Re: California spot energy price: $99 MWhr

On Apr 11, 12:39 pm, "bill" <ford_prefec...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of holding lakes
designed and built specifically for the purpose. a 40 million gallon
holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30 feet of head
represents 10 mwh of energy storage, at a difference of say $40
between daily buy and sell price, that means $400/day in income from
the round trip (call it $300 after inefficiencies)
the investment will be approximately $100k to construct the lake
and another 200k for the reversible turbine w/ generator (recta-
numerical extraction proceedure here, corrections welcome), which
would give a 3 year economic payback on a small, suboptimal
installation!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's odd; we have another GOOGLE/Usenet taking of my honest
contribution, yet it's nowhere to behold.

bill, I've been thinking that you are 100+% right as having rain in a
big sistern.

Earth as it stands needs roughly twice the energy, especially of peak
energy demands, and this energy also needs to become much cleaner and
at not half the current end-user cost. If we give government and
local states any say, as such we'll be lucky to end up with half of
what we currently have, and it'll be costing twice again as much.

Once we've established the mostly private owned cache of spare/surplus
energy to burn (sort of speak); Back-Flooding a Reservoir = Green
Energy in a lake.

California spot energy price: $99 MWhr
(often means the combined efforts of ENRON and the local utility will
be jacking off twice that energy cost for their end-users)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_frm/thread/14277d1ffa700718/1022b26b4c8df322?lnk=st&q=guth+brad&rnum=3&hl=en#1022b26b4c8df322
"a 40 million gallon holding lake (quite small in lake terms) with 30
feet of head represents 10 mwh of energy storage"

Reverse polarity hydroelectrics; Sounds almost good enough to eat,
and if possible going for holding 100 fold more volume at a greater
head pressure of at least 100 meters should be done at all cost.
Obviously many of our existing dams could be retrofitted for best
accomplishing this method, so that each peak draw-down at least starts
off with as much head pressure as possible.

Hydroelectric is after all 100% renewable to begin with (often
receiving more of nature's water than we can possibly know what to do
with), and I do believe that we could always use another crater lake
or two. Actually, a good nuclear bomb might be an efficient
alternative for creating that deep lake basin in the first place (I'm
sure ELF or GreenPeace will not terribly mind, especially once they're
all rounded up and sent to Iraq for guarding Exxon's share of Muslim
oil).

We might even obtain that artificial lake indirectly, and at a good
enough elevation in the process of our having to excavate our
relatively piss poor dregs of yellowcake, that'll soon enough become
worth $1000/kg.

So, instead of making the nifty likes of LH2 or the do-everything
better alternative of H2O2,t either of which would by itself represent
a considerable win-win for all of us (including all sorts of improved
fossil fuel burning aspects), as easily derived from any such surplus
of wind/solar/stirling derived energy that's capably worthy of
delivering 40 kw/m2, as can be safely taken as is from such energy
tower footprints, whereas instead we can merely utilize that spare and
clean energy for getting as much reservoir water as possible back up
into those energy storage lakes of fresh water, that's also a good
enough cash of water for a number of other uses besides generating
such clean peak energy on demand from each of these hydrostatic cells.

Some of the coastal or island located hydrostatic cells could even be
stocked with saltwater. Obviously we're not talking about all that
much efficiency here, just pondering the alternatives to otherwise
ignoring or otherwise wasting each and every other spare kwhr that
comes along.
-
Brad Guth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ohms Law
    ... >> The amount of water per second is the rate at which water is coming ... Then, energy is head * mass, and power is head * flow rate. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Ohms Law
    ... >> The amount of water per second is the rate at which water is coming ... Then, energy is head * mass, and power is head * flow rate. ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Hydroelectric Power
    ... energy than what you will be able to produce from the higher water height. ... In addition, the higher the head, the more energy used to get it there. ... The smaller diameter tube ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: California spot energy price: $99 MWhr
    ... Earth as it stands needs roughly twice the energy, ... Energy in a lake. ... head pressure of at least 100 meters should be done at all cost. ... receiving more of nature's water than we can possibly know what to do ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: The Glen Canyon Dam fails in 1983
    ... the water by and large would have gone down the Hoover ... >The concrete structure may stand firm but, like Lake Powell ... we look at the potential energy of Lake ...
    (sci.physics)