitable sites for new hydroelectric plants in the highlands, this is not true of pumped storage or micro-hydro. Take a look at any map of Scotland and you’ll quickly identify several obvious sites in a matter of minutes. And some of these sites are being seriously investigated. SSE is for example pursuing a planned facility in Coire Glas (just over the hill from an existing pumped storage facility at Ben Cruachan), with consent for the facility granted in 2013. In Wales a proposed facility Glyn Rhonwy is also being taken forward.

So my suspicion is that lots of little facilities tucked away here and there, along with the conversion of existing hydro dams to pumped storage (such as Ben Lawers and Loch Sloy as both have quite a large head of water), would probably be a better idea than one mega storage facility. This study by Strathclydes ESRU suggests that 514 GWh’s could be added by converting existing high head reservoirs to pumped storage.

But how much pumped storage would be needed? Well keep in mind that electricity is only a small fraction of overall energy consumption (about 20%). A future energy grid will be devoting quite a sizeable proportion of its output towards things like heating (36%) and transport fuels (at least 30%). The heat load in particular will likely be obtained from a combination of boilers and CHP plants of various sizes, initially running on a combination of biofuels and natural gas (with presumably CCS) and later on hydrogen. This means that there will be a sizeable capacity of generating plant still available to back up wind or solar, at least over the winter months.

Storage of hydrogen underground is not a new idea, a facility in the US has stored large quantities of it underground in a salt cavern since the 80’s without any particular difficulties. Technical reviews by Bossell (2006, Does a Hydrogen Economy Make Sense?), Eric Wolf (2015, Large-Scale Hydrogen Energy Storage) and Camparani et al (2009, Journal of Power Sources Vol. 186, focuses mainly on cars, but it considers the full life cycle of H2 production, transport and storage) suggest hydrogen could be sourced via renewables, stored and transported to end users with an overall efficiency of 55-70%. Okay, not as good as pumped storage (64-74% once we account for an average UK grid efficiency of 92%), but when you consider that H2 would directly integrate with much of the existing gas network, it makes it a better choice of storage for winter heating fuel. Either way, this cuts down the proportion of winter backup needed by a considerable margin.

Figure 6: Underground Storage of Hydrogen is one future energy option [KBB]

Figure 6: Underground Storage of Hydrogen is one future energy option [Credit: KBB]

Let’s suppose that with the upgrading of existing hydro-electric facilities and the addition of some extra capacity, including one or two new reservoirs, give us 1.5 times the level of that 514 GWh’s figure mentioned before, that’s 514 x 1.5 = 771 GWh’s, plus existing capacity of 30 GWh’s gives about 800 GWh’s without breaking too much sweat.

Tidal lagoons (such as the scheme proposed in Wales) can also provide energy storage, Mc Kay (not one of my favourite people, he has a habit of getting his sums wrong), proposes arrays of these around the UK coast which could provide 20 GWh’s of storage a go, along with 400-650 MW of installed capacity. So 10 such facilities would provide 200 GWh’s of storage.

Figure 7: Energy storage technologies compared [Source: Sandia National Laboratories, 2013]

Figure 7: Energy storage technologies compared [Source: Sandia National Laboratories, 2013]

Its safe to assume that more cars in the future will be electric, keeping in mind that even hybrid cars will have a battery with at least 10-20 kWh’s each of capacity and +40 kWh’s each for fully electric cars. This means that a modest fleet of say 6 million such vehicles (out of an existing UK fleet of 29 million cars), assuming we only use the first 10-20 kWh’s of the battery capacity, would be able to supply between 60 – 120 GWh’s of storage.

Figure 8: Energy storage options by density [Credit: IIG Freiburg, 2008 via Siemens http://www.siemens.com/innovation/apps/pof_microsite/_pof-fall-2009/_html_en/trapping-the-wind-2.html ]

Figure 8: Energy storage options by density [Source: IIG Freiburg, 2008 via Siemens]

There are several new energy storage technologies in development. Large battery arrays to back up renewables is one option. Elon Musk, amongst others, is seriously investigating these as a viable energy option, although it is early days. Another is the idea of CAES (compressed air energy storage) or the recent innovation of LAES (liquid air energy storage). LAES is an interesting idea, because it can be easily added to existing thermal power infrastructure, something as noted we’ll have no shortage of, without too much additional cost. Its storage energy density of 100-200 kWh’s per m3 makes for pretty compact storage.

