snip
Tidal flow appears to avoid some of the objections: large civil engineering, possible siltation, damage to fish stocks, shoreline bird interests.
You still have fluctuations in tide timing and energy level but would appear more *despatchable* than wind.
Is it really a non starter?
On 03/03/2015 08:45, Jethro_uk wrote: ...
Probably why they are planning to build them deep underground.
When they pressure tested the Comet fuselage they did so underwater as they had calculated that, in air, when it burst it would be equivalent to a 900lb bomb going off.
[snip excellent analysis]
I now await responses from those who posted earlier in the thread about what a wonderful proposal this is.
The RWE-ADELE blurb talks about 70 bar (approx. 1000 psi), with temperatures in the heat recovery units of around 600°C and storage capacities of around 1000 MWh, or 300MW for several hours (about 3.3 purely at a wild guess!). Quite demanding conditions.
The wiki article talks about storage in giant rubber bags sunk in deep sea locations. This would provide constant pressure, unlike a pressurised gas chamber where the pressure would drop as the pressurised gas was bled off, and would be relatively cheap to construct. I guess recovering the heat of compression would be critical to the efficiency, and you wouldn't want any swordfish poking around!.
Which is what was being proposed in the reports I saw.
Or Russian submarines
Also a burst would remove the buoyancy from the water and could sink passing ships, same thing that possibly happens in the Bermuda triangle with methane gas seepage.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.