"if you think you have an original idea, its probably the case that you've not done enough research"

@M Detlef Yes, up to a point but from an economic point of view the relatively small capacity of this sort of plant means little revenue. They only work for short periods of time, the u.K. term is peak lopping, to give conventional generation time to catch up.

Mike Hermo And block all of the light reaching plants in the lake...killing it off...killing off the fish....really expensive to install...much more expensive to maintain...etc...etc

@@kyleallen3857 it's an idea, not "the" solution. After looking into the Tumut 3 Power Station I now realize that the "storage reservoir" they are referring to is a large lake. It would obviously be ridiculous to cover an actual lake with floating solar panels. My idea really would only make sense for a manmade reservoir pond built specifically for water storage for power generation.

Mike Hermo Nope. That is also a poorly conceived idea. There is a job waiting for you somewhere in the US Government. Why in the hell would you build something on water, when there are huge swaths of barren empty deserts.

Well alrighty then, I guess my ideas are not well received by the KZfaq peanut gallery lol

Great idea . More so in countries like india where land costs are very high . And ... evacuation infra already exists if next to a hydro . Yes. Capital costs are higher by 25-30%but then zero land costs. And a reduction in evaporation costs . India is planning gigawatt scale floating solar

David Elliott Michael Moore says molten salt is BS

'''''''Pumped storage is great if you have suitable hills close enough to make it worthwhile. Hills with permiable rocks wont work as the water leaks out. If it's too far away, losses in the transmission lines reduce it's value. That's not to mention the ecological damage caused by rapidly rising and falling lakes.''''' lakes are not needed man made reservoirs can be used why not place a man made reservoir on top of a 10 story building?

yea no, we need to get rid of coal alltogether, it is a shit energy source with a low energy density, unlike oil. i dont like oil either but coal is much dirtier than oil.

Fuck kinda reason is "tradition"? Oh yeah let's keep destroying the fucking planet because _we've been at it for a while._ Fuck off. Get rid of fossil fuels ASAP.

Coal should be replaced with gas or even better would be geothermal, but I don't know if that's possible in Australia

@@jokubasvanagas3174 Interesting you say that because deep geothermal is soon to be a thing. First 3km is drilled using a traditional drill bit, the next 10km is drilled using a vaporisation technique, and you get a 13km borehole down to 500C rock, from anywhere on the planet, and geothermal for the next million years.

Look at it this way ,,, A dam makes a big mess as it is made and then fills animals are displaced and some humans to. However a dam lasts well over a hundred years and is near enough 100% recyclable AND lets not forget Nature can with help rebuild the environment after it is gone. AND also i have never seen a dam impoundment empty of all life water encourages animals to set up home. Now WIND AND SOLAR well 20-25yrs at best and not even close for recycling 70% at best and the energy used to make it, install it, remove it, are extra a dam make far more money than was spent making it and easily covers the power (energy costs) costs to remove it. The dam returns far more in its life MORE DAMS PLS And RDP Marine Australia has a system that can be retro fitted to a dam to make extra and is cheaper

The irony here is that, even with the scale of this system, we would need ~50 of these in order for Australia to switch to 100% renewable energy... Clearly, there is not enough land or water to make this work. If you want to move away from coal, the only system which can do it is nuclear - no need for windmills, no need for more dams, no need for batteries. One system, all done.

@Tony Wilson , Snowy 2.0 is only likely to get ~70% efficiency due to the long 27km pipeline/tunnel. Perhaps for the same $$$ Billions we cld get the same power output from several smaller more efficient PHESs closer to demand without requiring $$$ Billions for additional transmission lines.

​@Tony Wilson , the real value of batteries is the FCAS capabilities, not storage. The $/MW and $/MWh for batteries are too high and can't compete with PHES. However, the Hornsdale Power Reserve has already proved its worth and made money for the operator in frequency control when ageing thermal coal turbines dropped out unexpectedly. And more utility scale batteries are being built and coming on line. I think, and it's a thought with not a lot of data, and from what I've read, smaller PHES systems closer to demand and not requiring so much additional transmission lines cld be built for the same $$$ Billions that Snowy 2.0 will cost. The $$$ for Snowy 2.0 that Snowy Hydro is quoting don't include the $$$ for the additional transmission lines the additional 2GW that Snowy 2.0 will produce on top of the 4GW of the original scheme. Guess who's going to pay for those additional transmission lines? Ausgrid, ie. you and me in our power bills. But at least the govt is doing something abt PHES. They've got their heads in the sand abt most of the energy issues.

