Reply #8: Agreed, it's not a problem yet. [View All]

But since we're looking at long term plans, it needs to be considered. Dinorwig took 10 years to build, so you'd need to be looking at locations well in advance for any of the schemes - by the time the geology, environmental impact and sheer logistics have been evaluated, it doesn't leave much time to get the permissions and finance organised. If wind is going to play a key role for US energy, this needs to be considered now. Denmark didn't, and are now stuffed over it. Leaving storage until after the wind turbines are built will just result in loads of energy being produced when no-one is using it, and not enough when they are - a bit pointless.

Any existing reservoir will do, so long as it has another one next to it at a different height: In Dinorwig's case, 2x1.5million gallon pools sit next to each other, but one is ~1500 feet higher up the mountain. Finding hundreds of sites like this is going to quite a challenge, unless you're prepared to dig one of the pools (Dinorwig uses an old quarry & a natural lake).

I've said before - and doubtless will again - that wind & hydro is a good combination: None of the expense of a nuke/solar combo, none of the emissions of a coal/gas plan. The limiting factor is simply the geography: There's nowhere in florida, for instance, that you'll find two adjacent lakes with a vertical difference of 1000 ft +. Despite lots of hot air about hydrogen (and if only we could use that for power!) there is no storage in this sort of range: Even Dinorwig is a fraction of a percent of the capacity needed.

If there are suitable locations, I'll gladly shut and eat humble pie. But so far as I know, no-one's even looked.

I'll happily agree that subsidised coal should go: But I still maintain subsidised nukes are your best bet. :)