Figure 9: LAES is a new yet “low tech” energy storage option [Credit: The Engineer.co.uk, 2011]

Figure 9: LAES is a new yet “low tech” energy storage option [Credit: The Engineer.co.uk, 2011]

Of course these are all emerging technologies, some won’t work out and its hard to tell which will succeed (another days article). But let’s suppose we can get the same output from them as we can from the cars. So all together that gives us at least 1,000 – 1,200 GWh’s worth of storage across the UK, without trying very hard. We also have the capacity of existing hydroelectric reservoirs of approximately 200 GWh’s (once we account for those reservoirs converted to PHS), although remember this is a one shot source than will take weeks to replenish. So all in we’ve got up to 1,400 GWh’s of storage to play with.

Would this be enough? Another study by the ESRU  suggests that even with a grid drawing on 60% of its power from variable renewables, 550 GWh’s would provide adequate backup for at least seven days. This would seem to imply that the level of storage I’m proposing would provide at least twice the amount actually needed. Although I would note that this study probably doesn’t account for GW’s needed (i.e. sudden draws on the grid at inconvenient times) or extended periods of low renewable output.

As a result some would say no, the UK’s average daily draw of electricity is about 900 GWh’s, so this would seem to imply the above would provide just a day and a half worth of storage (a bit more than half a day if we believe Strathclyde Uni!). However, its worth remembering that this implies an “all stop” scenario with no power being generated and everything turned on. i.e. No sunshine, no wind, no waves, no tides (which is going to be difficult without the moon disappearing!), all the thermal plants down, whatever is left of the UK’s nuclear fleet out to lunch (then again, they have been knocked offline by storms or heatwaves). And of course we’re looking at the UK in isolation. One assumes a future grid will be connected, to the continent, Ireland and possibly even to Norway (and its dams). So we’re imagining a scenario where all of these sources are also unavailable. And we’re ignoring existing policies which calls for “load shedding”, whereby major industrial users of power de-rate or go offline to help ease the pressure on the grid at certain times. Also there are other means of energy storage in the UK we’re not accounting for above. For example, a report by the ERP mentions the nation’s hot water tanks hold at least 65 GWh’s.

Figure 9: Given that the bulk of energy demand is for heat, largely in homes, perhaps that's the source of energy we should be storing? [Source: Underground Energy Storage, 2009 http://www.underground-energy.com/BTES-Winter_Condition.jpg]

Figure 9: Given that the bulk of energy demand is for heat, largely in homes, perhaps that’s the source of energy we should be storing? [Source: Underground Energy Storage, 2009]

The idea that all of these sources could all go down at the same time as all of the loads are on is a pretty unlikely scenario and it’s highly improbable to last any more than 24 hrs. Keep in mind that if the existing grid faced the sort of scenario listed above, we’d be in trouble pretty quickly. Much of the UK’s electricity and heat energy is drawn from the gas reserves of the North Sea. An interruption to pipelines coming off the North sea, given that the UK has very little gas stored onshore, would leave the country with just a few days supply at winter withdrawal rates. If France developed some issue with its nuclear reactors (a safety scare of some sort) and was forced to shut many of them down, they would have problems straight away. As would parts of southern England who depend on French nuclear for electricity.

In short, we’re placing design requirements on a future grid that exceed those of our existing grid. And indeed one could argue the existing UK grid is itself overdesigned. As someone from the national grid once put it to me, how much it would cost to adequately back up the grid for intermittent renewables to become the majority source of electricity is like asking how long is a piece of string. It boils down to the question, how reliable do you want the grid to be? 100% reliable all of the time? or 95% reliable most of the time, but for half the price?

