On Tue, 06 Oct 2020 17:52:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Renewable energy sounds like a good idea except it probably is not at all easy
to find any.
Agreed and any impact on Climate Change from this is a side-benefit -
no more, no less.
Post by Tony
In essence the fact is that if we have surplus energy from somewhere (like
hydroelectric power) then by all means store it using water storage but if we
need to generate energy to do that then we are kidding ourselves.
Sounds like clutching at straws.
Not necessarily. The article you quote comes from a source that is as
anti-Labour as Rich80105 is anti-National, so needs to be treated with
skepticism reserved for promoting an anti-Labour stance.
The concept of pumped storage is here:
The premise is that water pumped into pumped storage will be used to
augment seasonal shortages of hydro-generated power. However it
logically works only if the time required to use the resource is
shorter than the time required to produce it.
For example, if a storage lake is filled over a 9 month period using
water pumped 24/7, then used over a 3 month period over peak power
demand only (ie perhaps 5 hours total per day). If the power used
over the 9 month filling period uses excess generation capability that
may not otherwise be used, or spilled, then the pumping uses
electricity that is in excess. What we get back is additional
peak-period generation, assuming the generators used are hydro-scale
The article above ignores this - it simply says that pumped-storage is
a failure if the energy generated (ie over 3 months) does not exceed
the energy required to pump the water up to that storage (ie over 9
months) and therefore ignores the circumstances as I outlined
previously, presumably to promote an anti-Labour stance in respect of
the Lake Onslow proposal.
The principle I have outlined above gets weaker if the pumping cycle
gets closer to the generation cycle in time. The theory though