@Tony Wilson , yes. It took NSW 20 years to build 10GW of thermal coal PSs and 8GW of that is due to close in 16 years based on 50 years life. Mt Piper wld be the only one on line and it's middle aged - due to close 2042. NSW had a good start with solar and wind with no credit to the LNP govt - it was all power company and private enterprise. Broken Hill, Moree and Nyngan and now Coleambally et al, plus 1.5GW wind but trailing both SAust and Vic with over 2GW each. IMNSHO, most of the west coast of Tas shld be studded with wind PSs (wind farms) to take advantage of the Roaring Forties. I really doubt nuclear will ever get a go in Australia. By the time it gets economically viable, RE + PHES will have swamped it due to cost and ROI. And the political and social issues seem insurmountable - let alone the environmental issues, even with SYNROC, qv. The nuclear industry wld have to get their house in order so we didn't have the same $$$ issues as that one in the UK, Hinkley C. Cost and construction overruns !!! From what I have read we can replace 99% of FF PSs with RE + PHES. And with experience from running a 99% RE grid we can finally switch off the last FF gas turbine PS forever. Tas ran a 90%+ RE grid for years before Basslink. So it can be done. PHES is just a fancy hydro PS where you can use the water over and over again. Or course we will need additional solar above daily demand to power the PHES pump up for peak and o'night demand but Australia is solar rich. And research from places like UNSW keep advancing the technology and the prices keep falling. I think we can do it and I am encouraged from what the AEMO is saying and pointing to a RE grid. But back to the YT OP - I think we cld spend $10 Billion better elsewhere on other PHES systems closer to demand and not requiring so much additional transmission lines. Just my NSHO.

@Tony Wilson Germany is building two new brown coal fired power stations, why because renewable s are not working out so well for them, also be aware Germany imports power from surrounding countries which often comes from Nuclear and Coal power stations Also the what the EU calls renewable can be anything that burns, including household and industrial waste

Does not always REQUIRE fossil fuel generators for replenishment. And even where fossil fuels assist, it may not eliminate emissions but it does reduce emissions. Solar and wind have made good strides in the last 50 years and will eventually become practical; just not yet.

Most Australians live near the ocean so they could use ocean wave in addition to pumped hydro

The UK Dinorwig plant in North Wales has a rated output of 2000MW. The snags are it's a long way way from population centres and we really don't have any other sites which will do the job. It's built on land wrecked by slate mining and the power lines were already there to connect the (now closed) Wylfa Magnox nuclear power station.

@@davidelliott5843 Most Australians live near the ocean so they could use ocean wave in addition to pumped hydro

I am sitting about 4 miles as the crow flies from that generating plant as I write this, and that plant is still in operation. I always get a laugh out of these videos that make this out to being some new novel idea. Candlewood Lake was created for this generating plant and now the lake is a huge source of recreation in the area for boating, fishing, water skiing, etc, as well as many businesses and lake communities that sprouted up surrounding it. We are close enough to the populated areas when this reservoir was built that it was fairly easy for them to connect to the grid. If the generating plant ever fails to be used, the lake will eventually dry up since the only source of water is rain and the generating plant when it fills the reservoir, so this will probably be forever in operation, the town can’t afford to have property values fall on the houses and businesses around the lake.

exactly that and also price to build/buy the equipment. wonder how do mega-pack batteries stack up to pumps and motors.

if Switzerland wasn't producing more energy from pumped hydro than they were using they would have stopped using it

@@robinsss all power plan made for a population should handle peak power demand that wouldn’t last for 24hr daily. The loose money off peak hrs. Pump hydro is a dumb idea from efficiency point of view but become smart because the plant can use less fuel at peak hrs. This is a business case not engineering case.

Read More. Read More.

The USA Aquatic Species Program (which closed in 1996) claimed that US $100 billion would be enough for their systems to replace fossil oils as fuel. No suprises why that got shut down. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_Species_Program But despite the hype it was never going to be as easy to make the oils as it was/is to dig it out of the ground. Costs would be high and costly energy serves nobody least of all the poor who need energy the most.

