Switzerland's 20 Million kWh 'Water Battery' Is Now Operational 186
A 900 MW 'water battery' that cost Switzerland 2 billion euros and was under construction for 14 years, is now operational, Euronews reported. The battery is located nearly 2,000 feet (600 m) underground in the Swiss Alps. Interesting Engineering reports: A water battery consists of two large pools of water located at different heights. When power production is high, excessive power is used to move water from the lower pool to the pool at a higher height, which is similar to charging a conventional battery. When power demand increases, the water at the higher level can be released and, as it heads to the lower pool, it passes through turbines that generate electricity and can be used to power the grid.
The water battery that recently went operational in Switzerland has a storage capacity of 20 million kWh, the equivalent of 400,000 electric cars, and is aimed at helping stabilize the energy grid in Switzerland and other connected grids in Europe. The plant has six turbines that can generate 900 MW of power, Euronews revealed. The battery has been built between the reservoirs of Emosson and Vieux Emosson in Valais, a canton in the southwestern part of Switzerland. Located nearly 2,000 feet (600 m) underground, the vast engine room of the plant measures about 650 feet (200 m) long and is over 100 feet (32 m) wide.
To move the building materials to the site, the engineers had first to carve out tunnels through the Alps. The length of the tunnels dug for the project extends to about 11 miles (18 km). Once these tunnels were in place, building material and prefabricated buildings could be moved into the mountain, a process that took 14 years. To increase the energy storage capacity of the battery, the height of the Vieux Emosson dam was also increased by 65 feet (20 m). After all this hard work, the battery is now operational and at its peak is capable of powering 900,000 homes at a time.
The water battery that recently went operational in Switzerland has a storage capacity of 20 million kWh, the equivalent of 400,000 electric cars, and is aimed at helping stabilize the energy grid in Switzerland and other connected grids in Europe. The plant has six turbines that can generate 900 MW of power, Euronews revealed. The battery has been built between the reservoirs of Emosson and Vieux Emosson in Valais, a canton in the southwestern part of Switzerland. Located nearly 2,000 feet (600 m) underground, the vast engine room of the plant measures about 650 feet (200 m) long and is over 100 feet (32 m) wide.
To move the building materials to the site, the engineers had first to carve out tunnels through the Alps. The length of the tunnels dug for the project extends to about 11 miles (18 km). Once these tunnels were in place, building material and prefabricated buildings could be moved into the mountain, a process that took 14 years. To increase the energy storage capacity of the battery, the height of the Vieux Emosson dam was also increased by 65 feet (20 m). After all this hard work, the battery is now operational and at its peak is capable of powering 900,000 homes at a time.
Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Informative)
Pumped-storage hydroelectricity [wikipedia.org] That is what it is called.
A water battery consists of two large pools of water located at different heights
I mean if you're going to spend a whole fucking paragraph on explaining this, for fucks sake, at least use the term that everyone else uses. I get it if you've got a forty-five words or less limit on your story, but I mean shit if you're going to write a page and a half, at least use the correct term ONCE damn it.
Re:Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they have nothing better to do.
And using stupid, made up terms like this allow them different marketing opportunities.
Re: Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are all perfectly cromulant words.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
[Citation needed].
Google NGram Viiewer has no references at all in it, so no appearances in books and periodicals before its coinage by The Simpsons on February 18, 1996. And all dictionary references I have ever consulted cite that as the origin.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have nothing better to do.
And using stupid, made up terms like this allow them different marketing opportunities.
BeauHD's channel name is "How To And More" so I think you hit the nail on the head!
Here is one of TVA's projects [tva.com] that began in 1970. They have been using pumped storage FOR DECADES in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have nothing better to do.
And using stupid, made up terms like this allow them different marketing opportunities.
BeauHD's channel name is "How To And More" so I think you hit the nail on the head!
Here is one of TVA's projects [tva.com] that began in 1970. They have been using pumped storage FOR DECADES in the USA.
The Swiss themselves built some of the earliest pumped-storage power plants— Pumpspeicherkraftwerke [wikipedia.org] —mid-nineteenth-century... The European Alps are, of course, predestined for that technology.
Re:Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Insightful)
And you have idiots out there referring to a thermal resistance setup as a "sand battery".
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Basically they have no interest in selling their product.
Their chief product is BULLSHIT.
Re:Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:4)
Words have multiple meanings, and keep evolving. Maybe you have heard of an anti-aircraft battery.
