On Feb 4, 7:54*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:37:00 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Feb 4, 5:31*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:24:04 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:54*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:41:50 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:32*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:57:50 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:38 am, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

news:O96dnZQJY9B3JZLMnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

Attila Iskander wrote:

And do they actually suck water from downstream to pump it back into
the dam ??

Yes. In California a few years ago, during one of their periods of energy
scarcity, several generating stations pumped water back into the resevoir
during off-peak hours (night). The California equivalent of a
perpetual-motion machine.

And where did they get the power to run those "pumps" ?

I would imagine it comes from some of the water flowing
through the generator, which would be the most logical source.

Ah, thermodynamics repealed!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No violation of thermodynamics involved.

It certainly is if you think you're doing this for a reason.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The reason is to have more water available to supply more
power during peak times during the day.

Don't be absurd. *If you're pumping water by using falling water,
there can be no gain.

You're not gaining energy. *You're storing energy at night
by pumping water up to a reservoir above the power plant.
Then during the day, you're releasing the water, to get
the energy back.

You're losing energy.

First you claimed "you're not gaining energy" Well, duh, no one
in this thread said that using water to STORE energy creates a
gain in energy. Now you shift to "you're losing energy". Well, duh,
there is always going to be some energy loss, nothing is 100%
efficient. Any energy storage system that uses pumping water
to store energy off peak and then release it later is going to lose
SOME of the energy. It doesn't stop power companies from
doing it though, because it still makes economic sense.

You claimed it violated the laws of thermodynamics. Explain
how.







If you're using falling water at night to pump
water during the day, where's the storage of that energy?

It's stored in the reservoir above the dam.

Then leave it there!

You said that in the previous post and I addressed it.
You carefully avoided the whole part where I pointed out that
is not always possible. You can't necessarily reduce the flow
on a river at night to match the low electricity demand because
there could be issues with maintaining river flow for other
purposes downstream. And there may not be a suitable
location directly above the plant to create a suitable place to
store the water. But there could be a great place for a
storage reservoir a few miles away and higher up.

Again, please address what law of thermodynamics this
system violates. Or just concede that it does not.





If I expend
energy to pump 100 gallons of water 500 ft higher, then
later I can run that water back down the 500ft drop
and into a generator, generating energy. *If there were
no losses you'd get all the stored energy back. *But
let's say it's only 75% efficient. *In the example I gave,
it doesn't matter, because if the river is flowing at
100MW and the plant only has demand at night of 60MW,
then 40MW is going to waste. * 40MW * 75% is
30MW of additonal power that the utility can sell in
the peak daytime.

You're nuts.


As usual, now instead of addressing the example given,
you're starting with the insults. Explain what law of thermo
the above violates. That is what you claimed. Or do you
now agree that it does not violate any laws of physics?