Pumped Hydro Energy Storage
Paul Deane and Brian Ó Gallachóir
University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
1 INTRODUCTION
Pumped hydroelectric storage is currently the only commer-
cially proven large-scale, economically viable (>100 MW)
energy storage technology. The fundamental principle of
pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) is to store electric
energy in the form of hydraulic potential energy. Water stored
in an upper reservoir is processed in a turbine to recover
its potential energy in the form of mechanical (kinetic)
energy. Pumping of water from a lower reservoir or elevation
to an upper reservoir typically takes place during off-peak
periods, when demand for electricity and associated prices
are low. Generation takes place during peak demand periods
by allowing water to flow through the turbine, similar to a
conventional hydro plant and back to the lower elevation or
reservoir. However, most PHES systems differ from conven-
tional hydro power plants as the processed water does not just
drain away; it is captured and retained in a lower reservoir.
In times of low electricity demand/low electricity prices, the
water is raised again to the upper reservoir by pumping that
is powered by an electrical motor.
2 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
Power ratings of PHES systems range from several MW up
to 2 GW with discharge times up to 100 h depending on the
storage volume of the reservoirs. Pumping and generating
in PHES systems generally follow a daily cycle but weekly
or even seasonal cycling is also possible with larger PHES
plants.
PHES systems are among the oldest and most widely used
energy storage options and therefore fully commercialized.
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems
in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Currently, there are more than 90 GW of PHES systems (with
power rating >100 MW) installed worldwide, representing
approximately 3% of the global generation capacity. The
hydraulic, mechanical, and electrical efficiencies of pumped
storage determine the overall cycle efficiency, ranging from
65% to 85%. If the upstream pumping reservoir is also used
as a traditional reservoir, the inflow from the watershed
may balance out the energy loss caused by pumping. If not,
net losses lead to pumped hydropower being a net energy
consumer.
Figure 1 shows a simplified schematic of a general PHES
system but there are many different subtypes of PHES,
for example, sea-water PHES, which use the ocean as a
lower reservoir (one system existing today in Japan), or
underground PHES, which use deep mining structures for
one or both reservoirs; however, these systems are still at
a conceptual stage and are not mainstream. Generally, two
main types of PHES are distinguished, namely pure PHES
and pump-back PHES. Pure PHES plants rely entirely on
water that has been pumped to an upper reservoir from
a lower reservoir, a river or the sea. Pure PHES are also
known as closed-loop or off-stream. Pump-back PHES use a
combination of pumped water and natural inflow to produce
power/energy similar to a conventional hydroelectric power
plant. Pump-back PHES may be located on rivers or valleys
with glacial or hydro inflow. Figures 2–5 show a selection
of both pure and pump-back PHES.
Generally, the power house for a PHES system can be
constructed in an underground cavern or in an open shaft near
the lower reservoir. For the cavern configuration, the power
house is located deep inside the mountain with vehicular and
personnel access through a tunnel. The penstock and tailrace
pipes are both tunneled. In a shaft configuration, the power
house is constructed in an open excavation close to the lower
reservoir. This is normally only possible where the active
range of the water in the lower reservoir is only a few meters.
The tailrace forms an integral part of the power house. For the
2 Mechanical Storage
Upper reservoir
Pumping mode
Turbine mode
Power flow
Pump /turbine
Water flow
Figure 1. Simplified schematic of PHES system. Source: Reproduced with permission from the “stoRE project”. © Energy Economics
Group, Vienna University of Technology.
Figure 2. An off-stream PHES. Seneca PHES, USA. Source:
Picture sourced from energystorageexchange.org (Sandia National
Laboratories and Strategen Consulting, LLC). Reproduced with
permission. © Sandia Corporation.
shaft configuration, the penstock pipe can be an overground
pipe, a buried pipe, or a tunnel1 .
PHES may also be classified according to their machine
setup. Two main technical setups exist (also a combination
of both in one PHES plant is possible):
• Turbine and pump are separate units, which can be
connected to the generator/motor alternately; this system
is more complex, but has a higher efficiency, because the
units can be fluidically optimized separately.
• Turbine and pump are a single reversible unit, which
is directly connected to the generator/motor; this layout
significantly reduces the construction cost (up to 30%)
but has around 2% lower efficiency.
In case turbine and pump are separate units, they can be
directly connected with each other through a pressure water
pipe (hydraulic shortcut) to allow a faster switching between
pumping and turbining mode. Furthermore, this also enables
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Motor /generator
Electr.
~ grid
~
Lower reservoir
Water pipes
Figure 3. Closed-loop or pure PHES. Turlough Hill, Ireland.
Source: Picture sourced from energystorageexchange.org (Sandia
National Laboratories and Strategen Consulting, LLC). Reproduced
with permission. © Sandia Corporation.
the pump to be “controllable”: turbine and pump units run
simultaneously so that the energy demand of the pump can be
varied with the turbine, that is, the pump is partly powered by
the turbine of the plant and partly by the connected electricity
system. An example for such a PHES system is the Austrian
“Kopswerk 2” of the Vorarlberger Illwerke AG1 .
3 ROLE IN POWER SYSTEMS
Similar to the conventional hydropower, PHES can provide
important services to electric power systems. With its rapid
response load-following and balancing capabilities, peaking
capacity, and power quality attributes, PHES can play an
important role in ensuring reliable electricity service. In an
integrated power system, PHES can reduce the frequency of
start-ups of thermal power plants, help maintain a balance
between supply and demand under changing supply or
demand patterns, and thereby reduce the load-following
burden of thermal plants. Its flexible generation can provide
both up- and downregulation in the power system while its