As we find more ways to store energy for later use, battery seems like a reasonable word to use for them.
Re: Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:2)
Battery: one or more similar or identical things working together. A group of identical AA guns in one place is a battery. One or more identical cells creating electricity from chemical reactions is a battery. Millions of identical grains of sand giving off heat is a, err, ok, battery. Underground pumped storage lakes?
Re: Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already the case that single cells are called batteries. People talk about AA batteries, when in fact a single one is a cell. It's come to just mean an energy storage device.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you have heard of an anti-aircraft battery.
AAA batteries store energy as nitro-cellulose, which is inefficient and not rechargeable. Another drawback is they convert the chemical energy to kinetic energy rather than producing electric power.
Re:Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Informative)
Pumped-storage hydroelectricity [wikipedia.org] That is what it is called.
Yup and we have an even larger one here in Virginia. The Bath County Pumped Storage Station [wikipedia.org] -- from that Wikipedia article:
The Bath County Pumped Storage Station is a pumped storage hydroelectric power plant, which is described as the "largest battery in the world", with a maximum generation capacity of 3,003 MW, an average of 2,772 MW, and a total storage capacity of 24,000 MWh.
The station consists of two reservoirs separated by about 1,260 feet (380 m) in elevation. Until late 2021, it was the largest pumped-storage power station in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and we have an even larger one here in Virginia. The Bath County Pumped Storage Station [wikipedia.org]
Thank for the link. That's a really cool installation.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, what is wrong with calling things that have identical functions - energy storage - by the same name? The ability to generalise is considered a positive capacity of the human mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we have been using the term battery incorrectly for 'cell' or 'electrochemical cell' when talking about single cell devices for so long, what's more one incorrect usage of the term? Would be nice if they could have use the correct term at least once though.
Re: (Score:3)
However, why it is underground, especially in a country like Switzerland, is a big big mystery.
In the Netherlands, where they have no mountains, this would make sense, but Switzerland?
Re:Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Informative)
The water reservoirs are actually lakes on the surface [nant-de-drance.ch]. It is the turbines and other infrastructure that is underground. This is most likely because the need to create a vertical drop of enough height to create sufficient pressure [civilengin...gbible.com] with the flow to turn the turbines. The added benefit of it being a constant temperature with no weather impact year round.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Note that the operator (Nant de Drance) simply calls it a "pumped storage plant" as it should be: https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/... [nant-de-drance.ch]
The cool thing is that most of this installation (besides the water reservoirs) is underground.
The "water battery" seems to be part of the usual dumbing-down for the general public. Which is really quite stupid, because anybody that can read should have no trouble with "pumped storage".
Re: (Score:2)
The two major pumped storage facilities in the UK are both underground namely Dinorwig and Cruachan. Partly it is because it minimises the visual impact in often in the countryside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...because anybody that can read should have no trouble with...
You overestimate the reading ability of the general population. An unsettlingly large portion of the US has a 7th grade reading level or below. The term "water battery" may not be dumbed down enough, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
...because anybody that can read should have no trouble with...
You overestimate the reading ability of the general population. An unsettlingly large portion of the US has a 7th grade reading level or below. The term "water battery" may not be dumbed down enough, unfortunately.
Seriously? That seems worse than most parts of the 3rd world...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we used to have a word for a system holding water in a natural cavity for purposes of energy generation. What could it be? Damn? Damp? Darn? Dang?
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh! And I really thought the Swizz had invented a way to store electricity inside of a huge chunk of water!
Re: (Score:2)
"gravity storage". in this case, "pumped energy storage"
I suppose having it enclosed makes some things easier, but certainly more expensive and lower capacity than your typical hydro electric dam.
Re:Why do online stories try to invent new words? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of news sites using the appropriate words out there.
There are. And the plant operators do not even use the word "battery": https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/... [nant-de-drance.ch]
A really cool thing is that they reach 80% efficiency, comparable to battery storage (which has 80...90%) and that it is fast regulation energy, i.e. 5 min from 0% to 100% power delivery and 10 min to switch from generation to pumping. This is by any means mature, reliable, efficient and understood tech and the "we cannot store wind/solar!"-morons should shut right up.
Just to give this a perspective: This thing can supply about 15% of all electricity needed in Switzerland for 22 days.
Re: (Score:2)
This thing can supply about 15% of all electricity needed in Switzerland for 22 days.
But what if the wind stops for 23 days? It's useless /s
Re: (Score:2)
This thing can supply about 15% of all electricity needed in Switzerland for 22 days.
