Interesting Potential Energy Infrastructure at Rock Creek and Owens River Gorge.

bus driver wrote:

Thanks for the explanation.  The physics didn’t seem right to use energy to pump the water up only to generate energy when it came back down.  Using solar to pump it up makes more sense. 

I forget the exact math but power is sold to grid in 15min chunks. Power is most valuable Notepad++when it’s in demand- duh- like at 6pm in Fresno when it’s 110f.... so the PPG people would buy power from the Nuke Plant (now closed, by SLO) for “X”  Vidmate.... at like 1am when it’s not in demand and pump that water uphill 3,000 feet to Courtright. When power would hit 4x “X” they would run the turbines and sell the power, making a profit and supplying much needed power when most in demand. This only works when you have cheap power to start with. The reason it won’t work in the Owens is because they don’t have cheap power.
Solar power, Wind Power is not cheap- in fact it’s subsidized with your tax money if it were  not we wouldn’t have iiTunest. Hydro is a little less expensive then solar and wind so it wouldn’t pay to use hydro power to pump water uphill.
Now if a geothermal plant went on line up there it might work out. Those are being built in the south end of Owens Valley But their power output is extremely puny when you compare to a modern nuke plant

Guy Keesee wrote: Pump storage is a good way to make a nuclear power plant more efficient.
I did not read anything about a nuclear plant getting built.
Not going to get off the ground.

Nuclear plants typically don't need energy storage since they can modulate their power output (to an extent) in order to meet expected demand. As far as I'm aware new energy storage installments are intended to make up for the variability of wind and solar and reduce dependence on base load power sources.

I personally think that in many cases developing nuclear makes more sense than developing energy storage for wind and solar, but that's aside the point.

Article in a local paper about the proposed project. Includes some quotes from Victor Rojas, who proposed it:

http://thesheetnews.com/2019/04/26/pumped-up

Andrew Child wrote:

Nuclear plants typically don't need energy storage since they can modulate their power output (to an extent) in order to meet expected demand. As far as I'm aware new energy storage installments are intended to make up for the variability of wind and solar and reduce dependence on base load power sources.

I personally think that in many cases developing nuclear makes more sense than developing energy storage for wind and solar, but that's aside the point.

Andrew you are correct! Modern nuclear plants can be throttled- sort of. It costs more money to be able to do this. The rest of the world is not as afraid of nuke power as we Americans are. 

The gen 3 and 4 plants (newest) are load following, older plants are base load, meaning they sort of go full throttle only. To do all this pumping of H2O uphill takes a huge amount of power. Excess power, not expensive solar, wind or hydro power. Destroying one of the most beautiful, wild spots around would be a crime. 

Nuclear power plants are "baseload" plants, meaning they normally run at 100% power. Other types of power-generating facilities (hydro, fossil) are more likely to be "load-followers," meaning they fluctuate to accommodate the needs of the grid/system.

FrankPS wrote: Nuclear power plants are "baseload" plants, meaning they normally run at 100% power. Other types of power-generating facilities (hydro, fossil) are more likely to be "load-followers," meaning they fluctuate to accommodate the needs of the grid/system.

Frank.... thanks, I was reading and trying to get a link.... hard to do on iPhone. 

Guy Keesee wrote:

Frank.... thanks, I was reading and trying to get a link.... hard to do on iPhone. 

https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/reactor-operation/normal-operation-reactor-control/base-load-power-plant/

THX....
Jon w posted a good article.... keep reading and you get to a story about a pedi in Bishop! 

Response from the USDA/FS.  A resounding "no".. They were never consulted and it overlaps Wilderness Area.

Response from the Mono County Community Development staff /FERC .  Also lists a litany of issues that are problematic with the proposal:

Good morning,

 Below is an email from Mono County Community Development staff member Michael Draper. Michael is the staff member that has been tasked with following the proposed electrical generation project titled Owens Valley Pump Back. Michael has been in contact with Kyle Olcott from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a message from Mr. Olcott is included below. That message provides links to provide direct comment to FERC. My information is that the more comments to FERC the better. The Mono Board will have an agenda item on this proposal at a regular Board meeting. I do not know which meeting yet. This proposal was discussed briefly at the recent Collaborative Planning Team meeting attended by the Inyo National Forest Supervisor.
 I would like to thank all the community members from Paradise, Swall Meadows, Sunny Slopes and Crowley that have initiated information gathering and made comment to FERC already. Quite a team effort. Here is the latest information I have:

 1. FERC is still analyzing the completeness of the submitted project package. If it is not complete then there is no actual project, just an idea. In that case FERC will return the package to the proponent noting the deficiencies and informing the proponent that nothing can proceed until the additional information and analysis is provided. County Staff's opinion is that the submission is incomplete. Some of the deficiencies noted by County Staff are, lack of awareness of wilderness designation effecting the ability to build the dams, lack of seismic analysis, lack of avalanche zone awareness, lack of utility intertie information and utility infrastructure creation, and lack of wildlife impact analysis. The project claims that it will use solar energy to pump the water back to the dams for reuse but does not specify where the solar production would come from. If the energy required to pump the water back does not come from solar then what would be the source and would that source be green to meet the claim of a "green energy" project.This is just a partial list.

