Here in Australia, pumped hydro storage is being expanded again, with even more systems being in the planning and preconstruction phase...The issue needs much bigger thinking than some of the narrow views being expressed here.
Net zero is an aspiration in 2050 - 26 years away. We need to consider what needs to change, not regard apparent existing barriers as somehow insurmountable. They are not!
Key issue - the variability of wind and solar needs to be managed to to provide power when demand exceeds current generation. There are several options:
It would be naïve to assume all this will happen easily - the roll out of EVs and banning gas boilers will increase demand for electricity over current levels over the next 10-30 years. The cost will be many £BN's. It needs a clear and focussed plan with government carrots and sticks (tax and subsidies) and take many years to achieve.
- baseload generation from low emissions sources - over the last year nuclear and hydro contributed 15% to output. New nuclear is already in the planning stage and tidal needs more development The optimal level of base load is debatable - materially higher than currently but both are achievable in the time available.
- energy storage is required - surplus generation needs to be stored and released when required. There are more radical options being explored - eg: sand batteries - but the obvious option is EV batteries - both installed in vehicles or recycled for home use.
- the average EV at present has a typical battery of ~50kw giving a rage of ~150-200 miles. The average house uses ~9kw of electricity per day. The average fully charged EV battery could provide power for several days if power can be fed back into the grid.
- the contribution of EV battery storage could be material - subject to baseload generation and modelling weather variability. There is plenty of time to develop and implement that which should be technically feasible.
- potential for wind and solar output is far in excess of that currently generated and double that estimated as required in the longer term.
The prizes are elimination of fossil fuels whose costs are likely only to increase as they become more scarce, reduced reliance on international order for supply, and reduced pollution. IMHO the benefits justify the costs - folk are at liberty to disagree but to attribute disagreement to an inability to make necessary changes is a truly weak argument.
This means that solar and wind excess can be stored for overnight and for those times that it is needed...
Best of all, it doesn't need 'huge' dams or the restricted number of suitable sites that limits standard hydroelectric- all you need is a higher and a lower area (much smaller in size than existing hydro schemes) and a water source...
There are several designed to utilise old mining sites for example, and a couple looking at using sea water near the Great Dividing range in NSW- sure those will be a bit more expensive initially due to the corrosive nature of salt water, but it isn't exactly 'new tech' we are talking about here...
https://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/2024/0...d-be-converted-into-renewable-energy-storage/
Already partially in operation, and due to be expanded to its full capacity by mid this year...
https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/
Plus the Snowy 2 conversion of pure hydroelectric into a
'hybrid' system with both source and pumped reuse options is nearing completion as well
https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
With the various 'big battery' systems already in use, many of the older 'dino burner' plants will be retired early (indeed that is already happening with the likely shutting down of Australias largest coal burner next year, nearly a decade before it was due to be retired...)