Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

longship

(40,416 posts)
1. Well, I don't think that's going to work so well.
Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:24 PM
Dec 2013

That piston had better seal well against the sides of the tank because any water slipping by the sides is energy lost. At the scale this would require to be theoretically practical, the loss may be significant enough to make it impractical. Of course, these are engineering problems, not theoretical ones.

Myself, I like the pumping water uphill into a lake and opening the dam for clean hydroelectric power during off peak. It's the same principle, but one does not have to buy a million Acme anvils to make it work. The energy difference is nil, because potential energy is simple.

U=mgh

This plan has a complex system with engineering issues. It increases the energy by increasing mass (m) at the cost of height (h). But one could just increase the height and not have to worry about the piston full of Acme anvils. It's a null sum game. It's simpler by just pumping the water up hill. You want more energy, pump it up higher. In CA, or other mountainous areas, this would work pretty damned well, no Acme anvils necessary. (Please inform Wlie E. Coyote.)

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Hydraulic Energy Storage ...»Reply #1