![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in power station. |
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says not to Wikilink from within headers. Yet that style works here and saves a fair amount of vertical space that would otherwise be wasted by including a lame little sentence under each country's subhead.
Does anyone have any strong feelings about this or, even better, a practical solution that still meets the Style Guide's guidance?
Atlant 19:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Several of the California State Water Project reservoirs are used as pumped storage. Their pumps are bidirectional. -- Nagle 07:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Edited the first few paragraphs, removed extraneous material, and cleaned up the text somewhat. pes 12/APR/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psandin ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There are two additional reversible hydropower plants in the former Yugoslavia, RHE Velebit near town Obrovac in Croatia, and CHE Capljina near Capljina in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both are productive more than 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.246.92 ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to notice to the page author that I've removed again the name of "Estangento" in order to leave the only and real name of the hydropower station of "Sallente-Estany Gento". Furthermore, the word "Estangento" has no meaning in Catalan nor in Spanish beacause the spanish translation of Estany" isn't "Estan" and "Gento" is the name of the upper lake like "Sallente" is the down one.
Could somebody say if Hydropower Pumped Storage Plant abbreaviation HPSP is correct? If yes then I would suggest to make HPSP redirect to this page-- DmitriyR 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reasonable breakdown of terminology for some of the numbers? There are both GWh and MW/GW numbers here, and the text is confusing due to this since they nominally refer to the same thing.
Simply to get the discussion going, and provide a baseline for people to beat up on for clarity purposes, I would suggest the following. If these are non-standard terms and there are better ones, by all means. Capacity: generic and to be avoided on this page.
Throughput capacity: the faceplate output of a given source at normal maximum output (peak output may be higher). Measured in watts, i.e. MW and GW. Usually electrical output that can be generated.
Storage capacity: Maximum estimated storage capacity, i.e. how much electrical energy can be stored (in potential) at normal levels of water, and efficiency levels, etc. Measured in watt/hours, i.e. MWh and GWh.
Storage Hours: At maximum throughput, how many hours of operation for the maximum storage capacity.
Annual stored output: How much was fed into the grid in a given year in stored output. Measured in watt/hours. Will be substantially less than storage times throughput if actually used for storage (i.e. surplus).
Annual stored input: how much actually pumped back up, in watt/hours, over a given period.
Storage throughput: faceplate normal maximum input of a source, i.e. pump, back into storage. Measured in watts. May be different from the throughput capacity.
Efficiency ratio: If 100 MWh of electricity consumed to pump water back up, and results in output of 50 MWh, efficiency is 50%. Measured in percent.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregalton ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really correct to say that this is a method of storing electricity? It is actually storing energy that can be converted back to electricity. Also, some other form of energy could be used to pump the water into the upper resevoir. -Crunchy Numbers 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pumped storage is not the most efficient method of storing electricity, but it is the most cost effective (in large amounts). Other methods of storing electricity are batteries, which convert electricity into chemical potential energy, flywheels, which convert electricity into mechanical kinetic energy, and capacitors, which store electricity as electrical charge. The starting point is electricity, and the question is how to store it for later use. 199.125.109.129 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"In 1999 the EU had 32 GWh capacity of pumped storage out of a total of 188 GWh of hydropower and representing 5.5% of total electrical capacity in the EU."
The above statement is nonsense. Eregli bob 10:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several parentheticals with unexplained data. Do the numbers 1, 7 and 6 mean the number of turbines? If so, that should be made clear.
Wakablogger2 ( talk) 06:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to list "storage capacity" in Watt-hours rather than Watts? The former is a unit of energy; the latter is a unit of power. You don't store power, you store energy. The maximum power output would be listed in Watts. 131.107.0.73 ( talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem with this generally excellent wikipedia page is the sentence: "... worldwide, representing around 127 GW,[1] with storage capacity at 740 TWh.[citation needed]." Assuming the 127 GW number is right, if the average pumped hydro reservoir could run at full power for 10 hours, that would by just 1.27 TWh, a factor of ~600 less than sited. Perhaps the number is correct but the units should be GWh instead of TWh. John Van Rosendale <j.van.rosendale@gmail.com> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.84.237 ( talk) 04:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Could a mass-based energy storage page be made ? Images displaying what this means are the following:
A link in the see also section of this article would also need to be made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.183.41 ( talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Possibly.
Flywheels and
compressed air energy storage would fall under this category. However, I can't think of any other types of devices that would. Also, I'm not sure if pumped hydro, compressed air, and flywheels have enough in common to be described on the same page. Actually, after a bit of looking around, I found this:
Energy_storage#Mechanical_storage.
