Slashdot Mirror
Solar Could Lead In Power Production By 2050
Lucas123 writes Solar power could be the leading source of electricity compared with other renewables and conventional sources of power, such as oil and coal, according to a pair of reports from the International Energy Agency. PV panels could produce 16% of the world's electricity, while solar thermal electricity (STE) is on track to produce 11%. At the end of 2013, there had been 137GW of solar capacity deployed around the world. Each day, an additional 100MW of power is deployed. One reason solar is so promising is plummeting prices for photovoltaic cells and new technologies that promise greater solar panel efficiency. For example, MIT just published a report on a new material that could be ideal for converting solar energy into heat by tuning the material's spectrum of absorption. Ohio State University just announced what it's referring to as the world's first solar battery, which integrates PV with storage at a microscopic level. "We've integrated both functions into one device. Any time you can do that, you reduce cost," said Yiying Wu, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Ohio State.
Maybe not the world butt considering the amount of semen in there, it could certainly power a battleship.
of making it difficult for homeowners to utilize this technology thanks to the regulatory capture of giant utility companies. http://www.law360.com/articles/573896/enviros-blast-pa-limits-on-customer-solar-generation http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/as-hawaii-demands-utility-reform-thousands-of-solar-installers-are-laid-off This along with downgrading of utilities stock by one of these banks or analysts (I can't recall which right now), we are going to see utility companies use their political connections to stifle this until they can have full control of the solar electricity production.
That's messed up... Only 40 years of oil supply left, compared to 160 years natural gas and 400 years of coal.
No electricity should be generated via oil right now, and definitely not in 2050.
This prediction was made on nonsensical assumptions and optimism, including doubling of efficiency on mass produced panels and absurd lowering of costs.
My ass could lead in power production by 2050 also.
Bend over, let's get started.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Executive Director also stressed that the two reports do not represent a forecast.
The linked article also misstates what the U.S. Department of Energy report contains (no, it doesn't say solar will go from .2 to 10%). People post this kind of nonsense and then wonder why they have a credibility problem.
You dead.
From the article. "IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven stressed in a statement that her agency's two reports do not represent a forecast. "
The report said "if you wanted to try to have more solar, here's what you would try, and here's what the (devastating) consequences would be. They absolutely did not in any way say that would happen or should happen.
> This prediction was made on nonsensical assumptions
The article said "IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven stressed in a statement that her agency's two reports do not represent a forecast. "
The reports are not predictions of what will happen. They are a statement of "if bureaucrats wanted to increase the use of solar electric, here's how they could try, here's how much magical technology would be required, and here's what some of the (disastrous) consequences would be. It doesn't say that anyone will, can, or should attempt such a thing.
Fusion power plant comes out the same year and it works at night
Yeah, and monkeys _could_ fly out of my butt by 2050 too. They'd have more chance of powering the grid at night though...
Solar Could be 50+% of production, but only around 35% of energy usage. AKA, we'd be wasting power because we are installing too much solar power while we have no good way to store the power, a new solar station only reduces hydrocarbon use by around 60% per watt in places with existing solar power usage due to the need to idle hydrocarbon plants but the inability to fully shut them down. These returns are diminishing. We need to end all solar subsidies and instead focus on energy storage, not tomorrow but right this second.* Don't let help them open more solar power plants till we can store the power. Am researching tech that won't at best be commercially viable for 10-20 years. It's nuclear resonance fluorescence.
*This is the problem with government subsidies, they start usually doing good they continue until they are bad. Politicians start getting kick backs and thus can't end the subsidies because then they would get the kickbacks.
In other news: "too cheap to meter" fusion power available ten to twenty years from today. Whenever "today" might happen to be.
> "Due to global warming, the sun is only available, on average, half the day"
Are you drunk?
It's not "regulatory capture"; it's the very real cost of maintaining the infrastructure that you count on when it's dark out for a few days. I know you're a special penny, but why do you deserve to get paid more for power than other generators? That is exactly what happens with net metering.