But what if the wind stops for 23 days? It's useless /s
Well, stupid or infantile comment? Who can tell? Here is a really simple explanation: If you have one beer, and after you drink it it is gone. Was the beer useless before you drank it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. You have a point. So if it was 24 days (bottles in a large case of beer here), it would be very useful! Pity they only made it to 23.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to give this a perspective: This thing can supply about 15% of all electricity needed in Switzerland for 22 days.
Nope, you mean 20 hours. Because then it is empty.
Re: (Score:2)
This is by any means mature, reliable, efficient and understood tech and the "we cannot store wind/solar!"-morons should shut right up.
The problem with storage as the solution to everything is that as the intermittent renewable mix increases the amount of storage required explodes into the absurdly unreasonable. The issue is never that some approach is impossible. Only the cost and associated environmental impact of going there becomes unnecessary, costly and environmentally wasteful.
Just to give this a perspective: This thing can supply about 15% of all electricity needed in Switzerland for 22 days
People should take advantage of pumped hydro where they can. It is a very effective option.
Re: (Score:2)
A really cool thing is that they reach 80% efficiency
How? The pumped hydro plants in the US (which are old but still) average 25-35% efficiency on the round trip (50-60% each direction with the extraction being a bit better). But they do respond relatively quickly like you said. Also, the pumped hydro facility in CA only operates about 3 days a month. This is because the daily price swing needs to be 350-400% to make it viable to use. But this one is new so it is probably a bit better but more than about 10% better? probably not.
Re: (Score:3)
A really cool thing is that they reach 80% efficiency
How?
They claim that here: https://www.nant-de-drance.ch/... [nant-de-drance.ch]
They also say this is pretty much among the best on the planet.
From what I gather it is mostly question of geometry. This one has pumps/turbines pretty much at the bottom of the storage lake and the lower storage is right next to it. Looks like a very unique placement to me and explains why they invested so much effort to make it work.
Re: (Score:3)
A pumped storage facility only averaging 25-35% would be absurdly rubbish. That is extremely unlikely so have you got published figures for that? Here in the UK the cycle efficiency for Dinorwig is 74-75% and it was built in the 1970's. Ffestiniog just around the corner built in 1960's and much smaller gets 72-73% cycle efficiency. So a modern plant getting 80% seems entirely reasonable to me.
millions of thousands (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait... so was it a good deal when they paid $20m for 20mWh?
The didn't pay $20 million. They paid 2 billion euros.
But that is not for 20M KWh of power. It is for 20M KWh of capacity, which can be reused every cycle.
If the "water battery" is filled and drained daily at 0.10 euros/KWh, it will pay for itself in about three years.
The really odd thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Switzerland has several of these pumped storage facilities - this is just one that has been renovated and enlarged.
The really odd thing?
With places like Germany having a surfeit of solar panel energy, you'd think these services would be in high demand. Instead, they actually have a lot of trouble paying for themselves. There are lot of stupid politics in play, not only in the power market, but (especially) between Switzerland and the EU. The EU would rather shut down power production than allow Switzerland to make money by offering storage. "Cutting off their nose to spite their face."
Re:The really odd thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: The really odd thing... (Score:3)
Everything is fucked period, if there isn't regime change in Russia fast Europe will become a shithole and the English colonies will brain drain away anyone of value.
They can't adapt electricity generation and residential heating on a dime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The really odd thing... (Score:2)
There are Real politik reasons to bog down Putin in Ukraine. Mostly because if Ukraine was a cakewalk, their eyes would have been set on the Baltics. The losses will make them think twice. It's an expensive strategy, but sacrificing the Baltics wasn't a realistic option either and if Putin had yolo'd a Baltic invasion nuclear war a realistic option. That at least has become far less likely now.
All options for the EU were shitty.
Re: The really odd thing... (Score:2)
Them steaming into the Baltics would not have been an improvement. Just because the situation sucks, doesn't mean an alternative situation couldn't suck worse.
The pile of dead Ukrainians being higher than the Russian doesn't remove the Russian pile and that pile of dead Russians will likely keep them out of the Baltics for the time being.
Re: The really odd thing... (Score:3)
Putin's justification for invading was discrimination against Russian culture, his piece on Ukrainian Russian cultural unity was official reading for Russian troops for instance, calling the discrimination a weapon of mass destruction. NATO buffer bullshit is just 5 ruble army FUD.