Keep in mind that in other parts of the world brown outs or blackouts are far more common. In the US for example, while its not often the power goes off, it does happen from time to time (heatwaves, forest fires, ice storms, tornadoes, price gouging utilities, etc.). Sufficiently often that anyone who needs power 24/7 generally has a standby generator on-site. Now the Americans could easily add enough spare capacity into their grid, put the cables underground, etc. and have a grid that works all of the time. But would people be willing to pay for that? Probably not.

Consequently about the only situation where I could see such mega storage systems being built is part of some sort of strategic energy reserve (at which point any sensible analysis based on economics and actual requirements goes out the window as we’re talking in terms of national security). Or if there was a failure to deliver on hydrogen as a substitute for natural gas and instead rely on electricity. This would then require a large reserve of electricity to meet winter heating needs. In this scenario the withdrawal rates would of course be much lower, probably in the order of ten’s of GW’s (i.e. capacity of the Three Gorges Dam), well within the limits of a few HVDC lines to support.

Either way, what these proposals do show is that necessity is likely to be the mother of invention. Even if we did need the sort of vast storage levels the naysayers suggest (and we won’t) it would still be technically possible to provide such levels of storage with existing technology, nevermind the potential storage capacity provided by future advances in technology.

That said, any level of storage, regardless of the technology used, is going to take time to develop plan and build. The major problem with that is, if you listen to the IPCC, time isn’t exactly an asset we’re in an abundant supply of.

Advertisements

About daryan12

Engineer, expertise: Energy, Sustainablity, Computer Aided Engineering, Renewables technology
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Loch Ness monsters of energy storage

  1. stock says:

    Thanks for the great blog
    I put this article at a debunk to lie 27) about solar.
    Go to the bottom at the debunk section.
    http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/06/list-of-lies-against-renewables.html

    • daryan12 says:

      I would note that the bulk of variable renewables we’d be discussing above (in Scotland) would be wind and not solar (that said, there’s still some sizable potential for solar that we should be tapping into in Scotland). Indeed, solar has a number of other energy storage options which I don’t mention. Thermal solar systems such as CSP plants or hot water systems can simply dump a certain proportion of the heat into insulated tanks, allowing 24/7 operations.

      Also, in places where it is sunnier the main source of electricity demand tends to be air-con, whose demand rises when its sunny…which is exactly when solar PV panels tend to be at peak output, so there’s a nice match-up between those two.

  2. Pingback: Beware of the Elephants | daryanenergyblog

  3. Pingback: Who is Britain’s energy minister? | daryanenergyblog

  4. Pingback: Why pro-nuclear preaching undermines the case for climate action | daryanenergyblog

  5. I clicked on the “Loch Ness Monster of Energy Storage” link and read their article and the comments section. Critics of the Strath Dearn hydro facility were against the environmental damage, the cost and the necessity of the project. I would argue any renewable energy storage system of this size has to be given the go ahead. I don’t pretend to have any idea of the construction cost, but one of the posters in that link (Scottishscientist) gave an estimate cost of a £180bn for the Strath Dearn facility.
    Compare this with Hinkley Point C, which has an estimated cost of £100bn (plus any host of additional costs) then you can see it’s value for money.
    A lot of people don’t understand a facility like this would displace nuclear, coal and gas energy generation and allow them to be diverted for some other use, or conversed entirely.

    • daryan12 says:

      Hi, I think the £100 billion for nuclear you quote is the cost of the UK’s nuclear waste bill not Hinkley C’s cost (although there’s is the cost of the subsidy for 40 years which is a matter of some debate). Also the Strath Dearn proposal is to not just to back up the UK’s grid but a large chunk of Europe’s (hence why I think its a bit too big).
      Also we need to get away from this argument that its nuclear v’s energy storage. Even nuclear needs some level of back up. Reactors can go down, indeed we are adding storage in the UK, in part, to back up the grid in case of an outage of a future Hinkley C. Also demand for energy fluctuates considerably over time. This means adding storage to even out the peaks and troughs in demand, or building in massive redundancy, i.e. many times more nuclear plants than we need, even though some will only actually get turned on for a few weeks each year.