It's available right now. And it could lead in power production by 2050. Like so many things, it's right under our noses..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
we'd be wasting power because we are installing too much solar power while we have no good way to store the power
We are currently wasting almost a 100% of it now. All that solar energy and hardly anyone is capturing it.
a new solar station only reduces hydrocarbon use by around 60% per watt in places with existing solar power usage due to the need to idle hydrocarbon plants but the inability to fully shut them down.
Assuming your numbers are correct, 60% reduction in hydrocarbon burning is fucking awesome!
As far as subsidies - I'm torn. Although, if solar can be competitive or better yet, blow away fossil fuels without ANY subsidies, then there wouldn't be any objections to it from anyone but the fossil fuel producers.
Then again, countries that ARE subsidizing their solar industry (like China) may end up with owning the tech for the most economical solar and we'll be playing catch. And I'm uncomfortable with that.
I have a shed on a friend's property which has a number of LED lights on it which are glowing quite well, and it is definitely night.
What is desperately needed is a form of energy storage technology. We get within an order of magnitude of energy by volume of gasoline for energy density, and transportation will be fundamentally changed. Even basic power grid design would be changed by such a discovery.
It's not "regulatory capture"; it's the very real cost of maintaining the infrastructure that you count on when it's dark out for a few days. I know you're a special penny, but why do you deserve to get paid more for power than other generators? That is exactly what happens with net metering.
So tax us honestly.
Tax us on energy production and again on consumption -- grid usage -- to maintain the grid, instead of hiding the cost of the grid. Don't let some corporate behemoth charge us what they want based on "Think of the grid!"; the argument is no more valid than "Think of the children!".
Of course, if we do this, I must insist that the grid be owned by the public, as well, rather than some corporate behemoth, and it can be maintained by the lowest bidder. If the corporate behemoth *happens* to be that bidder, good on them. If it doesn't, good on whoever wins instead.
Just like the gas tax or bridge tolls, and public roads.
There is also the cost of burning coal and oil that isn't seen. Climate change is controversial, but it is pretty obvious that it is happening, and really bad stuff is going to happen unless we stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere at the rate that it is going in.
You insensitive clod!
I live in Northern Canada; climate change is a *benefit*, not a *cost*! Change it faster, please!
The best part is you didn't even notice this obvious dry joke. Might I recommend "Being There", the book?
I agree. A poster below commented that we end solar subsidies and focus subsidies on batteries. That has so many applications that don't include frying birds or blanketing beautiful federally protected lands.
Extrapolation:
http://xkcd.com/605/
Is that you, mum?
solar panels cost more in materials (fabbing the silicon, energy for the aluminum, more energy to melt and shape it, etc.) than a panel ever gets back in energy coming in
Yawn. You coal shills need to come up with some new lies. Everyone in the world knows that your statement above is a lie. Solar panels return their embodied energy in 1 to 3 years. They continue to return more energy after that for at least another 50 years. At that point, everything in them is fully recyclable into new panels.
If you must lie for your feudal coal barons, please try to think of some more original and entertaining lies.
Only if they orbit solar power satellites
Part time power is silly. Build 100 1000 megawatt fission plants and be done with it.
They act like they think there could be technological advancements in the next 35 years.
We know better. Technology stopped progressing early last decade and solar will never be useful. In fact, solar energy is bad for you, causes cancer and creates 100 times more pollution than fracking in a nuclear waste site. Being part of the grid is double-plus good. It ties us together as a society and fosters love and understanding. In the long run, fossil fuels save money and keep the environment clean, because we dig that nasty oil and coal out of the ground where it could hurt animals and burn it off safely.
This has been a paid advertisement, and may not represent the opinions of the proprietors of this Slashdot account.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Reminds me of a joke. A old hillbilly goes off to the big city and checks out the department store. He's walking around when he sees these strange pants and shirts. So he asks the sales lady what's with these strange clothes here? The saleslady says, they're pajamas. Old man says what are pajamas's? And she says, they are clothes for at night. Oh! says the old hillbilly, I don't need any then.Only place I go at night is to bed.
