Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:3T gallons at a Superfund site with earthquakes (Score 1) 110

I am not saying to use that site. It is still an active mine . I am just using it as an example of the size of the hole needed.

(you may be able to halve the number by using the amount dug out to form a upper reservoir too)

The main problem with this method is of course the cost.

Comment: Re:Ludinton pumped storage facility X 1,500,000 (Score 1) 110

(We actually only need 3.28767123 × 10^14 BTU for daily storage)

Capacity of Bingham Canyon Mine = 3,220 billion gallons. (or 1.2 *10^10 m^3) (120 times more water)

Height 0.97 km ( Or an average of 5*100m) compared with an average of (1 .21* 100m) for Ludington (~5 times as much power for each L)

Using the calculations on pumped storage from wikipedia if you pumped water out of Bingham and let it flow back in.

1.2 *10^10 * 5 * .272 Kwh * 70% in BTU = 3.8980306 × 10^13 BTU / day (so probably 10 or so not 5)

(size in m^3) * (number of 50m height increments) * .272Kwh * 70%

using the same calculations for Ludington
8.36645409 × 10^10 BTU (Average fall of 120m)

(based on the local one here , it is 10 hours max output not 13 hours)

(And in your case the lower reservoir would be the ocean)

Comment: Re:Well, you COULD flood most of the country (Score 1) 110

Rough estimate

120 quadrillion BTU /year

using 0.272 kWh per 1m^3 per 100m height

square root of (120 quadrillion btu / 365 / 70% / 0.272 kWh * 1 m^3 /100m) = 71km.

(or in other words 71km *71km *100m at a height of 100m from the lower lake will stall enough power for the average day.

Or to put it in perspective about 5 holes the size of Bingham Canyon Mine

Comment: Re:Except nobodies doing that (Score 1) 323

by catprog (#47071125) Attached to: Rising Sea Level Could Put East Coast Nuclear Plants At Risk

From your earlier comment "But it has limits in what percentage of our supply it can produce and not cause grid stability issues"

I have shown that it can get to 35% without causing those issues .

Is the cost for spinning reserve paid for by the current power stations

Assuming power demand has not increased and thus no new plants would need to be built normally.
(I.e Wind is replacing existing instead of instead of new)
The marginal cost of coal and gas appears to be 50-80 putting the wind about equal. (And for your spinning reserve well we have gas power that is no longer running due to wind)

Comment: Re:Except nobodies doing that (Score 1) 323

by catprog (#47064863) Attached to: Rising Sea Level Could Put East Coast Nuclear Plants At Risk

As for the percentage limit

with wind farms at one point providing 35.05 percent, or more than a third, of the system's power.

It's important to note that these new marks are being set without any utility system reliability problems, as system operators make use of their standard techniques for balancing supply and demand.

Computers will not be perfected until they can compute how much more than the estimate the job will cost.