On 2/4/2013 10:48 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2013 8:22 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Attila Iskander" wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message
...

-snip-

In some parts of my state, electricity is stored behind dams. ^_^


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

Don't know where TDD is-- but in NY-- Yes! Every night.

Here's one I watched them build in the 70's-
http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm

5 billion gallons on top of the hill-- Takes more power to pump it
back up, but it is 'off peak' power that would have been shunted to
the ground otherwise.

Jim


That may be what I read about years ago. By the way, I reside in
beautiful Alabamastan. There's a lot of hydro power in the Northern
part of the state along with some nuclear reactors. The TVA project
from the last century did a lot to bring electricity to us
Hillbillies. ^_^


I worked on this project as a young engineer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicouagan_Reservoir
The drainage area for the dam is about half the size of Rhode Island.


Cool, so that's the what's left of the cataclysmic impact that killed
the French Canadian dinosaurs. ^_^

TDD

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

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

m...

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Ah, thermodynamics repealed!

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.

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.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2013 10:48 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2013 8:22 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Attila Iskander" wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message
...

-snip-

In some parts of my state, electricity is stored behind dams. ^_^


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

Don't know where TDD is-- but in NY-- Yes! Every night.

Here's one I watched them build in the 70's-
http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm

5 billion gallons on top of the hill-- Takes more power to pump it
back up, but it is 'off peak' power that would have been shunted to
the ground otherwise.

Jim


That may be what I read about years ago. By the way, I reside in
beautiful Alabamastan. There's a lot of hydro power in the Northern
part of the state along with some nuclear reactors. The TVA project
from the last century did a lot to bring electricity to us
Hillbillies. ^_^


I worked on this project as a young engineer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicouagan_Reservoir
The drainage area for the dam is about half the size of Rhode Island.


Cool, so that's the what's left of the cataclysmic impact that killed the
French Canadian dinosaurs. ^_^


Actually they suffered heart failure from eating too much poutine.

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. Let's say you have
100MW of generating capacity from water flow from the
normal flow of a river. The generator could supply 130MW if
there were more water flow, but the river is only capable of
100MW. At night, the demand is only
60MW. So, at night you take the extra 40MW that isn't needed
and use it to power pumps to move water to a reservoir
upstream of the generator. The next day, when you need
more than 100MW, you start releasing that extra water,
boosting the generator output above 100MW.

Nothing there violates thermodynamics and there is a
reason for it. The power generating company has just
help meet peak demand and gotten paid for electricity
that it would otherwise have not been able to produce.
Feel free to admit you're wrong at any time.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 1:54 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:41:50 -0800 (PST), "
The reason is to have more water available to supply more
power during peak times during the day. Let's say you have
100MW of generating capacity from water flow from the
normal flow of a river. The generator could supply 130MW if
there were more water flow, but the river is only capable of
100MW. At night, the demand is only
60MW. So, at night you take the extra 40MW that isn't needed
and use it to power pumps to move water to a reservoir
upstream of the generator. The next day, when you need
more than 100MW, you start releasing that extra water,
boosting the generator output above 100MW.

Nothing there violates thermodynamics and there is a
reason for it. The power generating company has just
help meet peak demand and gotten paid for electricity
that it would otherwise have not been able to produce.
Feel free to admit you're wrong at any time.

Good idea except it does not work that way. Even at 100% efficency, only
the ammount of water going down hill can only pump the same ammount back
uphill. If 100 MW of water is turning the turbins, it will take more than
100 MW to turn the pumps to get the water back to the top.

For the system to work, it starts off like you say. The the flow of water
going down hill is stopped at night. The pumps and the other users are
supplied with power from other sources on the grid such as coal powered
plants that have the excess capacity at night.

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


Let's say you have
100MW of generating capacity from water flow from the
normal flow of a river. The generator could supply 130MW if
there were more water flow, but the river is only capable of
100MW. At night, the demand is only
60MW. So, at night you take the extra 40MW that isn't needed
and use it to power pumps to move water to a reservoir
upstream of the generator. The next day, when you need
more than 100MW, you start releasing that extra water,
boosting the generator output above 100MW.

Good grief. Just store the water behind the dam and forget the whole
thing.

Nothing there violates thermodynamics and there is a
reason for it. The power generating company has just
help meet peak demand and gotten paid for electricity
that it would otherwise have not been able to produce.
Feel free to admit you're wrong at any time.

It violates common sense.