 2. If a full package is submitted there will be a 60 day comment period. If it comes to that Mono County will push for at least one local public meeting.
 
3. It appears that the proponents are also interested in doing a project in the White Mountains although nothing on this has been submitted to FERC. I have included Tri Valley folks in this email. The White Mountains are also Wilderness.
 
4. Mono County is investigating how much, if any, regulatory authority the County would have over what appears to be the private land portions of the proposal. County Staff is unsure if the County's authorities could be superseded by a State or Federal agency.
 
5. The project would reuse the same water after the dams were filled. There is no mention of whose water rights would be effected by the filling of the dams or the need to top off the storage as a result of evaporation.
 
6. Although the Forest Service cannot issue permits for the construction of dams in "Wilderness" there is a caveat in the Wilderness Act that allows the President of the United States to authorize an exemption. That has never been used but is there.
 
I encourage all to share any information you receive with Michael Draper. Please continue to share this information with your neighbors and on local information systems.
Best,
Fred Stump

Another weigh in: Pumped storage is very efficient, inexpensive and a huge energy storage addition to the grid. No batteries can come close right now. In my opinion (i interned in power generation for a year so i'm fairly learned in energy economics) we should absolutely pursue these kind of projects whenever possible. Places with California that can produce huge portions of their energy generation with wind/solar are great but many people forget that its not just the cost of the energy itself, but also the cost of holding the capacity. Where I worked we held about 1100 MW in capacity, but only peaked above 900 MW once or twice in the summertime. We HAVE to keep this capacity on hand, and its a big reason that utilities aren't decommissioning "uneconomic" plants because they have to guarantee their maximum capacity in dispatchable generation (plus some extra). Pumped storage = renewable + dispatchable.

Funfact I heard: the PNW often has periods of negative priced energy because their hydro has to keep running during high flow periods(night time), why not just store it and save it for the morning coffee brew?

That being said I'm not a fan of loosing land to more reservoirs, and especially not in wilderness areas and other protected land. We have existing dams that could have pumped storage added without too much effort.  (Btw thanks everyone for reading through the proposal... it does say preliminary).

I humbly submit building a huge solar power station somewhere else like 60 miles north of Barstow.

The same company, Premium Energy Holdings, the holding company for Power Tech Engineers, has submitted 2 more pumped storage projects, both of which involve new dams.

- Another one on the Eastside, at Haiwee Reservoir near Olancha.
FERC docket #:  P-14991-000

- One in the Utah West Desert, near Delta.
FERC docket #: P-14993-000

The pdf proposal can be found at the FERC elibrary using those docket numbers:
​https://elibrary.ferc.gov​​​

Major update:

After realizing their proposal was in wilderness, they have changed it to have the upper reservoirs in the White Mountains and the lower reservoirs right in the heart of the Owens River Gorge. This is very relevant to climber interests:

The new proposal pdf is here:
​https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=15250330​​​

FERC eLibrary info:
Accession #: 20190520-5041
Docket #: P-14984

I say build the one in Utah. 

This whole idea is totally wackadoodle.   I'm having a little trouble deciphering their map since they conveniently left off all the pertinent landmarks and existing reservoirs -  but it looks like one dam at the Narrows (= no more Upper Gorge in this scenario) and the second the second wipes out the Sub Gorge ?  The storage pipelines have to run across BLM, FS, Private Land, Hwy 6 and Fish Slough - which is a an ecological preserve and a Native American site- then up the White Mountains... which have no water ?%*  I'm corn-fused.

Edit to add- this one has evidently been shot down as well according to a reliable source. 

Maidy wrote: This whole idea is totally wackadoodle.   I'm having a little trouble deciphering their map since they conveniently left off all the pertinent landmarks and existing reservoirs -  but it looks like one dam at the Narrows (= no more Upper Gorge in this scenario) and the second the second wipes out the Sub Gorge ?  The storage pipelines have to run across BLM, FS, Private Land, Hwy 6 and Fish Slough - which is a an ecological preserve and a Native American site- then up the White Mountains... which have no water ?%*  I'm corn-fused.

Edit to add- this one has evidently been shot down as well according to a reliable source. 

This is the stupidest idea I have seen in a long time. The White Mountains are Wilderness as well, and on top of that littered with numerous fault lines, many more than the 120 billion Amtrak to nowhere tunnels have to deal with in the Tehachapi Mountains. Then where are you going to get 5000MW of power in Bishop in order to run the pumps? It's a complete joke.