Not as bad ans lifting weights.

no one knows whether there will be cost overruns as far as water , just drive a truck full of water to the reservoir and dump it in

''''''' embodied energy, low efficiency,'''''' what do you mean?

@@robinsss Embodied energy, is all the energy that was expended to create a product, or structure. And that means everything. Concrete has significant embodied energy. Look it up, it cant be ignored. The energy payback on a large project can take decades. Do some research.

@@noelwhittle7922 ''''' if you factor in embodied energy, low efficiency, etc, it will never pay itself back in the big carbon footprint equation.''''' i will accept the embodied energy concept the system is 90% efficient according to many sources energy,gov dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/ whether this system will have a low carbon foot print or not depends on whether Australia converts to renewables like ocean wave in addition to the dammed rivers

@@robinsss I once got into a debate online with someone about the concept of base load, anyway their responses led me to learn about the concept of 'Gish Gallop'. Otherwise, I am bemused about the prospect of destroying & flooding thousands of hectares to create new dams for these projects. I am old enough to remember the Franklin Dam controversy.

@@noelwhittle7922 i am not recommending that you build new dams i am recommending that you use ocean wave devices on the ocean since most Australians live near the ocean

they use excess power from solar, because during the day it can generate way too much energy. about 40% more than needed during midday.

@@imakevideos5377 that sounds great but it's not what he said is it

tewrgh Actually, there are similar plants in many nations to include the USA. One in West Virginia is over 20 years old. Perhaps a bit of research prior to offering a comment is appropriate. To use excess power from whatever sources to pump water to the upper reservoir is cost effective so power can be generated without pollution when most needed. Thanks

Whatever fuel you use it has to be done efficiently. Utility scale power plants are huge. They can't be just switched on and off. Even the smaller turbines can be offline for hours if they get an emergency disconnect. Try ramping up to fast and the internal parts will touch wrecking the turbine. It's the same with the boilers. So they are run at max rated load or near enough and ideally never shut down. When the excess power can be stored it's cheaper to run fewer plants continually than running high cost plants to deal with peaks periods.

@@davidelliott5843 You're right David. That's the advantage pumped storage (and conventional hydroelectric) offers, it can go from offline to full capacity in a minute or less. That's why they're well suited for peaking plants rather than baseload.

Elektrotehnik what?

New South Wales. It's a state in Australia

@@BearsTrains Damn, you're right & I was very much ill-informed :D Thank you

@@elektrotehnik94 No worries. He said it very quickly and was easy to miss.

Or we can just use a source of energy that is available 100% of the time.. you know.. like nuclear and not these shitty options.

@@haliax8149 right on !

@@haliax8149 but its hard to get the resources (the fuel pellets) its rare

Actually pump hydro is not the only form of Grid storage out there. Most people think of power storage only in terms of lithium ion batteries, but electric energy can be stored in other novel ways. The examples below are the companies that are about to take over the market. These forms of grid energy storage are power efficient, scaleble, cost-effective, and non polluting. These out these links kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oaqmn8uQxq2bmXU.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i52Rkq9-spjDlnk.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nr6Sp82VzJa8e30.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lbZ4Y6x7ksXVf30.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bZxnrJiHzq3ZonU.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fc-ThNqJx7TSpmQ.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qbx0m8Jl3tPHqY0.html

Jehiah Maduro kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o9OiqseFrMDcd58.html this is the simplest system for electricity storage that I’ve come across. I know, it’s the same as your second link.

Jehiah Maduro that last one uses natural gas (a fossil fuel!!!) to heat the air. I think the people who designed the system are sadly ill-informed; the purpose of the whole exercise is to NOT use fossil fuels.

@Renato UnREAL Perhaps that depends on the country. But lets not forget that oil and gas are subsidized in many countries as well. The question is which one is a matter of priority. There should be strong commitment to phasing out the dirty and environmentally unsustainable and strong commitment to phasing in the clean and environmentally sound.

You don't need dams for pumped hydro, though I suppose it's possible to use them.

you're right that if we had one reservoir it would be hard on a daily basis but the research shows there is upwards of 15,000 sites and old mines that can be converted. at that scale the economics becomes extremely realistic and advantages.