On Feb 4, 5:18*pm, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 4, 1:54 pm, wrote:





On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:41:50 -0800 (PST), "
The reason is to have more water available to supply more
power during peak times during the day. * Let's say you have
100MW of generating capacity from water flow from the
normal flow of a river. * The generator could supply 130MW if
there were more water flow, but the river is only capable of
100MW. * *At night, the demand is only
60MW. *So, at night you take the extra 40MW that isn't needed
and use it to power pumps to move water to a reservoir
upstream of the generator. *The next day, when you need
more than *100MW, you start releasing that extra water,
boosting the generator output above 100MW.
Nothing there violates thermodynamics and there is a
reason for it. *The power generating company has just
help meet peak demand and gotten paid for electricity
that it would otherwise have not been able to produce.
Feel free to admit you're wrong at any time.

Good idea except it does not work that way. *Even at 100% efficency, only
the ammount of water going down hill can only pump the same ammount back
uphill. *If 100 MW of water is turning the turbins, it will take more than
100 MW to turn the pumps to get the water back to the top.

Follow the example. It doesn't require 100% efficiency. You have a
river
that's flowing at 100MW an hour. During the day, there is a market
for
all that power. At night the demand is only 60MW. So, you could let
that water pass by unused or use the 40MW available to pump water
to a reservoir above the power plant. Then, during the day when you
need more than 100MW, you release some of that water. You now
have more than 100MW of water availble to turn the generator
because you have EXTRA water beyond what the river supplies
during that peak period.
Hence you can produce more than 100MW of power during the
day when you need it.




For the system to work, it starts off like you say. *The the flow of water
going down hill is stopped at night. *The pumps and the other users *are
supplied with power from other sources on the grid such as coal powered
plants that have the excess capacity at night.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's real nice. Let the river go dry at night. I'm sure the
cities, towns, farmers downstream and all the farmers will be
OK with that.....

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.



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. 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.





Let's say you have
100MW of generating capacity from water flow from the
normal flow of a river. * The generator could supply 130MW if
there were more water flow, but the river is only capable of
100MW. * *At night, the demand is only
60MW. *So, at night you take the extra 40MW that isn't needed
and use it to power pumps to move water to a reservoir
upstream of the generator. *The next day, when you need
more than *100MW, you start releasing that extra water,
boosting the generator output above 100MW.

Good grief. *Just store the water behind the dam and forget the whole
thing.

Yeah, if there is a suitable dam area to contain the additonal
water as part of the river ahead of the dam and IF you can throttle
back the river withoug screwing up
everything below it. You with Ralph on the idea of just turning
off the river at night? But none of that has anything to do with
your claim that the pumping system I described violates some
law of thermodynamics, does it?

wrote in message
...

Follow the example. It doesn't require 100% efficiency. You have a
river
that's flowing at 100MW an hour. During the day, there is a market
for
all that power. At night the demand is only 60MW. So, you could let
that water pass by unused or use the 40MW available to pump water
to a reservoir above the power plant. Then, during the day when you
need more than 100MW, you release some of that water. You now
have more than 100MW of water availble to turn the generator
because you have EXTRA water beyond what the river supplies
during that peak period.
Hence you can produce more than 100MW of power during the
day when you need it.



That makes no sense at all. You are saying let the water flow past the dam.
Then pump it back up to the top ? It is not like getting the water down
stream 10 miles or more from the dam. Why not just cut the flow back to the
demand for power.

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.


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!

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.



Let's say you have
100MW of generating capacity from water flow from the
normal flow of a river. * The generator could supply 130MW if
there were more water flow, but the river is only capable of
100MW. * *At night, the demand is only
60MW. *So, at night you take the extra 40MW that isn't needed
and use it to power pumps to move water to a reservoir
upstream of the generator. *The next day, when you need
more than *100MW, you start releasing that extra water,
boosting the generator output above 100MW.

Good grief. *Just store the water behind the dam and forget the whole
thing.

Yeah, if there is a suitable dam area to contain the additonal
water as part of the river ahead of the dam and IF you can throttle
back the river withoug screwing up
everything below it. You with Ralph on the idea of just turning
off the river at night? But none of that has anything to do with
your claim that the pumping system I described violates some
law of thermodynamics, does it?