Seriously, early in the morning electric demand is around 40% of peek. Storage probably isn't much of an issue until solar starts supplying between 50-70% of peek demand.
Solar vs fusion is right now vs who knows when. Fusion plants are also very likely to be base load plants like coal and especially nuclear. Which is to say the inability to throttle is a bug not a feature.
Isn't 2050 well past the predicted date of the singularity?
If I am around in 2050 it would be a shock. I just hope solar does make it to the top by then, or long before preferably.
Please mod down any idiot that puts the first half of the first sentence in the subject.
It is the only way to stop these people.
I think areas highly suited for solar power generation--southwestern USA, around the Mediterranean Sea, much of the Middle East, and much of Australia--will be the areas where rooftop solar panels and large-scale solar power plants start to dominate in terms of power generation. Mind you, they may be competing against future forms of nuclear power, especially if the technology for molten-salt nuclear reactors fueled by thorium-232 dissolved in molten fluoride salts become practical.
Fusion ah err fusion... it dead Jim
"If you must lie for your feudal coal barons, please try to think of some more original and entertaining lies."
that's never going to happen, they are a single trick pony of ideas
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The energy disinfo trolls are all over solar threads. Gee, i wonder why.
I don't understand, I was told that solar only leed to deed birsds and huuuman faility, don't get now
Since solar panels cost more in materials (fabbing the silicon, energy for the aluminum, more energy to melt and shape it, etc.) than a panel ever gets back in energy coming in,
In fact, solar panels would recoup the energy cost of their production in just seven years back in the seventies. And we're talking about the polycrystalline panels. So if anyone was wondering, this is how tired the anti-solar rhetoric is. Not only is it not true, but it's forty years of the same stupid lies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We get within an order of magnitude of energy by volume of gasoline for energy density, and transportation will be fundamentally changed.
Yea, pigs will fly.
If there weren't 'suburbs' in Detroit where all the white people moved to when they had enough money, Detroit wouldn't be having problems. The tax rates are the same out there, but they are being used on different things, and the tax base downtown has been decimated.
I would love it if I had a military pension and tricare. Let alone a gov. pension. They seem too be the only ones who are capable of retiring. There is no way that my 401k will come close to what I will need to live 50-60 years past 62, especially with inflation and a few stock market crashes thrown in.
That's great. Because with renewable energy a shed is all that people will be able to afford to live in.
Hawaii's solar energy industry (like most) is in a "precarious situation" because they depend on regulatory capture for their survival.
Demanding the end of regulatory capture and subsidies isn't regulatory capture.
Why would banks or analysts give a f*ck whether people invest in green energy or purple energy?
Both utilities and green energy companies have underperformed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The idea that this is due to some grand conspiracy is ludicrous.
But if you think green energy companies are undervalued, why don't you open up an E-Trade account and put your money where your mouth is? If analysts mislead investors, you should be getting a bargain! Ultimately, what matters is whether companies deliver a competitive product, not what analysts say.
What is desperately needed is a form of energy storage technology. We get within an order of magnitude of energy by volume of gasoline for energy density, and transportation will be fundamentally changed. Even basic power grid design would be changed by such a discovery.
I suspect autonomous cars will arrive first, as the physics of batteries are quite well researched and finding revolutionary new chemistry seems unlikely. Not that genuinely driver-less cars are close either, but they seem far more realizable using existing sensors and computational power. One of the greatest costs to charging EV vehicles today is the downtime for the driver, if there's no driver then it won't matter for most bulk transport that it keeps stopping to recharge. As for personal transport, it'd take most of the inconvenience out of renting a car (pickup, delivery, driving an unfamiliar car, liability for traffic damage) while being a lot cheaper than a taxi making it a lot more versatile. That is true for ICE cars too, but it makes it a lot more feasible to own an EV that only covers your daily needs. Not having to drive myself is just a bonus, If I could have an alternate car show up at my doorstep when I need it at reasonable rates then I'd only need a single-seater 15 mile radius EV with room for groceries in my garage. Need to go further or have more space? Call on a Leaf or a Tesla or an ICE. If it was that easy, I wouldn't need the car I have today.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I read about that in the PopSci issue back in 1969, right next to an article about flying cars.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
This. Solar nicely produces at peak times. Pumped storage is currently under-utilized in Germany.