Much of the same rhetoric has been aimed at the Baltics for years already. The indication are there plain to see if you know where to look.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no indication anywhere that Russia has designs on any other regions or countries.
Other than Georgia, Belarus and Moldova?
Re: The really odd thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Russia is now in the strongest position they've been in 75 years
[Citations needed].
The Russian Ministry of Economic Development said that it expected the country's gross domestic product (GDP) to decease by 7.8 per cent year on year in 2022..
Russia's per capita GDP is 1/3 that of the whole EU, and 1/6 that of the U.S. It is a poor country dependent on exporting resources that it is having trouble selling, getting paid for, or being able to import the goods with the money it is getting paid. Its weapons, the strongest part of its industrial economy is dependent on Western parts it cannot buy and may never be able to buy again
the US economy is on the brink of collapse and western Europe is going to freeze and/or starve to death in four months.
No one in Europe is going to starve, or even notice a reduction in food availability (African nations are a different story). There will be energy shortages this winter, but no one will freeze. The longer term loss of the European market will devastate Russia's economy.
Putin fanbois much?
Re: The really odd thing... (Score:3)
Opposing Putin is not permitted, genius.
The US economy collapsing? How? Recession? Supply chain issues? You think Russia's economy doesn't absolutely depend on the success of western companies and consumption?
Recession isn't collapse, and if the western economies have a severe depression, so too will Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
"Regime change" in Russia? You idiots have made Putin the most popular leader in the world now at something like 80% approval.
Since it is now literally a crime to not support Putin it is stunning if his polling is that low. That is a very brave 20% willing to not praise Tsar Vladimir III. In North Korea, where a similar situation exists Kim Jong Un has 100% approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany really is schizophrenic on energy. It has a lot of renewable energy thanks to the green party policies but it still imports gas & oil from Russia which runs its economy.
"but"? More like "as a direct consequence of that". If you're producing from renewables then you're producing only when weather conditions are favorable, and need quickly starting peaker plants to be ready to take over at almost a moment's notice when the sun hides behind a cloud. And natgas is pretty much the only technology available that can do this at a large scale.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Germany really is schizophrenic on energy.
That is because of German politics. They have a proportional system that makes smaller parties into kingmakers. The Greens use this power to impose silly policies that don't even make sense for the environment, much less the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple example is how many homes still use gas or oil for heating, or gas for cooking. It could be done through renewables and people would switch with the righ
Re: (Score:2)
There are many situations where renewables could be used in place of gas & oil, some easier to attain than others.
Actually no. At least not in Germany.
Oil -> used in cars, trucks, busses. House hold heating is a no thing meanwhile with oil. We never actually produced electricity with oil.
Gas -> house hold heating in winter and process/factory usage during whole year.
No idea why the /. crowd is so fucking stupid not to grasp that no one uses gas/oil for electricity in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple example is how many homes still use gas or oil for heating,
Oil not so much. Most oil shifted to Gas long ago. And we already have laws that forbid new gas heating installations (except for back up) from roughly 2025 on (not sure about the year)
or gas for cooking. Gas for cooking is not a problem.
But it needs governments to push it hard. It is pushed hard.
And to push public transport over private transport for the same reasons. This is also pushed hard.
And to plan housing so it is energy efficient
Re: The really odd thing... (Score:2)
If you don't allow unrestricted mass immigration you can't trade with the EU unless you're China.
Re: (Score:2)
That is untrue.
You may recall Barnier's famous graphic that was presented to the British right at the start of the brexit negotiations.
https://img.huffingtonpost.com... [huffingtonpost.com]
You will note that there are multiple options which do not include freedom of movement, which in any case is not "unrestricted mass immigration" anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
With places like Germany having a surfeit of solar panel energy, you'd think these services would be in high demand. Instead, they actually have a lot of trouble paying for themselves.
Moving power half way across the continent is not the cheapest way to do something. Germany's surplus energy is very often local and not easily moved across a very strained grid. Then there's the cross border issue that complicates everything.
The EU would rather shut down power production than allow Switzerland to make money by offering storage.
The EU would rather no such thing. The EU is actively investing in *local* solutions to the problems as they arise and providing subsidies and funding for such issues. E.g. in the north of Germany where there is often a surplus of wind there are multiple projects for p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They want to cut Switzerland from the electric network, by 2025, because Switzerland wasn't so hot to EU citizenship being equal to Swiss citizenship.