Figure 4. Pump-back PHES. La Muela, Spain. Source: Picture
sourced from energystorageexchange.org (Sandia National Labo-
ratories and Strategen Consulting, LLC). Reproduced with permis-
sion. © Sandia Corporation.
Figure 5. Siah Bishe Pumped Storage Power Plant in Iran. Source:
Picture sourced from energystorageexchange.org (Sandia National
Laboratories and Strategen Consulting, LLC). Reproduced with
permission. © Sandia Corporation.
quick start capabilities make it suitable for black starts and
provision of spinning and standing reserve. The avoidance
of the use of transmission and generation resources during
peak-load hours may contribute to transmission investment
deferral. This may be achieved by installing storage units
such as PHES near loads that reduce losses and increase effi-
ciency, lower the need for bulk transfers and peak outtakes,
and finally reduce the use of transmission lines (Denholm
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Pumped Hydro Energy Storage 3
and Sioshansi, 2009). A summary review of the opera-
tional characteristic of PHES in comparison to conventional
power plant is provided in Table 1. In terms of operational
characteristics and flexibility, it is clear that gas turbine
peaking plants such as open cycle gas turbines (OCGTs)
offer some similar power system operation services.
In addition, storage and pumped storage hydropower can
help reduce the challenges of integrating variable renewable
resources such as wind, solar photovoltaics, and wave power.
By storing electrical energy when renewable output is high
and the demand low, and generating when renewable output
is low and the demand high, the curtailment of renewable
energy can be reduced, and the base load units on the system
will operate more efficiently.
However, the use and benefit of pumped storage
hydropower in the power system will depend on the overall
mix of existing generating plants and the structure of the
transmission system.
When considering PHES to assist the integration of vari-
able renewable generation, they should be viewed as a system
asset to balance all forms of variability in the power system,
including customer demand, as opposed to dedicating a
PHES unit to a single variable source such as wind. Owing
to the cost of the PHES, it is generally not cost effective to
provide dedicated balancing capacity for variable generation
in large power systems where the variability of all loads and
generators is effectively reduced by aggregation.
In terms of flexibility, PHES must ultimately compete with
other forms of flexibility such as increased interconnection
to other electrical power systems, more efficient operation
of current power system, and greater use of demand side
measures and demand response. The most appropriate choice
is likely to be system specific and the economics will likely
be affected by market structure and available incentives.
At the same time, PHES has attributes that have not, to
this point, been fully valued in all electricity markets, for
example, the reduced cycling of thermal plant (although
contract or ownership structures could also deal with this),
allowing greater operational efficiency of baseload plant and
the potential to offset transmission investment (Sioshansi,
Denholm, and Jenkin, 2012). As these additional benefits are
valued and if PHES capital costs decline, the role of PHES
in balancing supply and demand and assisting in variable
renewable energy may increase.
The benefits of storage are most significant in systems
with low generation flexibility and large wind penetration. It
has been demonstrated (Donalek et al., 2009) that properly
designed pumped storage facilities could assist in integrating
intermittent wind energy resources into the regional dispatch.
Pumped storage units with the newest technology, such as
adjustable speed and ternary units, can supply load following
and become the fastest response stations in the power system
4 Mechanical Storage

Table 1. Typical operating characteristic of generating plant.

Nuclear Power Plant Coal Fired Plant Oil Fired Plant Gas Turbine-Peaker PHES
Normal duty cycle Baseload Baseload Baseload–midmerit Peak load Peak–midmerit
Unit start up-daily No No Yes, hot Yes Yes
Load following No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Quick start (10 min) No No No Yes Yes
Frequency regulation No Yes Yes No Yes
Black start No No No Yes Yes

(Donalek et al., 2009). They can also be used to mitigate
the frequency of industrial load shedding caused by system
disturbances.
4 DEVELOPMENT OF PUMPED HYDRO
ENERGY STORAGE
PHES is a resource-driven facility that requires very specific
site conditions to make a project viable, that is, high head
(i.e., vertical distance between water surface and outlet
point), favorable topography, good geotechnical conditions,
access to the electricity transmission networks, and water
availability. The most essential of these criteria is avail-
ability of locations with a difference in elevation and access
to water. Some of the earliest PHES plants were built in
the Alpine regions of Switzerland and Austria, which have
a rich hydro resource and a natural complimentary topog-
raphy for PHES (see Figure 6 for select locations of plants
in Europe). Before the emergence of liberalized electricity
markets, PHES plants were built by state-owned utilities as
a system tool to supply energy in times of high demand and
allow baseload power plants to operate at high efficiencies
in periods of low demand. PHES also provided for power
systems management tasks such as balancing, frequency
stability, and black starts. PHES plants have been built in
many countries such as the United States (see Figure 7 for
locations) and Japan (see Figure 8 for locations) to act as fast
response peaking plant, to complement high inertia nuclear
power plants. More recently, there has been a renewed
interest in the technology as an integrator for variable wind
power. Figure 9 shows that the development of PHES plants
in the United States was strongly correlated to the devel-
opment of nuclear power plants. PHES development on a
European level is also closely correlated to nuclear devel-
opment; however, countries such as Austria with no nuclear
generation but a rich hydro resource developed PHES to
primarily enhance the operation and efficiency of large-scale
hydropower plants.
The chronological development of PHES in many coun-
tries shows that the majority of plants were build from the
1960s to the late 1980s. This was in part due to a rush
for energy security and nuclear energy after the oil crises
in the early 1970s. Fewer facilities were developed during
the 1990s due to a natural saturation of the best available
(most cost effective) locations and a decline in growth in
nuclear development. Figure 10 shows the development of
PHES in Europe confirming the high level of construction
in the 1960s through to the 1980s. Since the year 2000,

Figure 6. Selection of existing PHES within the Europe. Figure 7. Existing PHES in the United States.

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
 Pumped Hydro Energy Storage 5

capacities of PHES. The United States has an installed

Figure 8. Existing PHES in Japan.
however, a number of large PHES plants have come online
in Europe, such as Goldisthal in Germany with a capacity
of 1060 MW and Kopswerk II in Austria with a capacity of
450 MW.
PHES generally accounts for a small percentage of a
country’s generation portfolio in terms of installed capacity.
The country with the highest percentage of installed PHES
worldwide is Luxemburg with 67%. On the worldwide
scale, the United States and Japan have the highest installed
capacity of 21,886 MW2 of PHES plants accounting for
approximately 2.1% of total installed generating capacity.
Thirty-nine PHES plants are currently in operation with
installed capacities ranging from 8 to over 2000 MW. The
largest plant is the Virginia Electric & Power Co. (now called
Dominion) owned Bath plant with a capacity of 2862 MW
built in 1985. The 1050-MW Helms pumped storage project,
operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company in Fresno
County, California, with a head of 543 m has the highest
head in the United States. The largest federally owned
pumped storage project is the Tennessee Valley Authority’s
1530-MW Raccoon Mountain project on the Tennessee
River in Tennessee. Major pumped storage plants (plants
with installed capacity >100 MW) in the United States are
characterized by a mixture of pure pumped storage (17
plants), operating on daily cycles and pump-back facilities
(12 plants) with large energy storage capacity operating on
weekly or seasonal cycles. A number of pump-back facilities,
such as Castaic (1275 MW), also serve as part of irrigation
and water regulation schemes. The average size of a PHES
plant in the United States is 520 MW. The majority of PHES
plants were built in the period 1970–1980 when 14 facilities
totaling a capacity of 9636 MW were installed.
Like the United States, Japan developed PHES to comple-
ment nuclear power facilities, providing peak power in the
evenings and pumping when demand is low. Japan has
the third largest installation of nuclear power worldwide
with a total of 53 units accounting for 47.9-GW installed
capacity. Currently, Japan has 34 major PHES plants with

1,20,000 25,000

1,00,000
20,000
Nuclear capacity (MW)

PHES capacity (MW)

80,000
15,000

60,000

10,000
40,000

5000
20,000

0 0
9

3
75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

01
6

20
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

Installed nuclear Cumulative nuclear Installed PHES Cumulative PHES

Figure 9. Development of Nuclear Power and Pumped Hydro Energy Storage in United States.