From an energy companies perspective the big problem with solar is that you need to think about what happens on a cloudy day or at night. Basically that means you need to have altenative capacity to produce energy that is in most cases 100% of the installed PV capacity, as the power storage technologies that are available now just aren't up to storing the PV from sunny days for later use. For example PV represents upto 40% of the power for the French operator SEI (sei.edf.fr) who supply power to Corsica, Martinique, Guadoloupe, etc. However, they have enormous diesel generators they replace the PV at night and cloudy days.
Until we have better power storage technologies, wind and solar can never represent more than a fraction of the power mix because it is just not economically feasible to have the replacement generation capacity that is sitting around doing nothing when its sunny.
D.
Insulation keeps water heated in the middle of the night hot until at least the middle of the next night, and you just need a tank big enough to hold what you use. As said above, a 1960s solution to what to do with all that spare base load power in the middle of the night instead of the expensive process of shutting coal fired units down at night to warm up again over several hours in the morning.
That's what we are using now, we just keep the power plant millions of miles away for safety, and transfer the power wirelessly.
Learn to love Alaska
Joke + not funny = troll
Learn to love Alaska
...where my power comes from. As long as it's cheap and reliable.
So don't go fucking turning off the coal plants until this mythical solar shit is in place, on the grid and putting out power 24/7 by whatever means.
Storage is a solved problem. I've visited hydro storage facilities. They are here now, they work, and they are in use. There are plenty of others. But they aren't in mass production because they aren't needed. Waiting until the valve caps are designed to decide whether to build a car that has working prototypes is stupid.
The only reason there isn't widespread energy storage solutions is that it's not needed, and may never be needed.
So why wait for roads to be built to every address in the world before making cars? The first cars were made without dedicated roads. Those came quickly after. Roads and storage are solved problems. But you don't build them until you have demand.
Learn to love Alaska
We've had the batteries a long time, Thomas Edison developed the NI-Fe battery back in 1901, you wouldn't want them for an electric car, but to level-out grid demand or to keep the lights on in the house after sundown when you're off the grid they are near perfect.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Storage for what? If we had "perfect" storage, it wouldn't do anything to reduce our demand for fossil fuel. We need more generation first. Storage is a solved problem with no demand.
Learn to love Alaska
Almost every article I read says "efficiency" (% of photon energy converted to electricity) is the problem with solar panels, and there is all this focus on higher-efficiency panels. But let's get it straight: It won't be rising efficiency (watts/m^2) that make solar panels really take off; it's not like limited roofspace is the bottleneck that we're all fighting here. It's cost: dollars per watt. As cost drops, solar panels should further proliferate.
Solar PV would be the best solution right now for Third World rural population. It and wind power would be best for most small islands that have to import oil to generate electricity. And right now it is probable the best solution for any rural population that has enough sun.
My ass could lead in power production by 2050 also.
Get this man a truck load of bean burritos and a very soft toilet seat, STAT!
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
So, solar generating 50% of world's electricity by 2050.
And what about the rest ? We need 100% renewables by then, are you telling me that wind+hydro+biomass+geothermal will produce the balance ?
Honestly, how much coal and natural gas will still be burned by then ?
Per the usual, the anti nuclear wind+solar only ignore the real problems and focus only on the pleasant side of their ideas.
We could get rid of 100% of coal and 50% natural gas far before that if we start adopting nuclear in mass scale right now.