Qbert203 (
talk)
22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Examples are Energy Cache and Advanced Rail Energy Storage KVDP ( talk) 17:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I know it is cited, but there is no pumped storage facility that get's an 85% cycle efficiency. That number probabbly includes a facility with a natural water source. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
166.128.145.37 (
talk)
23:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
At the end of the introduction paragraph, it says that the process is about 75% efficient; and it cites a source. I checked the source and found (on page 19 of the cited pdf) that it has a handful of efficiency measurements for both pumps and turbines at different power levels. The overall efficiency of the whole process would be the efficiency of the pump times the efficiency of the turbine. So I averaged the given efficiency values for the pumps and did the same for the turbines, then took the product of those two averages, and came up with about 65%. I will now change the number on the article page to this number. If anybody sees a flaw in my mathematical process, please point it out.
Qbert203 (
talk)
18:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed Although the losses of the pumping process makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall, the system increases total energy output to consumers during the cycle on a smaller capital base. Unit costs at all times can be kept lower, since revenue is obtained during periods of peak demand that would be otherwise unavailable. for several reasons. It's long winded and I don't understand it. It's also wrong - pumped storage plants cost a great deal of money, as much or more than a hydroelectric generation-only plant. It's wrong, as a pumped storage plant consumes energy and so doesn't increase the energy supply. Finally, it's evasive - no-one builds pumped storage plants for any other reason than to make money for the owners. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see the points here, but both the article as it stands and the criticisms enumerated here miss the point. No active energy storage scheme is %100 efficient, and none create energy: nevertheless, storage is an important concern in any "alternative" energy scenario. All that matters here is how the efficiency, and the efficacy, compares to other storage means. Discussion of the overall merits of energy storage vs. energy production do not belong here. 2601:9:4680:1160:3C7E:F65:1563:56E2 ( talk) 04:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Came to see if anyone had discussed adding grid efficiency as a motivation for pumped hydro in the intro. I'm not in the industry, but all (which is not much) I've heard about pumped hydro in the last 5 or so years has been related to smoothing/ofsetting intermittent sources (solar/wind mostly but nuclear historically). I think its role in grid stability is relevant to anyone who would be reading this article. I'm going to carefully add a mention of grid efficiency benefits to the intro Krb19 ( talk) 16:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
How to translate following term Ringwallspeicher? (see also: Energy Island [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.153.79 ( talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
-- Cosy-ch ( talk) 15:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to merge
Wind-hydro station, if merged here, would gain useful background and context that otherwise must be repeated in that article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 04:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the merger request was: merge into Wind hybrid power systems. Beagel ( talk) 16:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
*Merge. The common nominator of these articles is combining wind power with different storage and generation technologies to balance its intermittent nature. Combining these three articles will give more comprehensive overview and will avoid the potential POVFORK. Beagel ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
*Comment. This modofoed discussion has been opened for 4 weeks. During this, merger was supported by three editors, while opposed by one editor. During last 25 days the discussion has been inactive. Should we close discussion and go forward with merging these articles? Beagel ( talk) 04:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Merged
Someone tagged Small pumped-storage hydropower for merger with this article last month. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest it would be helpful to put some "teeth" into this merger by citing a more practical small scale example. Whereas the article details the meager storage potential of one cubic meter of water 100M high, such a proposition is absurd upon its face. By contrast, my rough calculations suggest that pumping the contents of an Olympic sized pool (2500m^3 nominal) to a height of 10M above baseline has the potential to store 60KW/h of energy (ignoring losses), plenty to sustain a large home or small business. Many such installations are already hardened against evaporative losses. Although the number of Olympic sized pool installations worldwide may not be very significant, it is nonethless nonzero and, I would suggest provides food for thought. Certainly, where such facilities already exist or are planned, digging a second similar sized hole might represent a very practical alternative to chemical or other storage means on a case-by-case basis. If someone would be so kind as to double-check my math, I would suggest that citing such an example has no downside. 2601:9:4680:1160:3C7E:F65:1563:56E2 ( talk) 05:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not agree with your definition or your choice. Since more than 20 years, the world is labeling pumped storage power plants as 'PSPP'. Why do you invent other abbreviations, and even don't link to the well known (at least for some "old foxes")?
see here or here (just an example) -- Cosy-ch ( talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Can the pumped-storage hydroelectric island project be mentioned at the article ? See http://www.dnvkema.com/services/etd/es/large-scale-storage.aspx KVDP ( talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Tetsuo ( talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This week an anonymous editor added this sentence to the lead,
I reverted this addition but it was re-instated without comment or explanation. While the statement is strictly true, it puts undue weight on renewable energies, as it presents them as the focus of pumped-storage hydroelectricity. I can find no reference (or even statement) in the body to justify this. Either that statement & reference should be added somwehere, or, we should mention that all types of power production (including nuclear and coal, which greatly benefit from high-response production capacity) can be used to pump the water.
Let me point out also that snide summary edits ("please read the article again, slowly") are highly unwelcome here.