@@fr0stmourn3 No

Reading your negative comment about the need to overbuild pumped hydro storage by a ratio of around 4 to 1 if used to store energy begs the question, "do you only put fuel in your car 1 liter at a time then drive around until it is gone and then go back to a service station and put in another litre of fuel into your vehicle? Of course not. Seems pretty sensible to have plenty of redundancy (and spare capacity) built into this system.

@@hitreset0291 Your not getting it. My point is precisely that the larger dams cant cycle with that frequency. While cycling at that higher frequency only works with dams that are too small to justify their expense. You cant just ignore erosion at the bottom of the dam. What's being suggested is literally just rebuilding the hydraulic power systems that proceed the power-grid. If such a system was sufficiently well suited to our needs. We never would have gone to the expense of building the electricity grid.

@@lordsamich755 speak English. 'Erosion at the bottom of the dam'?? Ffs we are talking about dedicated "pumped" hydro electric generation here not traditional hydroelectric generation.🙄

Absolutely not as it doesn't work. How can solar be cheaper when it's output versus capacity is small, it's life is short and it is asynchronous, ie. it cannot support frequencyThere is not the slightest chance that storage will offset renewable intermittency, the capacity required is far too large. I's laughable to tak about security, at least as afr as power supply is concerned, South Australia is known world wide as the grid crash test dummy, because of all the problems renewables have brought. Australia has large resources in uranium and to not use them for power is unfathommable? It is avery cheap fule and gives consistent power.

They displace peaker fossil fuel power plants, also can use cheap power when solar/wind/hydro are abundant, or demand is just really low. Speaking worldwide.

They prevent the need for another baseload thermal plant to be built by supplying power during peak demand. Do you think electrical demand stays constant throughout the day?

they could use solar

As more wind and solar energy are connected to the grid the more of that will be used to pump the water up the hill. That's why they are building more pumped hydro because of wind and solar.

Kodiak isn't a huge island with a large population and huge industries...

Pumped storage facilities around the world have an efficiency that range between 65% and 70%. This makes them very useful in places electricity prices vary by much more than double between periods of low and high demand.

@Renato UnREAL You're not even wrong. Being wrong would require being coherent enough to form an actual statement, that can then be tested and disproved. What you produced there is more accurately described as verbal diarrhea.

I'm sure there's a moral to that story! haha, you could use some "supply and demand" training because your waistline is fatter than your forehead.

Naveen Kumar doesn't matter power needed when demand is there .have this at Niagra so falls have water flow during day .pump nightly flows during day when demand high.

No, it isn't very efficient, but it's the best way to store massive amounts of energy

I guess 80-85% efficiency, which is enough be worth pursuing.

~80% round trip efficiency AEMO got CSIRO to investigate new build generation costs GenCost 2018 For Australia, RE (solar and wind) plus storage (PHES) are the cheapest. Much cheaper than new coal or nuclear.

@M Detlef , 85% is a bit high. A well designed PHES system can expect ~80% round trip efficiency. 90% pumping efficiency 90% hydro power efficiency Gives ~80% round trip efficiency.