I'm not saying no to solar. I'm just saying, without nuclear there is no hope of fixing climate change in time.
The other side of this scale is how winter heating will be done by 2050 ? Without nuclear heating, we'll be forced to keep burning natural gas and coal for heating.
Wind can't scale in lockstep with solar. At least solar produces everyday. Wind can go for days without producing much. We have no hope of storing a week worth of grid production to allow mass scale wind energy production, even with far lower chemical battery costs.
We need to get rid of 100% of coal by 2050 and the vast majority of all natural gas and petrol usage. This solar 50% electricity by 2050 scenario provides none of that.
This whole hoopla is a carefully orchestrated movement to force the world to continue to use coal and natural gas as much as possible for as long as possible. Only nuclear can actually get us off burning fossil stuff quickly.
Pumped storage is certainly not underutilized in Germany.
Pumped storage does not show up on 'renewable' charts as it is a zero sum game, you get the same energy out of it you pumped up first.
So the energy behind pumped storage is counted.
If you had a clue how power grids work you would not make such brain dead comments. Germany has roughly 10GW pumped storage power and roughly 50GWh storage as work/energy. Afaik in percentage of daily power production we are world leader.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
many times over the last few years, people have, with total confidence, asserted that solar won't be common because (thinking of that list you anti spam idea won't work because..)
will ONE PERSON have the honesty and guts to admit that they were wrong ?
based on the ratio of people who predicted Ocare will fail cause the website will never get fixed, or people won't sign up, or won't pay premiums, or rate shock, to ratio of people who said they were wrong, I predict that the answer to my question is undefined (div by zero)
the sun doesn't shine at night
storage is hard
panels are $$
transport is pricey
etc
all loosers
well, if you look at or
the same old lies actually work pretty well; that is cause most people are either stupid or un interested and not paying attention, so you can use the same lie over and over and over
I bet the republicons even trot out the >this person faces huge rate shock lie of the past few years (if you don't know what I'm talking about check out http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
lie is not to strong a word)
once again, for the 100th time
neutron flux embrittles shell; need to replace thousands of tons of now radioactive steel
coupling of fusion at megadegrees to something useful (steam at 1,000) not known
after billions spent, "optimistic" predictions say another 20 years and billions needed to get to something that might be useful
fusion power: the welfare program for phyiscists; always has been; always will be
If there weren't 'suburbs' in Detroit where all the white people moved to when they had enough money, Detroit wouldn't be having problems.
wait what?? are you saying that the city is ruined because white people left? You would think the people who stay there would have some self respect and want to maintain their city. How about instead of blaming them for leaving we figure out why they left and work on stopping that??
I know, its easier to blame whitey
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
if you dont know where to buy real gold, you are doing it wrong. its really not that hard
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
you do know that they fucking degrade, 50 years, fuck off more like 10-15 if your fucking lucky...
Hey, Mr. Coward, if that's true, why to panel producers put up to 25 year warranties on them? The warranty says they will produce at least 80% of stated power level for that long.
About your use of expletives: Fuck you.
It looks like fusion power has already finally stopped always being fifty years away back fourteen years ago!
Gold is one asteroid mined away from being in windfall.
Here in Wisconsin, USA have only one electricity provider, WE-Energies. If you install solar and are connected to their grid they charge a higher rate. WTF is up with that?
Pumped storage is certainly not underutilized in Germany.
You can look up the actual use of pumped storage here:
http://www.agora-energiewende....
Power from pump storage never even comes close to 10GW. Does look pretty underutilized to me. But if you have better data, please share.
Pumped-storage definitely is also not profitable at the moment because solar reduced peak power prices:
http://www.icis.com/resources/...
Pumped storage does not show up on 'renewable' charts as it is a zero sum game, you get the same energy out of it you pumped up first.
Ofcourse, why are you telling me this?
If you had a clue how power grids work you would not make such brain dead comments.
Well, if you would be able to present actual numbers, you would not have to resort to insults.