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
6 Mechanical Storage

Development of PHES plants in Europe

15,000 25
14,000
13,000 Capacity of new PHES plants

Number of newly installed plants

12,000 20
Newly installed capacity (MW)

Number of new PHES plants

11,000
10,000
9000 15
8000
7000
6000 10
5000
4000
3000 5
2000
1000
0 0
<1940 1940–1950 1950–1960 1960–1970 1970–1980 1980–1990 1990–2000 2000–2009 2009–2018
Period of installation

Figure 10. Chronological development of PHES in MW capacity and plant number in the EU for existing and proposed PHES. Source:
Reproduced with permission from the “stoRE project”. © Energy Economics Group, Vienna University of Technology.

a total capacity of 24,575 MW. Current installed capaci- 5 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS

ties in Japan range from 200 to 1932 MW. The majority of
plants are pure pumped hydro storage schemes operating
on a daily cycle characterized by large megawatt capacity
and relatively short storage times, typically 5–10 h. PHES
installations account for 10.2% of full installed generating
capacity.
In a European context, the majority of PHES facilities are
concentrated in the Alpine regions of France, Switzerland,
and Austria; however, Germany has the largest number of
PHES plants with 23 operational plants ranging in capacity
from 62.5 to 1060 MW. Germany is second only to Spain
in terms of installed megawatt capacity. Over 6000 MW of
PHES is installed on the Iberian Peninsula. Spain has 14
PHES plants with sizes ranging from 65 to 745 MW. The
largest plant that is currently in operation is the Iberdrola-
owned Villarino plant with a capacity of 745 MW. Portugal
has five major PHES plants with an average capacity of
160 MW. PHES in Portugal and Spain are predominantly
pump-back type operating on major rivers or operating as
part of larger hydro complexes or cascades. This type of
facility can also play a number of important roles from
irrigation to flood control. The largest PHES plant in the
EU is the 1800-MW EDF-owned Grand Maison facility in
the French Alps opened in 1987. The 1728-MW Dinorwig
plant in the United Kingdom was previously the largest
PHES plant in Europe. Dinorwig can achieve full load from
spinning in less than 20 s.
While PHES is a relatively mature and established tech-
nology, a number of recent innovations and improvements
have been observed.
A number of proposed PHES plants will use variable speed
pump/turbine units. This technology is already employed
in a number of existing PHES units in Japan. The advan-
tage of variable speed pump/turbine units is that they use
asynchronous motor generators that allow the pump/turbine
rotation speed to be adjusted. This technology allows regu-
lation of the amount of energy absorbed in pumping mode.
This facilitates energy storage when power levels available
on the network are low and in addition to reducing the
number of starts and stops can help regulate the network
frequency or voltage in pumping mode3 . This technology
also allows turbines to operate closer to their optimal effi-
ciency point. This improved performance comes at extra
costs for construction as the motor/generator/turbine shaft is
longer and requires deeper excavation.
In the area of improved efficiencies, the Kannagawa PHES
plant in Japan was the first plant to employ a “splitter runner”
that is a multiblade turbine pump runner. Improvements in
power generation and pump efficiencies of up to 4% are
reported for this runner by TEPCO4 .
In the area of site development, J-POWER became the
first company in the world in 1999 to build and operate
a 30-MW sea-water PHES plant at Okinawa with a head
of 136 m. Research for the plant development started

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137

in 1981 and focused on corrosion preventive measures
(Fujihara, Imano, and Oshima, 1998). Sea-water PHES may
have several advantages over conventional PHES such as
lower civil construction cost and greater site availability.
Sea-water PHES technology has yet to develop a commer-
cial track record, however, with only one completed plant
worldwide. Sea-water plants have been proposed in the
United States, Indonesia, and Ireland.
An interesting concept is PHES in open cast mining struc-
tures. Here, quarries with large volumes are planned to be
used for the construction of a PHES after the coal produc-
tion is finished. Depending on the area, coal layer quarries
with depths between 120 and 300 m remain (Figure 11). On
one side of the mine is natural ground, on the other side is the
geological unstable mining waste. The side with the natural
ground can be used for the installation of a dam for the upper
reservoir, while the ground of the coal mine can be used as the
lower reservoir (Figure 12). The main advantage of this setup
is the existence of the lower reservoir and also the higher
environmental acceptability because the installation could
also be part of the rehabilitation process of the coal mine1 .
Similar to open cast mining structures, deep mining struc-
tures could also be used for the installation of a PHES
system. In this innovative concept, discontinued deep mining
structures are expanded with additional caverns for the
Graded
mining
waste
Figure 11. Cross section of an open mining structure. Source: Reproduced from Do-Thanh and Schulz, 2010. © Do-Thanh and Schulz.
Graded and
aggregated
mining waste
Ground of coal mine
Figure 12. Cross section of a PHES system installed in an open cast mining system. Source: Reproduced from Do-Thanh and Schulz,
2010. © Do-Thanh and Schulz.
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Pumped Hydro Energy Storage 7
upper/lower reservoir and the pump/turbine (also hybrid
solutions are possible, where the upper reservoir is on the
surface). Further on up to three additional mine shafts have
to be constructed for the operation of the plant, which also
contribute to a higher installation cost compared to “con-
ventional” PHES systems. The main advantage of a PHES
in deep mining structures is that the plants are nearly invis-
ible and allow an additional development potential for PHES
(Erlei et al., 2011).
More novel and exotic forms of pumped storage have also
been proposed.5 The Energy Island (Figure 13) incorporates
a new concept in pumped hydro storage—an inverse offshore
pump accumulation station (IOPAC) located on an artificially
created island.
A large island shaped like a horseshoe with a vast, deep
reservoir located in the center would be located offshore.
When the wind is strongest, typically at night, water will be
pumped out of the reservoir through turbines and into the sea.
When energy demand is high, the water will be let back into
the reservoir through the same turbines.
The IOPAC is unique from conventional pumped hydro
storage systems in that it would be stationed on an artificial
island off the Dutch coast in the North Sea and comprised a
ring of dikes surrounding a 50-m-deep reservoir. The island
Pre-cut
Earth surface
120 m Sand layer (upper cut)
up to
300 m Sand layer (lower cut)
Coal layer
Upper
Dam reservoir
Earth surface
Lower reservoir
Waste pipes
Pump/turbine
8 Mechanical Storage

reserve and increase the value of PHES in ancillary services.