      • Quite right Daryan12, my mistake. The £100bn is the decommissioning cost. The Hinkley Point C construction cost is £24.5bn. When you say ‘too big’, you mean for the population of Europe as it stands today, not of tomorrow. If the world population is expected to be 10 billion in 2050. How many of those extra people will find themselves travelling to Europe, from across the globe?
        I have no bone to pick with nuclear. If governments want to build new reactors. Let them.
        But the fact of the matter (according the World Nuclear Association dot org) is world reserves of uranium will be depleted in 90 years. And that’s at the current rate of consumption. As fossil fuel resources begin to dwindle. We’ll see more coal liquefaction into hydrocarbons. More natural gas will be used for transportation, meaning it won’t be available for electric generation.
        The truth is we need two or more Strath Dearn’s. We need all of our electricity production to come from renewables. Even some of our transportation fuel could come from it via electrolysis.
        If we want to keep our way of life beyond the latter half of this century, we have to start planning for it now.

        To borrow a line from U2, “too much, is not enough”.

      • stock says:

        solar is a much better option.
        nuclear makes stupid look smart.

      • daryan12 says:

        Still, someone has to pay for “too much” and often they don’t want to do that…until the lights go out! Its easier to sell a lot of smaller projects scattered around Europe than one big single one, particularly if its in Scotland and access to it goes through England, which may not be part of the UK or the EU come a few years time.

  6. Pingback: Airborne wind turbines | daryanenergyblog

  7. Pingback: The 100% club | daryanenergyblog

  8. Pingback: Hinkley C update – Chaos and TINA | daryanenergyblog

  9. Thanks for reviewing my Strathdearn Pumped-storage hydro scheme proposal.

    The water is sourced from the Firth of Inverness, (not from the Firth of “Forth” which is 100 miles south).

    Water is pumped from the Firth of Inverness uphill in pipes for about 5 miles into one end of an upland canal, the “well”.

    Water in a canal flows in the downhill direction of the slope in the water surface elevation. Gravity does all the work. Water is not “pumped along” a canal.

    When the scheme is storing energy, the pumping from the Firth of Inverness raises the elevation of the water at the well end of the canal and the pumping at the dam end of the canal of water up into the upper reservoir lowers the elevation of the water at the dam end of the canal.
    The water in the canal flows from the high elevation at the well end to the lower elevation at the dam end.

    When the scheme is generating energy, the draining of the upper reservoir into the dam end of the canal raises the water elevation at the dam end of the canal while the draining of the canal at the well end lowers the water elevation at the well end of the canal.
    The water in the canal flows in the opposite direction from the dam end to the well end but again from the higher elevation to the lower elevation.

    Simple.

    The problem about pumping water directly from Loch Ness is that doing so in large enough volumes to use the full capacity of the upper reservoir would seriously lower the level of the water in Loch Ness, making normal use of the Loch for boats etc very difficult.

    If there were environmental concerns about pumping sea water inland (not that there should be, because the scheme should be sealed against leaks but anyway) there is a way to use freshwater in the scheme throughout by partitioning off part of the Firth of Inverness to create a distinct lower reservoir and filling it from from the freshwater discharge from the River Ness, at an additional cost and inconvenience to the normal use of the Firth of Inverness

    Well I wouldn’t “chuck” in another “reservoir” at the base of the dam without careful modelling to check what’s needed for efficient and sudden swapping from pumps to turbines (vice versa).

    It may well be that simply profiling the canal differently at the dam end – transitioning from V-shaped along the canal length to U-shaped at the dam end where the pump inlets are and widening the canal somewhat at the dam end would be all that is needed to keep the pump inlets fully supplied however sudden the switch from turbines to pumps and to avoid a canal overflow when switching from pumps to turbines.

    Similar considerations apply at the well end.

    World’s biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro-scheme, for Scotland?
    https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/2015/04/15/worlds-biggest-ever-pumped-storage-hydro-scheme-for-scotland/

    Scottish Scientist
    Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland
    https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/

  10. Pingback: What worries me about UK energy policy | daryanenergyblog

  11. Pingback: Electricity prices – its complicated | daryanenergyblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s