The European electricity network is managed by ENTSO and literally has nothing at all to do with the EU, it extends beyond EU countries, and even extends beyond the European continent.
Stop spreading bullshit.
The fact that EU is actually headed by a woman that was fired from german gov because of too much corruption tell you the whole story.
Yep, it tells us you're a worthless cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cutting off their nose to spite their face."
The Asian equivalent is Not washing their asses to spite water
France has them too (Score:2)
Maybe the reason is that there's just not nearly enough of those facilities to meet the demand?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a pretty good article: https://www.hsgfocus.ch/hsg-fo... [hsgfocus.ch]
A Swiss-EU electricity agreement would address the regulatory gaps and help to solve the aforementioned problems. In fact, an agreement has been under negotiation since 2007 – and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EU would rather shut down power production than allow Switzerland to make money by offering storage.
You are an idiot. Complete nonsense. Switzerland itself, and the power companies in the EU are planning for Switzerland to be the power storage hub in central Europe since 20 years. Note: it took 14 years to build this storage plant.
No idea from where you get yur stupid bollocks nonsense ideas.
Not only it is old tech... (Score:3)
Cheap? (Score:2)
2B euros sounds cheap, we need lots more of this. Europe is spending more than 112 each year, not buying but subsidising fossil fuels. That money could clearly buy a lot of pumped hydro. and I'd expect most of this hydro project to last for a very long time to come.
What does the equivalent battery storage cost?
Looks cheaper actually: https://electrek.co/2018/09/24... [electrek.co]
"Teslaâ(TM)s 100MW/129MWh Powerpack"
Haven't got time to check, convert, account for currencies right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is spending more than 112 each year, not buying but subsidising fossil fuels. That money could clearly buy a lot of pumped hydro.
Pumped hydro doesn't move cars, planes, or heat houses. The problem with generalising when talking about subsidies is that it's done to the point of absurdity. There's good reason to subsidise fossil fuels when you look into where the money is going specifically. When you do that you may start to understand why the EU subsidises fossil fuels (to the tune of 176bn EUR/ year, much more than you thought), while also having a mandate to phase out fossil fuels in certain situations and subsidising green projects
Re:Cheap? (Score:5, Interesting)
So if you want to do the math you'll find out the battery would cost almost twice as much in terms of energy supplied, or over 10x as much for total capacity. If you ignore capacity and capability you'll find cheaper options than Telsa as well since your local supermarket sells AA batteries for under $1.
The thing is that most power generation has a reaction time in the range of minutes. For example, Nant de Drance needs 5 minutes for a 100% load change and 10 minutes to switch between generation and storing. Batteries are mainly to bridge that time, which would otherwise have to be done with "spinning reserves" (plant runs so it can react fast). You do not want much this because it causes stability problems and costs a lot of money. As batteries have single-cycle reaction times, they are perfect for giving plants to spin up or down. They are not a good solution for longer supply as they are much more expensive than pumped hydro (which has comparable efficiency).
Hence what you need is a mix: Batteries for ultra fast, pumped hydro for fast and volume, wind, water and solar for base-load. Oh, and nuclear to destabilize your grid and react dog slow to anything, except when the PoS SCRAMs and leaves you scrambling to bring up all emergency power you have fast to save your grid.
Re: (Score:2)
While the numbers the plant operator is giving, are correct (I assume), they are misleading for the layman.
The plant in question has 7 turbines. While 3 are doing nothing, 4 are pumping uphill. You suddenly need frequency stabilization: you start shutting down some of the pumping ones, or all, and start firing up the downhill path for the others. So if all pumps go uphill, you have a 10 minutes time laag of reversing it. If all pumps/turbines go downhill, it is 5 minutes. Actually interesting why one way ta
We know, DupeHD (Score:2)
You're always late and never read what's already posted.
Power Math (Score:2)
TFA:
The plant has six pump turbines and a total power output of 900 MW, enough to power as many as 900,000 homes.
900,000,000 W / 900,000 homes = 1000 W / home
1000 W / 240V = 4.167A
Or at 33VA per sq. meter (NEC 220.12), 1000W / 33VA = 30.3 sq. meter (333 sq. ft.) home. Wow, Europe has tiny homes!
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing average power consumption with peak use.
Re: (Score:2)
It is more so that in Europe no one uses 24h 1kW of power all time ...
And how you want/why you want to convert that to square feet, is beyond me.
And for what you actually need A - is even more beyond me.
Just use existing dams? (Score:2)
In Portugal we are building floating solar plants on every dam... because, you know, it's never sunny when it rains.