Figure 13. Energy Island concept.
permission from DNV GL-Energy.
itself would be built from materials dredged to deepen the
interior reservoir5 .
6 DRIVERS FOR NEW PHES
DEVELOPMENT
Drivers for new PHES development are region- or country-
specific but generally renewable energy targets and
increasing the efficiency of current hydro plant are often
seen as drivers for new development. Targets for increasing
renewable energy are stimulating wind energy and solar
power developments in many countries. Increased vari-
able generation is seen to drive the demand for system
Reducing the volatility or increasing the efficiency of current
hydroelectric assets is also a prime driver to developers who
already have existing hydroelectric or PHES assets.
PHES plants are characterized by long asset life (typically
50–100 years), high capital cost, low operation and main-
tenance cost, and round-trip efficiencies of 60–85%. There
are, however, limited siting possibilities for new PHES. The
large-scale deployment of PHES projects carries with it some
environmental impacts that should not be overlooked. PHES
in particular—even for new facilities and designs—has a
significant land and water footprint.
Project costs for PHES are very site-specific with some
Source: Reproduced with
quoted costs varying from €600/kW to €3000/kW (Deane,
Gallachóir, and McKeogh, 2010). Furthermore, capital costs
depend not only on the installed power but also on the energy
storage at any given site.
Figure 14 details the published capital costs and installed
capacities for a number of proposed PHES plants, the
majority of which are in Europe. A general linear trend is
observed in the relationship between installed capacity and
capital cost. Capital costs per megawatt for select proposed
PHES are between €470/kW and €2170/kW.
PHES projects may be remunerated in liberalized elec-
tricity markets through ancillary service payments, capacity
payment, and electricity trading. Generally, electricity
trading is the major source of revenue for PHES as operators
may take advantage of energy arbitrage opportunities. For
arbitrage, pumping price has to be at least 25–30% lower
than selling price to compensate for energy losses and

3000

... 1000 MW
2500
... 500 MW Fridão/Alvito (PRT)
Baixo Sabor (PRT)
Investment cost (€/kW)

2000
Alto Támega complex (PRT)

Nant de Drance (SUI)

1500

Goldisthal (GER) Kops II (ext.) (AUT) Limberg II (AUT)

1000
kWO plus (SUI)
Linthal 2015 (SUI)
Feldsee (AUT)

500 Linthal NESTIL (SUI)

Soske elektrame Nova Gorica
Hornbergen II (GER)
(SLO)
La Muela II (ext.) (ESP)
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Year of completion

Figure 14. Comparison of the specific investment cost for selected PHES systems.