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:44:51 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

Follow the example. It doesn't require 100% efficiency. You have a
river
that's flowing at 100MW an hour. During the day, there is a market
for
all that power. At night the demand is only 60MW. So, you could let
that water pass by unused or use the 40MW available to pump water
to a reservoir above the power plant. Then, during the day when you
need more than 100MW, you release some of that water. You now
have more than 100MW of water availble to turn the generator
because you have EXTRA water beyond what the river supplies
during that peak period.
Hence you can produce more than 100MW of power during the
day when you need it.


Because there is no dam behind the falls? Think Niagara. How do you
stop up the flow? During the day they can only deflect so much water
into the generators - must maintain minimum flow over the falls. -
Now they COULD build a "lake" a few feet higher than the inlet of the
generator and only have to lift the water a small amount form ABOVE
the falls overnight to fill the reservoir - which is then available to
supplement flow during peak power periods the next day.

There are many situations where the same could be done, with a
definite net gain in power output.

That makes no sense at all. You are saying let the water flow past the dam.
Then pump it back up to the top ? It is not like getting the water down
stream 10 miles or more from the dam. Why not just cut the flow back to the
demand for power.

On Feb 4, 7:44*pm, "Ralph Mowery" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Follow the example. *It doesn't require 100% efficiency. *You have a
river

that's flowing at 100MW an hour. *During the day, there is a market
for
all that power. *At night the demand is only 60MW. *So, you could let
that water pass by unused or use the 40MW available to pump water
to a reservoir above the power plant. *Then, during the day when you
need more than 100MW, you release some of that water. *You now
have more than 100MW of water availble to turn the generator
because you have EXTRA water beyond what the river supplies

during that peak period.
Hence you can produce more than 100MW of power during the
day when you need it.

That makes no sense at all. *You are saying let the water flow past the dam.
Then pump it back up to the top ? *It is not like getting the water down
stream 10 miles or more from the dam. *Why not just cut the flow back to the
demand for power.

That is fine IF you can cut the river flow back to equal demand
during periods of low demand. In some cases you can. In others
you may not be able to. And IF the river
upstream of the dam has a reservoir. What if it doesn't have a
reservoir, but there is a suitable location for a reservoir, even
higher up
a few miles away? Then do you recognize that the system as I
outlined would work and is not a violation of thermodynamics?
That was the essential point being argued here. You and krw
claim that it somehow violates thermodynamics. It doesn't.
All your doing is capturing the excess generating capacity and
storing it in the form of water at a higher elevation.

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?

On 02-04-2013 13:54, Attila Iskander wrote:
Cool, so that's the what's left of the cataclysmic impact that killed
the French Canadian dinosaurs. ^_^

Actually they suffered heart failure from eating too much poutine.

This French Canadian dinosaur is still kicking.....

Or at least walking and pedaling.

--
Wes Groleau

The man who says, €œI can do it!" may sometimes fail.
The man who says, €œImpossible!" will never succeed.

"Attila Iskander" wrote in message
...

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
On 2/4/2013 8:22 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Attila Iskander" wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in
message
...

-snip-

In some parts of my state, electricity is stored behind dams. ^_^


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

Don't know where TDD is-- but in NY-- Yes! Every night.

Here's one I watched them build in the 70's-
http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/blengil.htm

5 billion gallons on top of the hill-- Takes more power to pump it
back up, but it is 'off peak' power that would have been shunted to
the ground otherwise.

Jim


That may be what I read about years ago. By the way, I reside in
beautiful Alabamastan. There's a lot of hydro power in the Northern
part of the state along with some nuclear reactors. The TVA project
from the last century did a lot to bring electricity to us Hillbillies.
^_^


I worked on this project as a young engineer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicouagan_Reservoir
The drainage area for the dam is about half the size of Rhode Island.


So let me get this straight:

You claim to have participated in the building of the 5th largest dam in the
world (volume-wise, according to wiki), but you don't understand that
batteries store electricity, or the notion of pressure drop in a nat. gas
line.... or the notion of a refill.... okaaaayyy.....

You have good company, tho. 80% of the US Congress/senate sez "nukyooler",
my ophthalmologist dudn't know the diff. between chlorine and chloride, and
my ENT guy don't know what a meniscus is..... yet the world keeps chugging
along.... AND, I'm not blind or deaf from these two yokums..... effing
amazing.....
Ackshooly, they did a good job in the procedures at hand.... I just hope
they don't vote on any regular basis....

Btw, I just came back from HD.... their tankless gas gadget is $999, at
180,000 btu.... a replacement 50 gal tank is mebbe $500, and 30,000
btu..... sounds like a plan, eh?
Iny cost over-runs on yer dam, by any chance?
--
EA


--
EA

On Feb 4, 9:17*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:44:51 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"





wrote:

wrote in message
...

