Storage at sea by pumped storage (STEP Maritime) of renewable electricity

[raymon]

For storing ENR there is a simple and relatively cheap solution is the sea STEP with a lower environmental impact than a STEP on earth.
http://ecologie.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/01 ... -eolienne/

The concept is also being investigated in Denmark, where the Risø National Laboratory and architects working on an island with a tank km3,3 2 2,75 can produce GWh - equivalent to the consumption of Copenhagen during 24 hours .

The calculation of the cost:
http://objectifterre.over-blog.org/2014 ... rines.html

At three km off the Belgian town of Wenduine, the sea is deep only 4 meters on average. The dam will be high 4 + = 10 14 meters. The cost of such a dam is about 30 M € / km. The Belgian project is an atoll of 1,25 km radius, which corresponds to 7,85 km dyke, 234 M €. Surface km4,9 2, 10 meters of vertical drop, where storage 610 MWh, equivalent to MW x 30 20 hours. This STEP can attend approximately 100 MW of wind power (300 GWh / year with CF 35% 3000 million kWh in 10 years). 30 MW turbine STEP cost 18 M €. Total dam turbines +: 252 M €. The additional cost of the WWTP is so 8,4c € / kWh wind.

The perimeter of a disk believes in the power 1 and 2 its surface to power more atoll, the more profitable it is. A STEP 5,6 km radius provides an additional cost of only 4 c € / kWh. Demonstration here:
http://seatec.over-blog.com/2014/04/awe ... ergie.html

Edit: since split energies-fossil-nuclear / jean-marc-Jancovici-is-it-a-con-t14740.html

[izentrop]

no con Excellent, even.
in the case of island project in Belgium, the upper basin proves the sea, while the lower basin is formed by the well:

It could even take a power of the tides?

[phil53]

The storage problem is very relevant and needs to find solutions. But if you decide to invest as much as in the nuclear I think it quite possible to find by spending much less than the said M Jancovici

[izentrop]

Yes there is urgency about the acceleration of global warming.
What he says here is just as strong:

WYD: Today, the urgency is rather to the nuclear full steam to replace 1 800 GW of coal plants that we have in the world. It must indeed be divided by three CO2 emissions to prevent global warming that could bring the planet to fire and sword, and this requires the removal of all coal plants in 35 years to come. Without nuclear, there is no chance to get there. Once we do that, we will ask the post.

We can not afford to dismantle the plants, as profitable without opening new ones.
Is relative influence of nuclear waste http://www.laradioactivite.com/site/pag ... actifs.htm

[Christophe]

Of course there is an emergency, but the speech of Janco tends to demotivate initiatives, this is what I condemn and why I initiated this subject with the provocative title!

For central: profitable with a cost of increasing risk ... of course people will accept? (Answer yes so that holds the portfolio ...)

But it is pull the string up any ruptures! Even without major disaster, I'm not sure that the calculation be interesting! Then all that is invested in maintaining nuclear power is not in anything ... more clean, more durable ...must we remind Janco that nuclear produces CO2 ?? And not just a little: energies-fossil-nuclear / nuclear-and-effect-of-greenhouse-ges-co2-and-EDF-t8139.html

Otherwise, EDF announced a few days ago wanting to push the decades decommissioning ... main reason given: it will cost cheaper by then because the technology has evolved Nan ... no kidding?

It's a bit like saying I have to poop on your doormat but I not clean now because in 50 years we will probably invented a disintegrator pistol poo (Plus it's biodegradable so you just have to wait for the flies in charge ...)

In short the complete dismantling of the existing park would be pushed on the horizon ... 2100 !!

[Obamot]

We can not afford to dismantle the plants, as profitable without opening new ones.

For me there is no 36 solutions, or it is the words of a zinzin bounded, an ostrich that puts the head in a bag, or those of a nuclear lobbyist who comes on forums to influence opinion.

I clearly leans to the latter option! Because after the very relevant post Raymon which demonstrated how it is possible to store renewable energy, I really do not see how can we think of such things! That is if one is REALLY sensitized ecological issues There it is no longer just a question of "respect for opinion" it is beyond comprehension.

► View Text

it stinks manipulation and bad faith.

@ Raymon yes and as you probably know, as possible sites there is a good part of Normandy and much of Britain that it would lend ....! And there's no need to be at the CNRS to understand the ecological footprint would be infinitely less than a major nuclear accident level 7 (like Chernobyl or Fukushima).

[Obamot]

PS: Besides the France would do well to think about it and would have everything to gain if it wanted to maintain leadership in the production of energy!

[izentrop]

A troll blows, blows a lobby, should know. The balance should be me LOL

The paranoid is not the best solution to reason.
To stop taking everything for official disinformation and document multiple sources to share things. I feel that many do not here

[Christophe]

I do not think too much to the will of EDF to develop the storage of large-scale REC: REC a mesh quite varied sources (geographically and by type of primary energy: solar / wind for most cases) be sufficient to offset changes in production !!

The cost of storage is huge on the scale of a country ... even for a few% of electricity !!

EDF currently stock just to compensate for ultra-off points so that the network does not collapse, it is very expensive but it is the price of grid stability (a system that is collapsing is even more expensive. ..)

I believe much more in the "individual home" storage (inertial thermal storage for heating or electric via Tesla Powerwalls or equivalent) of one's own energy (thermal or electric) in order to obtain greater energy independence over a year. But here, these are non-billable and non-taxable kWh (after depreciation) therefore it does not come at all in the power of centralization policy by the State and EDF ...

[Christophe]

A troll blows, blows a lobby, should know. The balance should be me LOL

And lobbyists trolls? You classrooms where? This is not a balance you want just