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137

significant volatility (not necessarily high energy prices)
must be present in the wholesale price of electricity to
make revenue. Increased wind generation in many countries
can naturally lend itself to increased price volatility in the
wholesale market.
Current trends for new PHES plants show that devel-
opers operating in liberalized markets are tending to repower,
enhance projects, or build “pump-back” PHES rather than
traditional “pure pumped storage.” This is partly driven by
a lack of economically attractive new sites. An advantage
with “pump-back” facilities is that energy storage is gener-
ally much greater, thus allowing plants to store large amounts
of cheap electricity. Plants with significant inflow may also
operate as conventional hydroelectric generation units during
times of excess inflow, thus increasing the economic compet-
itiveness of the plant.
Repowering or enhancement of existing projects is also
attractive as large savings are made on the capital expen-
diture of the project using existing infrastructure, usually
reservoirs, thus also reducing environmental and planning
issues. Repowered plants benefit from improvements in tech-
nology and design and usually use more efficient and larger
turbines/pumps. From an investor standpoint, the internal
rate of return for repower projects is on average higher than
that of new plants.
6.1 Regional developments
Within the EU there is currently approximately 7400 MW of
new PHES development proposed, with a total investment
cost of over €6 billion (Deane, Gallachóir, and McKeogh,
2010). This constitutes approximately a 20% increase in
installed capacity of PHES in the EU. Figure 15 shows
existing and planned PHES in the EU as well as current
installed wind capacity and the percentage of PHES of total
system capacity.
A review of new developments is given in the following
sections. Information on these developments was gathered
from publically available information from project devel-
opers.
6.2 Switzerland
In a European comparison, Switzerland is fourth in terms of
contribution of hydropower toward electricity production,
behind Norway, Austria, and Iceland. Hydropower plays
a major role in Switzerland’s energy production with a
share of around 57%. In Switzerland’s hydropower plant
statistics, a distinction is made between four types of plants:
run-of-river (3667 MW), storage (8067 MW), pumped
storage (1384 MW), and basic water flow plants (316 MW).
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Pumped Hydro Energy Storage 9
A number of new PHES plants are planned here, with devel-
opers citing security of supply, increased wind penetration
in European countries, and an increase in demand in peak
power in liberalized European markets as major incentives
for development.
Axpo Group is developing the Linthal 2015 PHES project
that consists of two major expansion phases to the existing
Linth Limmer complex. The first phase NESTIL is a 140-MW
pumping capacity and 110-MW turbine capacity plant that
is being built into the existing complex. The second phase
Linthal is part of the same complex of reservoirs and has a
1000-MW pump/turbine capacity. Construction of Linthal is
expected to take 5 years and has an estimated cost of 1 billion
Swiss francs.
Construction started in 2008 at the 600-MW Nant de
Drance PHES plant. The project is being developed by Nant
de Drance SA, a consortium of three companies Alpiq, CFF,
and FMV. The facility will use existing reservoirs at the Vieux
Emosson site. The project is expected to be completed in
2015 and the cost of the project is estimated at 990 million
Swiss francs.
Kraftwerke Oberhasli AG power company (KWO) is
currently in the process of its 845 million Swiss franc invest-
ment and enhancement program (KWO Plus) of its existing
hydroelectric facilities. This program includes the construc-
tion of the new 400-MW PHES Gimsel 3 plant at a cost of
320 million Swiss francs. The plant will use existing reser-
voirs at the complex and complement the existing 344-MW
Grimsel 2 PHES plant. Construction started on this facility
in 2010.
6.3 Portugal and Spain
In the European Union, Portugal is leading a resurgence
in PHES with plans to build or upgrade up to 10 facili-
ties adding approximately 2000 MW of PHES to its current
capacity of 980 MW. Portugal has a total installed gener-
ating capacity of 14,916 MW with a total hydroelectric
installation of 4943 MW. Hydroelectric capacity factors for
the past 5 years have been below average at 56% and
Portugal is exposed to volatility in hydroelectric production.
This volatility along with ambitious government renewable
energy targets and a relatively underexploited hydro resource
is stimulating a renewed commercial interest in PHES devel-
opment. Portugal is one of the few European countries
with significant hydro potential to be developed. Portugal
has ambitious renewable energy goals. In this context, the
Portuguese government commissioned a techno-economic
and environmental study entitled Plano Nacional de Barra-
gens de Elevado Potencial Hidroelélictrico—“The National
Program of High Hydroelectric Potential Dams” (PNBEPH)
10 Mechanical Storage
6000
5500
5000
4500
Installed megawatt capacity
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 0%
BE BG CZ DE IE EL ES FR IT LT LU AT PL PT SI SK SE UK HR CH
Existing PHES Planned PHES
Figure 15. Installed PHES, proposed PHES, existing installed wind capacity and percentage of PHES of full installed capacity in the EU
in 2011. Note for illustration purposed Germany (DE) and Spain (ES) installed wind capacity is limited to 6000 MW.
in 2007. The PNBEPH identified and defined priorities
for investments in large hydroelectric developments in the
project horizon 2007–2020. The PNBEPH intends to reach a
national hydro rated capacity above 7000 MW in 2020 (70%
of the national hydro potential). Particular emphasis was
given in the PNBEPH to hydroelectric plants with pumping
capacity given its ability to facilitate the integration of vari-
able renewable generation. Wind power production and elec-
tricity demand in Portugal are highly uncorrelated with the
windiest periods occurring at night time and early morning.
Preliminary analysis within the PNBEPH indicated that the
ideal relationship between pumping capacity and wind power
was in the order of 1.0 MW of pumping capacity to 3.5 MW
of wind power.
One of the largest new PHES plants to be built in Portugal
(and Europe) is the Alto Támega complex. This project is
being built by the Spanish utility Iberdrola. This complex
consists of four dams (Daivoes, Gouaves, Padroselos, and
Alto Támega) with a total generating capacity of 1200 MW
and a total pumping capacity of 900 MW. Iberdrola is also
developing and expanding a similar complex in Spain at
the La Muela complex, which when completed will have a
total generating capacity of 1710 and 1260 MW of pumping
capacity. EDP (Energias de Portugal) are building four new
PHES plants in Portugal, namely, Baixo Sabor, Foz Tua,
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
80%
70%
PHES as % of total installed capacity
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Installed wind capacity PHES as percentage of
existing capacity
and Fridão/Alvito and expanding Alqeueva II. EDP state that
increased wind penetration is adding to the value of PHES
through energy storage and ancillary services and making it
attractive for investment.
6.4 Austria
Hydroelectric power supplies approximately 55% of the
Austrian electricity with an installed capacity of 11,853 MW
of which 3.5 GW is PHES. Austria has 13 major PHES plants
with the earliest plant Rodundwerk I (198 MW) coming into
full operation in 1952. The majority of PHES in Austria
is situated in the west and south of the country in the
Alpine regions. PHES in Austria (as in the alpine regions of
Switzerland) is characterized by large storage reservoirs
with some glacial inflow and are generally connected by
long underground penstocks into multistage hydroelectric
complexes such as the Malta or Kaprun complexes. Major
owners of PHES in Austria are the utilities Verbund, Illw-
erke, and Tiroler.
Liberalization of electricity markets, the rapid develop-
ment of wind energy, and increased electricity demand
are cited as the main drivers for increased PHES devel-
opment in Austria. In November 2008, the Vorarlberger

Illwerke AG KOPS II (kopswerk) plant went into opera-
tion. KOPS II is located at the site of the existing KOPS
plant. The project uses existing reservoirs and has a head of
approximately 800 m. The project cost approximately €360
million and took 3.5 years to build. Plant KOPS II has a full
range of controllability of ±100% in turbine operation and
in pump mode using hydraulic short circuit. This means that
the storage pumps and turbines are separate and can therefore
work simultaneously. When there is excess power from the
electricity grid but this is not sufficient to drive the pumps,
the turbines can be used at the same time so that the power
can still be stored. Following the commissioning of KOPS
II, Vorarlberger Illwerke has 1700 MW of turbine output and
980 MW of pump capacity in the Austrian market.
Verbund is planning to build two new PHES
plants—Reißeck II and Limberg II. Verbund currently
owns and operates six PHES plants with a total pumping
capacity of 1182 MW and generating capacity of 1621 MW.
Limberg II (480-MW capacity with a head of 360 m) is
being built into the Kaprun Power Storage Complex and
is expected to cost approximately €365 million. After the
start of operations of Limberg II, the turbine output of the
Kaprun Power Storage Complex will increase from 353
to 833 MW. The power input in the pump operation is set
to climb from 130 to 610 MW. Reißeck II with a planned
installed capacity of 430 MW and a head of 595 m is being
added to the Malta complex in Carinthia. The project will
use existing reservoirs and resources and is estimated to
cost €335 million. The project is currently going through
the environmental planning stage and is expected to be
completed in 2014.
6.5 Germany
Germany with 23 operational PHES plants has the highest
number of plants in Europe. In 2003, after 30 years of plan-
ning and 7 years of construction, Germany’s largest pumped
storage plant Goldisthal in Thuringia was put into operation.
The plant, owned by Vattenfall, has an installed capacity of
1060 MW and a storage capacity of 8.5 GWh. Currently, one
new PHES facility is planned for Germany. Schluchseewerk
AG, owner of over 1600 MW of PHES in Germany, is in
the planning phase of the 1000-MW Hornbergen II project.
This is an extension to the Hotzenwaldgruppe complex in
southern Germany. The project is expected to be completed
by 2014 and is estimated to cost €700 million. Increase in
wind energy installations, increase in energy demand in the
region, and electrical grid congestion from the north to the
south of Germany are cited as prime reasons for develop-
ment of the plant. The development of pumped hydro storage
plants in Germany is regaining momentum. Motivated by an
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Pumped Hydro Energy Storage 11
ever-increasing share of intermittent renewable generation, a
variety of energy players are considering new projects, which
could increase the available capacity by up to 60% until the
end of the decade (Steffen, 2011). Overall, the prospects for
new PHES have improved, even though profitability remains
a major challenge.
6.6 United States
In the past 15 years, just one major PHES plant (Rocky
Mountain 848 MW) was built in the United States. The most
recent PHES build in the United States is the 40-MW Lake
Hodges project in San Diego. Recent renewed commer-
cial interest in PHES is evident with companies such as
Brookfield Power Corporation, Nevada Hydro Company, and
Symbiotic LLC announcing pipelines of over 6000 MW of
planned PHES plants. According to official statistics from
the Energy Information Administration, there are currently
no planned construction of PHES plants in the United
States; however, the Federal Energy Regulator Commission
(FERC) has issued a number of pre-permits6 totaling over
43,000 MW of PHES. The majority of pre-permits were
issued for potential locations in western US states with
high renewable portfolio standard targets, namely California,
Washington, Nevada, and Oregon (Figure 16).
A high number of pre-permit applications do not mean
that projects will get built. Fifteen years ago, the FERC had
license applications for 18 GW of new pumped storage (42
plants with 31 in the west). However, deregulation, relatively
cheap natural gas, and risk adverse private investors led
nearly all developers to back out of construction. Because
of the need for significant elevation changes in pumped
hydroelectric plant designs, the number of environmentally
acceptable sites for future pumped hydroelectric facilities is
very limited.
6.7 Japan
Although steady development of hydroelectric power plants
is desired, Japan has used nearly all available sites for
the construction of large-scale hydroelectric facilities, and
so recent developments have been on a smaller scale. In
Japan’s largest service area, the Tokyo Electric Power
Company (TEPCO) service area, the proportion of PHES as
a percentage of the total capacity of the entire power network
is determined based on a power network system analysis
that aims to minimize the power generation cost of the entire
power network taking into consideration the pattern of daily
electricity usage. The current optimal proportion of PHES
capacity as a percentage of the total capacity of the entire
power network in TEPCO’s service area is estimated to be
10–15%.
12 Mechanical Storage