You can switch between solar and hydro as needed and reuse the same high voltage distribution network for both plants.
Baseload electricity is a grid function. (Score:2)
What this demonstrates is that baseload electricity is a grid function derived from facilities such as these.
probably my math is wrong...right? (Score:2)
20 million kWh storage I'm assuming this is output value, (already factoring in output vs input efficiency losses)
Turbines that can generate 900 MW.
Someone smarter please correct my math but it looks like this can run for...22 hours at max capacity?
I have to be wrong, because it would be ridiculous to spend 14 bn euro for 22 hours of generating capacity, even if it was a cool mega project.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: it will be used for load leveling every day and last for centuries (with reasonable maintenance).
Re: probably my math is wrong...right? (Score:2)
22 hours at 900 MW.
Or 44 hours at 450 MW.
Or 88 hours at 225 MW.
Ever play Supreme Commander? These are energy storage tanks. They're a buffer, and the intention is not to drain it to zero percent, but to get a grid through the night or bad weather if renewable realtime capacity dips.
My state has one of these. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Title says "Switzerland's 20 Million kWh 'Water Battery' ...", summary says "A 900 MW 'water battery'...", which is it?
Clue: It's both .
Re:Make up your mind! (Score:4, Funny)
It is a facility that can store 20 million KWh and output at 900MW.
For our US readers; in proper imperial power units the battery stores 53104474375164 foot-pounds of energy and 663805934 7/20 foot pounds per second (ft-lb/sec)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get that in egg-cookers per solar year?
Re: (Score:2)
663805934 7/20 foot pounds per second (ft-lb/sec)
The proper American unit for power is the horsepower, equal to 33,000 foot-pounds per minute, or 746 watts.
Re:Make up your mind! (Score:5, Informative)
If you are more comfortable with liquids, think of this analogy:
W = flow rate of a pipe, litres per second, gallons per second etc.
Wh = tank capacity, how many litres it contains, how many gallons it contains etc.
k = 10^3 = 1,000
M = 10^6 = 1,000,000
G = 10^9 = 1,000,000,000
"Million kWh" = 10^6 x 10^3 = 10^9 Wh = 1 GWh
So, if you have a 20 GWh tank and you open a tap that can let out 900 MW (0.9 GW), you can empty it completely in 20 / 0.9 hours, that is approximately in 2h 13'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm - a Wh is a unit of energy? Isn't the SI unit the Joule?
Re: (Score:3)
1 Watt = 1 Joule / 1 second
1 Watt-hour = 1 Watt * 1 hour
Therefore;
1 Watt-hour = (1 Joule / 1 second) * (3600 seconds/hour) * (1 hour) = 3600 Joules.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Sure - my point was that post I replied to said that a Wh was an *SI* unit, which it's not AFAIK.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a non-SI unit accepted by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures for use wit the SI. It's in good company, with units like the minute, hour, day, astronomical unit, degree, hectare, tonne, and electronvolt.
Re: (Score:2)
20 / 0.9 = ~ 22.2 , so 10 times more
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever a post associated with any green energy topic appears, the Slashdot Nuclear Fan Club reacts like a swarm of angry hornets. Stereotypical reactions:
It won't work. It costs too much. It will break. It will cause more ecological damage then it will help the environment. It will never pay off the investment. It's ugly like your mother. If the same money was spent on 1,000,000 car sized nuclear reactors (that only exist in theory) then the world would instantly become a paradise, global warming will immediately stop, every human will have decent food/shelter/housing/clothing/income/healthcare. Everyone will also become smart/nice/well adjusted/good looking/healthy/long lived/happy/be a great coder. And no problems will result from any radioactivity from any source ever and nuclear waste will magically vanish with no cost or effort. Really.
Dude, I hope you have your beekeeper's suit on.
Re: (Score:2)
Pumped hydro storage is a good and efficient energy storage technology. Unfortunately it is available only in specific mountain terrain, and nearly all basins have been used.
It is not an ideological position. Yours, on the other hand....
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely enough pumped-storage hydroplants are the perfect adjunct to nuclear power. They allow the nuclear plant to continue to run at high efficiency when demand is low with energy being stored in reservoirs. That stored energy can then be used to meet the morning and evening peaks without the need to build additional nuclear plants to cover peak demand.
There will always be limitations to how quickly nuclear reactors can vary their output to match load variations. Where the geography permits it makes sen