I devoted some 15 years to the designing of a wind Turbine-alternator system that finally is a great success. I shall paste a bit of underpinning principles below, and of you are interested will be happy to send actual details. From a public meeting at Llandeilo, July/August 2005, I gathered the following: Cost of proposed farm...153M Expected annual income ...0.2M That's nearer 500 years for those not familiar with simple arithmetic. What I can say for sure that current "technology" - aka stupidity - actually IS a scam, as can be seen from the Llandeilo figures above. However, it does not Have to be. An annual return of 5-15%? of the energy required to create the system appears possible with a design which does not ignore elementary mathematics, such as Area, and Volume - as does current Gigantic "technology". Viz. 1) "Wind turbines" as they are called, are in fact a wind Turbine turning an Alternator !! A Turbine-Alternator Device. A "TAD". This may seem to be being pedantic, but in fact it is not - because Turbines have Opposite "Economy of Size" to that of Alternators. Viz - A turbine of Twice the diameter, replaces 4 previous, but costs 8 times as much for materials (Area becomes 2 squared, Volume, 2 cubed x what it was). The One Alternator, however, (to replace the 4) costs only about Twice as much as any one of them. So the A-bill halves if we double the diameter of the "TAD"s, and use 1/4 as many, i.e.same size "farm", whilst the T-bill Doubles. The Total cost, of T+A, can be seen to be minimum for sizes where the T and the A cost about the same. Now by some remarkable piece of Cosmic serendipity ?, that size is neither a mile across - nor an inch across - but just happens to be a very convenient, man handleable, 0.5 to 1.5? m across. It is hard to justify building them much outside of this range, on economic grounds. Also, the bigger the diameter, the wider is the range of wind velocities from top to bottom, ("wind shear"), so it is not possible for the Pitch to accomodate all of these, making a mockery of accuracy of the pitch setting ! 2) There are Two possible modes of operation. a) Constant Revs/min and vary the pitch of the "blades" (- which need to be Wings, in fact !) b) Keep the Pitch Constant , and adjust the load so that the Rotor turns at a speed correct for the air passing through. i.e. 2.Pi.r.n (the speed of the piece of Wing) needs to be = w.Tan(P) in either case. w indspeed. n is rev/second P is pitch at radius r, measured so that 0 degrees = Edgeways-on to wind If we look at the first one, we can get an expression for power into shaft, from each little length of wing. i.e. 2.Pi.r.n. x useful component of that bit of wing's "lift" n (rev/sec) constant. Call it 1 unit. Now although the torque, T, will be the sum of all the pushes at all the radii along the wing, I will consider just one bit of the wing. This is ok since it will affect only the Size, Magnitude, of the "answer", and we are concerned only with the Shape of the expression, or "answer", wrt windspeed. Leaving out constants for the above reason, because they don't affect the shape, but simply confuse, The speed of the wing is fixed at 1 unit From pythagoras triangle Wingspeed (1) windspeed (w) speed over wing - hypotenuse - is Sqrt(1 + w^2) So lift force is (1 + w^2) Speed of wing is tan(p) which is 1/w and its useful component - in direction of travel of wing - is Lift.Cos(p) which is (1 + w^2) . w/Sqrt(1 + w^2) which is w.Sqrt(1 + w^2) At low winds, w is a lot less than the 1 of the wingspeed, so the relationship is pretty much a direct, linear, "twice the windspeed, twice the power into the shaft", type/variety. It rises a little above "straight", at high winds, towards a w^2 curve. Now taking the other posibility, the airspeed over any bit of wing will be proportional to w, since although both wing and wind speeds double if the wind doubles, the two add by Pythagoras, being at rt angles. Lift (the useful) force is proportional to w^2, and therefore so is the torque applied to the shaft. Since power is (2.Pi) x revs x torque (push x radius at which the push is applied) the power transmitted by the shaft is proportional to w^3, i.e. k times the wind gives k^3 times the power, e.g. Twice the wind, 8 times the power into shaft. So this is obviously the system to adopt if at all possible. And - unless you have your alternator running at constant speed - 50 Hz synchronous - like 'windfarms, it is perfectly possible. N.B. ! If however you DO have the alternator running at fixed speed, and you decide to use gearing to increase the rotor speed - thereby moving towards operation mode 2) - the extra Torque becomes proportional to w^2, instead of w, this creates w^2 current in the copper, and since heating is proportional to current^2, the heating of the copper in the alternator is prop.to w^4 - which causes it to cut-out - or burn-out - during a heavy gust, or contunuous high winds. So the Aternator Cannot be run synchronous for a TAD to have any chance of paying for itself in a lifetime. Next there is the fact that the bigger the Rotor, the greater difference in wind velocity the different parts experience, rendering any "aero-precision" in its manufacture a total waste of effort !!! Also, since towards the centre the speed of the wings is so low that the power contributed is likewise. So the tiny hubs serve only to create a "materials/engineering" problem !! So, to sumarize, 1) There exists a SIZE giving lowest cost/kW-hr 2) The TAD needs to run at windspeed, not fixed speed, to make full use of the energy available in any given wind. There is also the consideration of "Churning", or "turbulence" caused by pseudo-random airflow through a "helicopter on its side " sort of device. "Air friction". This can be eliminated in the turbine itself by carefully designed, matching, pre, and post-fan "Ducts". I can send the design for this to anyone interested, so that they can check the reasoning. I can vouch that the prototype performs as hoped/expected. It delivers a full 50% of the total k.e. of the wind as useable energy.