ME
MT NO

OR MN MI
VT NH

SD WV MY MA
MI
WY CT RI

IA PA
NE
NV OH
IN MD OE
OT IL OC Open-loop
CA WV capacity in MW
CO
KS MO VA 0–400
KY
401–650
NC 651–900
TN
OK 901–1150
AZ
NM AR SC
1151–1400
MS AL CA
TX LA >1400
Proposed Proposed
State State Closed-loop
capacity (MW) capacity (MW) capacity in MW
AZ 3201 OH 1500 0–400
CA 9103 OK 4190 401–650
CO 500 OR 2400 651–900
HI 300 PA 250 901–1150
IL 250 SD 800
KY 1000 TN 3992 1151–1400
MT 400 UT 3100
>1400
NJ 1000 WA 5100
NV 2650 WV 350
Note: Preliminary determination of
NM 2254 WY 1200
open· vs. closed-loop classifivation based
Total capacity 43,540 MW on preliminary permit application.

Figure 16. Issues preliminary permits for pumped storage. Source: Reproduced with permission from http://www.ferc.gov/industries/
hydropower/gen-info/licensing.asp. With thanks to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

All PHES plants in Japan are owned and operated by the
10 privately owned regional electric power companies and
J-Power that owns 4.9 GW of PHES. A number of PHES
plants are currently in the construction phase: TEPCO is
currently in the construction phase of the Kannagawa plant,
which when completed in 2015 will be Japan’s largest PHES
plant with an installed capacity of 2820 MW. TEPCO also
has the option to bring another 800 MW online at its Kazuno-
gawa II plant to increase its capacity to 1600 MW. Kazuno-
gawa PHES is unique in that it has one of the world’s largest
ultra high head large capacity turbines (400-MW pump with
a head of over 700 m).
7 VALUE OF PHES
The value of pumped storage in a system is highly dependent
on the makeup of the system in terms of thermal generation
portfolio, renewables penetration and type, market structure,
and interconnection. A number of studies have aimed to
quantify the value of pumped storage in diverse systems
and these studies are well summarized in an EU JRC (Joint
Research Centre) scientific and policy report on the assessing
storage value in electricity markets (Zucker, Hinchliffe, and
Spisto, 2013). The following section is based on information
and text from this report.
Table 2 shows the main characteristics of pumped hydro
engineering studies in terms of market, years, and services
from the report. The studies are based on historic market
data (from Europe, the United States, and Australia) except
for Loisel et al. 2010 (2010) and PNNL (2012), which use
market model-generated prices. Revenue sources considered
are energy market arbitrage, reserve markets, and capacity
payments (where these exist).
Figure 17 shows the review of profitability figures from
the JRC report (Zucker, Hinchliffe, and Spisto, 2013) where
the bars in the diagram represent the ranges of annual gross
margins found within each study. Gross margin is calculated
as the difference between storage profits and variable plus
fixed O&M costs per kilowatt of installed (turbine) capacity.

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
 Pumped Hydro Energy Storage 13

Table 2. Pumped hydro energy storage market studies by Zucker, Hinchliffe, and Spisto (2013).
Market Region Year Arbitrage Reserve Capacity Author and Year
BE 2007 Yes Yes — He et al. (2011)
DE 2002–2010 Yes — — Steffen (2011)
DE, FR 2010–2030 Yes Yes — Loisel et al. (2010)
ES, IT 2008–2011 Yes — — Rangoni (2012)
PJM 2002–2008 Yes — Yes Sioshansi, Denholm, and Jenkin (2011)
WECC 2020 Yes — — PNNL (2012)
AUS 2007 Yes — — Hessami (2011)

160

140

120

100
Gross margin (€/kW)

80

60

40

20

0
DE DE FR ES IT PJM WECC AUS BE DE
(2012) Loisel et al. Loisel et al. Rangoni Rangoni Sioshansi, PNNL (2012) Hessami He et al. (2012)
(2010) (2010) (2012) (2012)) Denholm, (2011) (2011)
and Jenkin
(2011)

Figure 17. Gross margin (€\kW) for pumped storage for a number of study regions. Information on chart is taken from Zucker, Hinchliffe,
and Spisto (2013).

