Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Yes, I actually mentioned this type of plant earlier, but you may not have recognised the name: it's called a "pump storage" plant. Basically, it pumps water uphill into a reservoir on the top of a mountain using "cheap" electricity in the early hours of the morning then, if a sudden increase in electricity is required (eg everyone goes to make a cup of tea at the end of "Coronation Street") it can be brought on-line in seconds - the reservoir sluices are opened, and the water, running back downhill again, turns a generator to generate power.
It's actually amazingly expensive to operate - its benefit comes from the fact that by having it there on "standby", you can take other types of plant that can't be brought into operation quickly, off-line, so overall you reduce your running costs. It's strictly a "last-ditch emergency reserve" type of power-plant.
|
Thanks for the info. Indeed I didn't know the name, and apologies for missing the mention. I didn't realise it was expensive to operate -- I assumed it was reasonably efficient in terms of power in versus power out. The
wikipedia article seems accurate and interesting (okay, full of facts and numbers...!). I guess the power loss from such systems (15% to 30%, from wikipedia) ought to be factored into the intermittent power sources. Unless there is some factor that means different ones take over (e.g. tidal generators scattered across a coast allowing each one to cover any power provision gaps the others have).
We hear a lot about the life expectancy of nuclear power stations. What is the life expectancy of generators such as used in hydro-scheme, or wind farms?