Artificial value creation isn't a solution.

@Creamapera you don't need much water for the reservoirs

Hey shiiiii stay quiet mister 6666666.

Use desalinated seawater then. Lots of seawater around!

Doitgood52 You are pumping the same water....over and over again The only losses are evaporation and downstream commitments that were already in place for agriculture and maintaining the biology of the river

you don't need rain water just drive a truck full of water to the reservoir and dump it in

@@Rosa-lv8yw - Pumped hydro water shortage

@@Rosa-lv8yw borewell give clean and sweet water????

use a huge desalinate water from sun focusing through the largest possible modal of parabolic series of mirror so a huge furnaces will gives instant water vapours and we got clean water, if required then use sea water as cooling system for free I have so many ideas which gives continued supply of water drinking water supply if we use a very strong and long vessel which is 1000 meter deep long and one meter diameter so it's wrapped around with a permeable membrane like a very big and strong water filter and RO system working automatically under the huge pressures of deep water😏😏 so australian kivi and kangaroo ready to save water and use water again and again because it water we used from domestic outlet, at lest it doesn't contains that salts😌😌😌

@@anilkumarsharma1205 You're suffering from the same deficiencies that solar panels produce. Thirty percent of rated output, at 25% of the time = near totally unreliable.

Yes you take the water from the dam’s free falling water that rushes thru the downstream outlets and run it through a ram pump which will pump that same water back uphill with its own kinetic power. You also build other ram pumps down river that intake the water being lost from the main downstream ram pumps operations to further increase the amount of water being restored back into the reservoir storage area. ...The point is, building ram pumps would increase the efficiency of water generated power instead of just losing it all after the first pass through the turbines...

Hey dumbfuck. The purpose of this device is to store energy from the grid and release it later. That's a drawback of the design, it's the reason why it was designed in the first place. Power plants are usually not easy to turn on or off, at least not quickly, so there's surplus energy at times of low demand, and not enough energy to go around at times of high demand. That's why you need gridscale batteries like this one, though chemical batteries and other mechanical designs can also be used. A ram pump only accepts power from water, not from electricity. It's fundamentally incapable of performing the task for which pumped storage hydroelectric power plants were designed. It's also not "free energy" because the energy used to propel some of the water higher than the position it originally came from is harvested by letting some of the water drop down to a lower position. Not violating any of the laws of thermodynamics. I'd ask you if you finally grasp the sheer magnitude of your prior failure to comprehend the very problem you thought you solved but you're clearly too fucking stupid to even have any hope of understanding this explanation. _Go ahead and prove me wrong._

WOW...slow down and you might realize I didn’t say what you thought I did. ....And for that kind of verbal assault, I’ll give you no bones as to enlighten your lack of comprehension.

no it's not needed maybe solar and electricity produced by the plant

COAL, not coke. Modern coal fire power plants don't pollute nearly as much as they used to, but natural gas is far cheaper now. Fuck taxing people more for energy use, there are too many taxes as it is.

@@ffjsb Well we do not agree, i got a full off grid house and i only use my own energy, people that use too much energy should pay for it, more taxes for people that waste energy is the solution to make them aware that each kwh of energy they use has a cost for our planet.

@@honumoorea873 Nobody cares that you're off the grid. I pay for what I use, and giving more money to governments isn't going to fix anything. A kwh has ZERO effect on the environment. Volcanoes pump out 200 MILLION tons of CO every year. Why don't you and Greta Thunberg go protest those volcanoes.

@@ffjsbI got to say... Your brain do not seems well finished, a lot of things are missing up there... selfish human being.

@@honumoorea873 "Your brain do not seems well finished," Says someone who can't even speak basic English...

fucking moron

Much more efficient than chemical batteries and doesn't wear out, make solar power actually useful

@@alexjohnward Debatable. Mechanical inefficiencies and losses in pumping into a head of water. Electrical inefficiencies and losses in the electrical motor driving the pump. Power transmission and transformer inefficiencies and losses over grid. Then there are all of those that come into play when using water and gravity and cavitation to drive the turbines. The over all losses are huge.

@@richardkaz2336 around 20%loss on round trip due to friction, evaporation etc, but can store a long time, a large quantity, is reliable for decades, the maintenance and waste is negligible in comparison to other storage solutions, can be utilised by existing infrastructure, you need to do more research.