If a specific study did not explicitly state annual storage
revenues, these are calculated from other data published.
For Loisel et al. (2010), annual gross margins were recal-
culated from the net present value, applying interest rate,
economic lifetime, and inflation rates provided. In the case
of He et al. (2011), the figures obtained from the simulation
of 1 week of storage dispatch optimization were extrapolated
in the report to an entire year by simply multiplying results
for 52 weeks. All currency units are normalized to €2012,
applying exchange rates and inflation figures according to
Eurostat. Arbitrage only figures appear on the left-hand side
of Figure 17 while figures including revenues from reserve
and other markets on the right-hand side in the lightly
shaded box.
The ranges shown in Figure 17 are given by the following
variation of the input parameters:
• Historical energy prices taken from different years:
Sioshansi, Denholm, and Jenkin (2011); Ekman and
Jensen (2010); Steffen (2011); and Rangoni (2012).

Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
14 Mechanical Storage
• Effect of capacity payments: Sioshansi, Denholm, and
Jenkin (2011).
• Prices generated by a market model making different
assumptions on the storage penetration level: PNNL
(2012) and Loisel et al. (2010).
The report highlights that as authors make different
assumptions on the investment CAPEX and on weighted
average costs of capital (WACC), the studies’ own judg-
ments on profitability are usually not comparable. Therefore,
annuities for an investment in a generic PHS are shown
as straight lines in Figure 17. Profitability is reached if
gross revenue exceeds these lines. A total of four possible
cases are shown by combining two different values for the
WACC (6% and 10%) with two different levels of specific
CAPEX (€500–1500/kW) taken from the Technology
Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan.
The different WACC levels represent typical values for a
regulated and a deregulated business. An investment life
time of 35 years is assumed for both cases. The possible
storage gross margin of a PHS seen in all scenarios/studies
varies by about one order of magnitude (€10–110/kW/year).
Arbitrage only operation allows the repayment of a low
CAPEX (€500/kW) investment in some cases but does not
provide sufficient revenues for a high CAPEX (€1500/kW)
investment in any of the cases considered. Repayment of
a high CAPEX/low WACC combination seems feasible
if reserve markets (and other services) are included. In
none of the studies would gross revenues allow repay-
ment in a high WACC and high CAPEX scenario. Some
results have to be seen in the context of specific study
assumptions.
• The upper end of the figures for Sioshansi, Denholm, and
Jenkin (2011) includes capacity payments of $40/kW
based on expectations for the PJM market.
• The rather low arbitrage spreads in PNNL (2012) have
been generated by a market model assuming a 45%
reserve margin (taken from a DOE scenario for the year
2020).
• The model of Hessami (2011) only optimizes the sale of
wind power to the power market of Victoria/Australia;
the storage device does not buy power from the grid.
Allowing full arbitrage would thus provide an additional
upside.
• Rangoni (2012) calculates storage profitability for Italy
on the basis of the average national power price (PUN,
prezzo unico nazionale), which results from the zonal
prices weighted with exchanged volumes for each
Italian price zone. Spreads may be higher within zones
providing a further upside potential.
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Finally, publications on hybrid systems of PHS and wind
on non-interconnected islands were not included in the JRC
review.
8 BARRIERS TO PHES DEPLOYMENT
PHES developments may face a number of barriers to
deployment. The primary barriers can be summarized
as follows: Profitability of new systems are challenging
particularly in the context of regulatory uncertainty in
energy markets. High capital costs of new projects and
long development times make investment unattractive for
investors. Projects also face environmental challenges for
siting and the availability of economically, environmen-
tally, and technically suitable sites is an issue. Another
significant challenge facing pumped storage project devel-
opers is the regulatory timeline for development of new
projects with long and complex permitting process in some
regions.
In the United States, the main limiting factors for PHES
appear to be environmental concerns and financial uncertain-
ties rather than the availability of technically feasible sites
(Yang and Jackson, 2011; Ela et al., 2013). PHES developers
are proposing innovative ways of addressing the environ-
mental impacts, including the potential use of waste water
in PHES applications. In some cases, a properly designed
PHES system can even be used to improve water quality
through aeration and other processes. Such new opportu-
nities and the increasing need for greater energy storage
may lead policy makers to reassess the potential of PHES
in the United States, particularly for coupling with inter-
mittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar
power. The National Hydropower Association’s Pumped
Storage Development Council indicated in 2012 that devel-
opment of new PHES in the United States, particularly in
areas with increased wind and solar capacity, would signif-
icantly improve system reliability while reducing the need
to construct new fossil-fueled generation. They suggested
new regulatory policies, including presenting bulk energy
storage as a new asset class, forming a streamlined licensing
process for low impact PHES, and allowing regional trans-
mission organizations and independent system operators
to enter into long-term, fixed-price contracts with energy
storage owners. Winters (2010) suggested the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission allow pumped storage to qualify
as transmission facilities for purposes of determining eligi-
bility for future incentives and possible creation of storage
credits. Bhatnagar et al. (2013) provide a further overview
of market and policy barriers to energy storage in the United
States.