Follow the example. *It doesn't require 100% efficiency. *You have a
river
that's flowing at 100MW an hour. *During the day, there is a market
for
all that power. *At night the demand is only 60MW. *So, you could let
that water pass by unused or use the 40MW available to pump water
to a reservoir above the power plant. *Then, during the day when you
need more than 100MW, you release some of that water. *You now
have more than 100MW of water availble to turn the generator
because you have EXTRA water beyond what the river supplies
during that peak period.
Hence you can produce more than 100MW of power during the
day when you need it.

Because there is no dam behind the falls? Think Niagara. How do you
stop up the flow? *During the day they can only deflect so much water
into the generators *- must maintain minimum flow over the falls. -
Now they COULD build a "lake" a few feet higher than the inlet of the
generator and only have to lift the water a small amount form ABOVE
the falls overnight to fill the reservoir - which is then available to
supplement flow during peak power periods the next day.

There are many situations where the same could be done, with a
definite net gain in power output.




Finally, someone that gets it! Thank you. Here I was being
accused of violating the laws of thermodynamics.....

Only thing I'd point out is that I don't think it's strictly limited
to pumping water only from above to a level higher than
the generator inlet. Some pump water from below back
to the upper reservoir.






That makes no sense at all. *You are saying let the water flow past the dam.
Then pump it back up to the top ? *It is not like getting the water down
stream 10 miles or more from the dam. *Why not just cut the flow back to the
demand for power.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 2/4/2013 8:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:44:51 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

Follow the example. It doesn't require 100% efficiency. You have a
river
that's flowing at 100MW an hour. During the day, there is a market
for
all that power. At night the demand is only 60MW. So, you could let
that water pass by unused or use the 40MW available to pump water
to a reservoir above the power plant. Then, during the day when you
need more than 100MW, you release some of that water. You now
have more than 100MW of water availble to turn the generator
because you have EXTRA water beyond what the river supplies
during that peak period.
Hence you can produce more than 100MW of power during the
day when you need it.


Because there is no dam behind the falls? Think Niagara. How do you
stop up the flow? During the day they can only deflect so much water
into the generators - must maintain minimum flow over the falls. -
Now they COULD build a "lake" a few feet higher than the inlet of the
generator and only have to lift the water a small amount form ABOVE
the falls overnight to fill the reservoir - which is then available to
supplement flow during peak power periods the next day.

Which is done at the Robert Mosses Niagra power plant/Lewiston
Pump-Generating Plant.

I don't understand why the concept is so difficult to understand. It is
called "pumped storage".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-...droelectricity
It is a way of storing large amounts of energy as potential energy.

There are 11 pumped storage facilities in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...power_stations

(And that does not include Lewiston.)


There are many situations where the same could be done, with a
definite net gain in power output.

For part of the day.

On Feb 5, 10:47*am, bud-- wrote:
On 2/4/2013 8:17 PM, wrote:





On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:44:51 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
*wrote:

*wrote in message
....

Follow the example. *It doesn't require 100% efficiency. *You have a
river
that's flowing at 100MW an hour. *During the day, there is a market
for
all that power. *At night the demand is only 60MW. *So, you could let
that water pass by unused or use the 40MW available to pump water
to a reservoir above the power plant. *Then, during the day when you
need more than 100MW, you release some of that water. *You now
have more than 100MW of water availble to turn the generator
because you have EXTRA water beyond what the river supplies
during that peak period.
Hence you can produce more than 100MW of power during the
day when you need it.

Because there is no dam behind the falls? Think Niagara. How do you
stop up the flow? *During the day they can only deflect so much water
into the generators *- must maintain minimum flow over the falls. -
Now they COULD build a "lake" a few feet higher than the inlet of the
generator and only have to lift the water a small amount form ABOVE
the falls overnight to fill the reservoir - which is then available to
supplement flow during peak power periods the next day.

Which is done at the Robert Mosses Niagra power plant/Lewiston
Pump-Generating Plant.

I don't understand why the concept is so difficult to understand. It is
called "pumped storage".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-...droelectricity
It is a way of storing large amounts of energy as potential energy.

There are 11 pumped storage facilities in the UShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumpedstorage_hydroelectric_powe...

(And that does not include Lewiston.)


Thank you Bud! A perfect example of what I was talking about!
Apparently the laws of physics still apply there and it works....