Germany has roughly 10GW pumped storage power and roughly 50GWh storage as work/energy.
This sounds about right, but this is installed capacity, not what is actually used.
Afaik in percentage of daily power production we are world leader.
Ofc power of pumped storage does not come close to 10GW, that is precisely the reason, we "only" have slightly under 10GW installed, more is not needed :)
Pumped-storage definitely is also not profitable at the moment because solar reduced peak power prices ...
That is nonsense in several dimensions.
'Peak' power prices are high, and solar profits from that, there is no real decrease in prices around peak times due to solar power. Next is: "peak" does not mean what you think it does. That is why I put it in quotes. Third, pumped storage is not used for 'power production', it is a storage, hence the name.
Finally: pumped storage plants are the most profitable plants in germany. They buy energy for negative prices, they not only get it 'for free' but get 'profit' on top of it.
Their comtribution to the grid is huge. They are the primary contributors to 'primary reserve energy' (seconds reserve, seconds as in time) and also important for 'secundary reserve energy' (minute reserve, minute as in time).
The actual numbers (a bit outsated) about how much pumped storage germany has installed, you can find on wikipedia.
And: pumped storage plants work both ways: they artificially increase demand to fit the current power production _and_ they are the prime contributor to fix sudden surges in demand and keep the grid frequency stable. .that is what they are build for: demand shaping (that is what power companies call 'peak').
Could we use more of them? Yes in 10 to 30 years when we are primarily renewable, but right now we have - 'typicaly german' - more than twice the amount we need to keep the grid(s) stable.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ofc power of pumped storage does not come close to 10GW, that is precisely the reason, we "only" have slightly under 10GW installed, more is not needed :)
Not coming close to the installed capacity is the definition of underutilized. My point is exactly that Germany currently has more than enough pumped storage, so what are you trying to tell me?
Pumped-storage definitely is also not profitable at the moment because solar reduced peak power prices ...
That is nonsense in several dimensions.
Hey, I gave a source. Although I admit I should have said: building more pumped storage is currently not profitable. Maybe the old ones can still be operated in a profitable way, but considering the low utilization I somehow doubt it.
'Peak' power prices are high, and solar profits from that, there is no real decrease in prices around peak times due to solar power.
Peak power prices in Germany are *not* high anymore:
"The spread in Day-Ahead prices between peak and baseload hours reached an all time low of 4.36 €/MWh in 2013, the maximum spread was
2006 with 13.85 €/MWh (inflation adjusted in prices of 2010)." (fraunhofer)
Next is: "peak" does not mean what you think it does. That is why I put it in quotes.
You are not making sense. What is you definition of peak?
Third, pumped storage is not used for 'power production', it is a storage, hence the name.
Yes - again - I know this - why are you telling me this?
Finally: pumped storage plants are the most profitable plants in germany.
Interesting, that is why most projects have been put on hold?
“Currently, such systems are not economical to operate, but we expect a realisation for our project in the next ten years, this means not before 2023-2024,” said a Stadtwerke Mainz spokesman." (From the link I posted.)
They buy energy for negative prices, they not only get it 'for free' but get 'profit' on top of it.
Negative prices exist occasionally and only for short amount of time. They can make a profit at that time but not much because it does not last long. In the past they could make a lot of profit by buying cheap electricity in the night and selling it at peak time. This is much less profitable now because the difference between peak and base prices is much less.
Their comtribution to the grid is huge.
No.
They are the primary contributors to 'primary reserve energy' (seconds reserve, seconds as in time) and also important for 'secundary reserve energy' (minute reserve, minute as in time).
I don't doubt that pumped storage can be useful in providing balancing power. But the market for balancing power is not big enough to make them profitable right now.
The actual numbers (a bit outsated) about how much pumped storage germany has installed, you can find on wikipedia.
I know how much there is installed, thank you. This discussion is not about how much is installed, but how much is actually used.