At a European level, the STORE-Project.eu1 has made
a number of recommendations to assist the deployment of
PHES and storage projects. The project recommends that if
a need for energy storage is identified, then this need should
be clearly expressed in energy policy and clearly discernible
objectives should be developed at EU and Member State
level. It recommends that physically viable sites be iden-
tified and tested (subject to environmental assessment) at
a strategic level during the development of PHES plans
and programs. It recommends that clear MS guidelines for
sustainable project development, best practice guidelines,
and guidelines for planning are established to further the
sustainable development of bulk energy storage. Finally, it
recommends that the efficiency and speed with which bulk
EST projects are considered during the planning approval
stage be improved with the establishment of appropriate
mechanisms.
The issue of modeling restrictions may also be seen as a
barrier to deployment of further storage systems (Grünewald
et al., 2012). Although modeling capabilities are increasing
in sophistication, additional variables have increased
the complexity of modeling a power system. Typical
modeling capabilities available on the power system may
not adequately account for all of the capabilities of energy
storage and can undervalue their use, especially considering
resources providing multiple services (Deane, Drayton, and
O’Gallachóir, 2014; Grünewald et al., 2012). This inability
to accurately and completely measure the full benefits of
energy storage resources represents a significant challenge
to deployment as utilities, developers and regulators are then
unable to fairly compare resources. A good example of this
is production cost modeling. Most production cost models
operate at the hourly resolution, looking only over a 1-year
horizon, and thus do not account for generation and load
variability at shorter time frames, which can present a signif-
icant limitation in evaluating the full range of capabilities
of newer technologies. Many energy storage technologies
are well suited to provide services at fine timescales due to
their quick ramping capabilities (Grünewald et al., 2012).
At longer timeframes, capacity expansion models may
have difficulty in capturing the benefits of PHES due to
the inherent need to simplify the temporal resolution of
the problem over such a long planning time frame. This
leads to difficulty in the consideration of energy storage
resources as alternatives to new generation and transmission
investment.
9 CONCLUSION
Pumped hydroelectric storage is a flexible form of electricity
generation and can contribute many benefits to power
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
Pumped Hydro Energy Storage 15
systems operation. There has been a renewed commercial
and technical interest in pumped hydroelectric storage
recently with the advent of increased variable renewable
energy generation and the development of liberalized elec-
tricity markets. However, barriers exist to further deployment
of the technology. The primary barriers can be summarized
as follows: profitability of new systems is challenging,
in particular, in the context of regulatory uncertainty in
energy markets and high capital costs of new projects make
investment unattractive for investors. Projects also face
environmental challenges for siting and the availability of
economically, environmentally, and technically suitable
sites is an issue. Another significant challenge facing
pumped storage project developers is the regulatory timeline
for development of new projects with long and complex
permitting process in some regions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Parts of this article have been reprinted and updated from
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 14,
Issue 4, J.P. Deane, B.P. Ó Gallachóir, E.J. McKeogh,
“Techno-economic review of existing and new pumped
hydro energy storage plant”, pp. 1293–1302, May 2010,
with permission from Elsevier.
RELATED ARTICLES
Introduction: Renewable Energy
ENDNOTES
1. Information from http://www.store-project.eu/.
2. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Online
at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-
info/regulation/pump.asp.
3. Information taken from www.alstrom.com.
4. TEPCO Official Press Release available
online at: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-
com/release/betu05_e/images/051222e1.pdf.
5. Information taken from www.dnvkema.com.
6. A preliminary permit, issued for up to 3 years, does
not authorize construction; rather, it maintains priority
of application for license (i.e., guaranteed first-to-file
status) while the permittee studies the site and prepares
to apply for a license. The permittee must submit peri-
odic reports on the status of its studies. It is not neces-
sary to obtain a permit in order to apply for or receive
a license.
16 Mechanical Storage
REFERENCES
Bhatnagar, D., Currier, A., Hernandez, J., et al. (2013) Market and
Policy Barriers to Energy Storage Deployment. Sandia Report,
SAND2013-7606, September.
Deane, J.P., Ó Gallachóir, B.P., and McKeogh, E.J. (2010)
Techno-economic review of existing and new pumped
hydro energy storage plant. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 14 (4), 1293–1302. ISSN 1364-0321,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.015.
Deane, J.P., Drayton, G., and Ó Gallachóir, B.P. (2014) The impact of
sub-hourly modelling in power systems with significant levels of
renewable generation. Applied Energy, 113, 152–158. ISSN 0306-
2619, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.027.
Denholm, P. and Sioshansi, R. (2009) The value of compressed
air energy storage with wind in transmission-constrained electric
power systems. Energy Policy, 37(8), 3149–3158. ISSN 0301-
4215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.002.
Donalek, P., Hartel, P., Trouille, B., et al. (2009) Technical Analysis
of Pumped Storage and Integration with Wind Power in the Pacific
Northwest. MWH Report.
Do-Thanh, T. and Schulz, D. (2010) Potential of new pumped-
storage power plants in open cast mining structures and compar-
ison of the storage capability with electro-mobility. Poster
Presentation, Helmut Schmidt Universität.
Ekman, C.K. and Jensen, S.H. (2010) Prospects for large scale elec-
tricity storage in Denmark. Energy Conversion and Management,
51, 1140–1147.
Ela, E., Kirby, B., Botterud, A., et al. (2013) The role of
pumped hydro energy resources in electricity markets and system
operation—National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/CP-
5500-58655, May.
Erlei, M., et al. (2011) Windenergiespeicherung durch Nachnutzung
stillgelegter Bergwerke. Institut für Wirtschaftswissenschaft (IfW),
TU Clausthal, Clausthal.
Fujihara, T., Imano, H., and Oshima, K. (1998) Development of Pump
Turbine for seawater pumped storage power plant. Hitachi Review,
47(5), 199–202.
Grünewald, P.H., Cockerill, T.T., Contestabile, M., and Pearson,
P.J. (2012) The socio-technical transition of distributed electricity
storage into future networks—system value and stakeholder views.
Energy Policy, 50, 449–457.
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces137
He, X., Delarue, E., D’haeseleer, W., and Glachant, J.-M. (2011)
A novel business model for aggregating the values of electricity
storage. Energy Policy, 39, 1575–1585.
Hessami, M.-A. (2011) Economic feasibility and optimisation of
an energy storage system for Portland Wind Farm (Victoria,
Australia). Applied Energy, 88, 2755–2763.
Loisel, R., Mercier, A., Gatzen, C., et al. (2010) Valuation framework
for large scale electricity storage in a case with wind curtailment.
Energy Policy, 38, 7323–7337.
PNNL—Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2012) National
Assessment of Energy Storage for Grid Balancing and Arbitrage:
Phase 1, WECC, PNNL, Richland, Washington.
Rangoni, B. (2012) A contribution on electricity storage: the case of
hydro-pumped storage appraisal and commissioning in Italy and
Spain. Utilities Policy, 23, 31–39. ISSN 0957-1787.
Sioshansi, R., Denholm, P., and Jenkin, T. (2011) A comparative
analysis of the value of pure and hybrid electricity storage. Energy
Economics, 33 (1), 56–66.
Sioshansi, R., Denholm, P., and Jenkin, T. (2012) Market and policy
barriers to deployment of energy storage. Economics of Energy and
Environmental Policy, 1(2). DOI: 10.5547/2160-5890.1.2.4.
Steffen, B. (2011) Prospects for Pumped-Hydro Storage in Germany,
No. 1107, EWL Working Papers, University of Duisburg-
Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics,
http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:dui:wpaper:1107.
Winters, M. (2010) Opportunities in Pumped Storage Hydropower:
Supporting Attainment of Our Renewable Energy Goals, Water-
power XVI- Hydropower Reform Coalition 2009.
Yang, C.-J. and Jackson, R.B. (2011) Opportunities and barriers to
pumped-hydro energy storage in the United States. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15 (1), 839–844.
Zucker, A., Hinchliffe, T., and Spisto, A. (2013) Assessing Storage
Value in Energy Markets—A JRC Scientific and Policy Report.
Report EUR26056EN-2013.
FURTHER READING
Heier, S. (2014) Grid Integration of Wind Energy, 3rd edn, Wiley.
ISBN 978-1-119-96294-6.