@M Detlef I do not know the type of the loss that you mentioned. However the efficiency of the pump cycle is around 70-80%. I put 80% into consideration because only one of the pump-turbine manufacturer has claimed the 80 % of efficiency in a paper, but we have not seen in operation yet. I would claim that the pump-cycle efficiency is around 70 %. The developers of the pump-turbines in Australia claim that they will use the solar power and/or wind turbine to run the pump cycle. Eventhough we accept this, the available enegy loss will be around 30%. The developer will always put profit on the produced energy. I would say that is to be around 5-20% in addition to loss. The developer will sell this energy around 35-50% greater than the available energy. So who will pay this extra cost? We are of course. The home owners, taxpayers, jobless, retirees. I guess the Australian Government is looking for coal powered thermal power plant for this reason. It will produce the night time extra energy since it cannot be stop and start for night times which will reduce the life span of the power plant. They are designed for non-stop operation. Unfortunately, the politiciants do not always tell the truth, and continue to built-up on their mistakes in the decision making. I wished that there were more options on building hydro-power plant in Australia without another environmental issue. Sometimes it is necessary since it is the major supply of drinking water. I sometimes believe we make to earth suffer since we demand more energy, water, food and comfort.

The video did not really explain why pumped hydro is used, it mentioned it in passing but not clearly enough, I think for people to really understand it's purpose. Because of the confusion with wind and solar and talk about storage, I think this will mislead a lot of people to think that is what this facility is for Pumped storage has been used for decades, long before part time power became popular and it is to avoid grid trips due to a suddenl 'oss of frequency when large loads ae switched on. Supply and demand is balance dautomatically by the running power plants but their reaction time is too slow for sudden peaks. Hydr can be switched on in a second or two, boosting grid input until the conventional generators catch up. The hydro station then shuts down until teh next spike in demand. So it is all about grid security which is far more important than simple efficiency, which, of course, is low.

The buoyant ship displaces an amount of water that weigh the exact same as itself (Archimedes principle). Since the ship is buoyant, it is effectively weightless and hence can provide zero energy as it is coming down. If you do drain water below the floating line while holding the ship up, then it gains weight again and you could use its potential energy in the way you envision. But the energy cost for having raised the ship in the first place by pumping an equivalent mass of water into the reservoir is the exact same as the loss you incur because the volume of water being drained out through the turbine is lesser. This just cancels out and you're just as well dispensing with the ship and pumping a little more water into the reservoir (with a mass equal to the mass of the ship).

@@pokerandphilosophy8328 If you're already pumping the a given amount of water into a reservoir to store energy and then releasing it to power turbines, the boat floats up for free, and when you release the water, the weight of the descending boat could pull a chain that drives another generator. Let's say the water level in the reservoir is 100 feet above the turbines when it's filled, and it rises and falls 5 feet in a cycle, then you add the float and, because of displacement, the water has to be pumped 5 feet higher but it also falls from 5 feet higher on the return, the float rises 5 feet for free

@@dalemurray4083 That depends how high you're pumping the water. If you're pumping it unnecessarily high, then you are wasting energy as it falls down into the reservoir from above the water level. If you are pumping it just at the height of the water level, then this level rises as the reservoir fills up. If you put a buoyant object in the reservoir, then it displaces water and makes the water level higher. This means that you need extra energy to pump water at this higher level to make the buoyant object rise even higher. This extra energy that you have spent pumping the water at this higher level is the exact same as the energy that you get back with your extra generator. The net effect of the contraption on energy generation is therefore zero.

This is pointless. You are raising masses one way or another and storing gravitational potential energy whether from water or your boat. The fundamental law of physics known as the law of conservation of energy says you can't store more energy than you input to the system. The second Law of thermodynamics says you will get less back than you input. You seem to think that you will get more energy back than you put in which is physically impossible.

@@simonwesley9283 They're ALREADY going to pump the water. Boat or no boat. Have you ever heard od cooking food on the engine of a car?? Where did that "Extra energy come from?? IT DIDN"T, the food is cooked by heat that is otherwise lost in the process of powering the engine. It's not FREE energy, it's energy otherwise LOST. It's not perpetual motion, it's increased efficiency.