And: pumped storage plants work both ways: they artificially increase demand to fit the current power production _and_ they are the prime contributor to fix sudden surges in demand and keep the grid frequency stable. .that is what they are build for: demand shaping (that is what power companies call 'peak').
Power companies call demand shaping 'peak'? I don't know what you are trying to say....
Could we use more of them? Yes in 10 to 30 years when we are primarily renewable, but right now we have - 'typicaly german' - more than twice the amount we need to keep the grid(s) stable.
Thank you. This was exactly my point: There is more than enough pumped storage right now in Germany - despite the already high amount of intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. For 80% or 100% renewables more could be useful.
Seems I misunderstood what you wanted to say with "underutilized". If you want to say: we have more storage and more power from pumped storage then we actually use, yes. That is exactly the point of it, otherwise it would be risky to run the grid.
The sources you gave are irrelevant.
Pumped storage is the prime source for stabilizing the grid. That is the only thing it is used for. If you find a link that says building new plants is not profitable, then obviously that is exactly what I said. We have more than enough pumped storage, why should we build more? I understood your "underutilizing" that we don't build more plants, and I pointed out, we have enough. So we agree I guess?
Back to peak. The term is used for 3 different things, and you seem to mix them up.
First: at the energy spot market we distinguish between peak and offpeak. This are simple times of the day. That has nothing to do with "how high the peak of power demand is". So if you want to compare "peak" with "base(correct: offpeak, as base is something completely different again)" then that is not very meaningful. Peak hours: 07:00 - 19:00 and offpeak: 19:00 - 07:00.
Second: peak as the high load area between 9:00 and 21:00 (estimated, to lazy to look at a graph of power demand in Germany) This is what americans usually call peak, and this is what yields premium prices if for some unexpected reason power at that time gets scarce.
Third: the fine grained quick changing power demand (leading to surplus or need) fullfilled by extremely fast reacting power plants, like gas turbines and pumped storage. This is the peak the power industry is talking about.
Their comtribution to the grid is huge.
No.
How can you say that? A modern grid like germans would be impossible without pumped storage.
The alternative to pumping uphill is destroying the surplus power in huge resistors. Expensive
The alternative to adjusting to increasing demand are gas turbines expensive. Both expensive ways get eliminated by pumped storage, with an efficiency of roughly 85% and only installation and maintenance costs. Even if the have to buy the power for real money, which they usually don't do, a pumped storage plant is cheaper than "destroying surplus energy" and "generating reserve energy from gas or coal".
I don't doubt that pumped storage can be useful in providing balancing power. But the market for balancing power is not big enough to make them profitable right now.
That is nonsense. There is no market for more balancing power nevertheless all actually running pumped storage plants are running profitable.
However perhaps you understand now: they are only used fro balancing power.
Power companies call demand shaping 'peak'? I don't know what you are trying to say....
Yes, they do. In german the term is "Spitzenlast", translates into english as peak.
What is understood by americans as peak (and sometimes called peak at the energy spot market) is in german still "Mittelllast" or in english "load following")
"Balancing Power" is technically "peak power" but "legal" or in terms how grids and power companies interact it is "reserve energy". A bit complicated to explain, but assuming I have a good idea how my grid will behave next hours and the plants to utilize it, the energy I produce to follow exactly the demand is "peak energy" (and you can not buy that at the energy spot market).
However in the moment an unexpected change occurs on top of that (where I have no plant to counteract this change) it is called "balancing energy", that balancing energy I usually buy from specialized power producers. That is also handled at the energy spot market, but has nothing at all to do with the their traded "peak energy".
Thank you. This was exactly my point: There is more than enough pumped storage right now in Germany - despite the already high amount of intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. For 80%
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Dry?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Seems I misunderstood what you wanted to say with "underutilized". If you want to say: we have more storage and more power from pumped storage then we actually use, yes. That is exactly the point of it, otherwise it would be risky to run the grid.
The sources you gave are irrelevant.
Your refusal to look at actual data or provide sources for your statements is annoying and makes all discussion with you pointless.