Or they want local power to trump state to trump federal.
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.
And you have only flooded the US to 34m. Somehow I think the US is not 34m from it's lowest to highest.
(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
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 *
(size in m^3) * (number of 50m height increments) *
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)
120 quadrillion BTU
using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 0.272 kWh per 1m^3 per 100m height
square root of (120 quadrillion btu / 365 / 70% / 0.272 kWh * 1 m^3
(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
Even if coal is more expensive in Africa then solar once you include the building of the grid?
We also know from history that during those periods humans were not their. I.e those conditions are not good for humans.
I think if I recall they did build a high enough seawall, the problem was the ground fell which was not counted.
So the ISP is selling a service, then when people try to use the service as it was advertised it turns out they can't actually provide it.
I would of kept the wall as a demonstration of the patents now free.
The guy who had the tree and came home to find a group of other people pointing guns at him?
From what I have seen sugar is much better for Ethanol in terms of EROI
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)
When you spread wind turbines out over a large area you also smooth out the variability.
The problem with allocating that cost to wind is that the other power plants do not pay for the spinning reserve.
My reading of the 6c/kwh is that includes transmission to the grid.
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.