Ariadacapo (
talk)
17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The text says "pump water out of the sphere", now I have my doubts about the sphere then being in a state of vacuum and suspect that the water is actually displaced by pumping surface air into the sphere. After reading both references there is no mention of pumping air. Puzzled. Dougmcdonell ( talk) 04:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't have time to read through the entire source, so I didn't make any edits to the article, but I used ctrl+f to search through the EU report (source 9) for every mention of "pumped hydro" and "mine," and I never found any instance where the report suggested using old mines for pumped hydro. I'm also somewhat skeptical about the viability of converting abandoned mines into pumped hydro facilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodrokov ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.industcards.com/ps-china.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The pumped storage capacity for each country uses the wrong units. It uses GW which is a rate, not a capacity. It should use GWh.
I am just guessing that most of these storage units will only run for about 4 hours, so the capacity for America should be 84 GWh, rather than 21 GW. .
94.197.9.84 ( talk) 12:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The article as written has a major problem, namely the fact that 99% of global pumped storage opportunities are not river-based. The global pumped hydro atlas lists 616,000 such sites around the world. Please visit the atlas here.
This has been reported in peer review articles here and here that have 140 citations and 50,000 full text downloads. General articles are here and here that have garnered 500,000 reads.
India and Australia and other countries are building their national storage plans to support solar & wind around the global pumped hydro atlas.
In summary, the world has about 100X more pumped hydro storage potential than needed to support 100% renewable energy. The Wikipedia article needs to reflect this, front and centre. Zolwind ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is tagged with the "Lead rewrite" tag. Is this still relevant? I'm not sure why the lead needs to be rewritten. Whizkin ( talk) 20:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in power station. |
The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says not to Wikilink from within headers. Yet that style works here and saves a fair amount of vertical space that would otherwise be wasted by including a lame little sentence under each country's subhead.
Does anyone have any strong feelings about this or, even better, a practical solution that still meets the Style Guide's guidance?
Atlant 19:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Several of the California State Water Project reservoirs are used as pumped storage. Their pumps are bidirectional. -- Nagle 07:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Edited the first few paragraphs, removed extraneous material, and cleaned up the text somewhat. pes 12/APR/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psandin ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There are two additional reversible hydropower plants in the former Yugoslavia, RHE Velebit near town Obrovac in Croatia, and CHE Capljina near Capljina in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both are productive more than 20 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.81.246.92 ( talk • contribs) 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to notice to the page author that I've removed again the name of "Estangento" in order to leave the only and real name of the hydropower station of "Sallente-Estany Gento". Furthermore, the word "Estangento" has no meaning in Catalan nor in Spanish beacause the spanish translation of Estany" isn't "Estan" and "Gento" is the name of the upper lake like "Sallente" is the down one.
Could somebody say if Hydropower Pumped Storage Plant abbreaviation HPSP is correct? If yes then I would suggest to make HPSP redirect to this page-- DmitriyR 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reasonable breakdown of terminology for some of the numbers? There are both GWh and MW/GW numbers here, and the text is confusing due to this since they nominally refer to the same thing.
Simply to get the discussion going, and provide a baseline for people to beat up on for clarity purposes, I would suggest the following. If these are non-standard terms and there are better ones, by all means. Capacity: generic and to be avoided on this page.
Throughput capacity: the faceplate output of a given source at normal maximum output (peak output may be higher). Measured in watts, i.e. MW and GW. Usually electrical output that can be generated.
Storage capacity: Maximum estimated storage capacity, i.e. how much electrical energy can be stored (in potential) at normal levels of water, and efficiency levels, etc. Measured in watt/hours, i.e. MWh and GWh.
Storage Hours: At maximum throughput, how many hours of operation for the maximum storage capacity.
Annual stored output: How much was fed into the grid in a given year in stored output. Measured in watt/hours. Will be substantially less than storage times throughput if actually used for storage (i.e. surplus).
Annual stored input: how much actually pumped back up, in watt/hours, over a given period.
Storage throughput: faceplate normal maximum input of a source, i.e. pump, back into storage. Measured in watts. May be different from the throughput capacity.
Efficiency ratio: If 100 MWh of electricity consumed to pump water back up, and results in output of 50 MWh, efficiency is 50%. Measured in percent.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregalton ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really correct to say that this is a method of storing electricity? It is actually storing energy that can be converted back to electricity. Also, some other form of energy could be used to pump the water into the upper resevoir. -Crunchy Numbers 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Pumped storage is not the most efficient method of storing electricity, but it is the most cost effective (in large amounts). Other methods of storing electricity are batteries, which convert electricity into chemical potential energy, flywheels, which convert electricity into mechanical kinetic energy, and capacitors, which store electricity as electrical charge. The starting point is electricity, and the question is how to store it for later use. 199.125.109.129 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"In 1999 the EU had 32 GWh capacity of pumped storage out of a total of 188 GWh of hydropower and representing 5.5% of total electrical capacity in the EU."
The above statement is nonsense. Eregli bob 10:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There are several parentheticals with unexplained data. Do the numbers 1, 7 and 6 mean the number of turbines? If so, that should be made clear.
Wakablogger2 ( talk) 06:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to list "storage capacity" in Watt-hours rather than Watts? The former is a unit of energy; the latter is a unit of power. You don't store power, you store energy. The maximum power output would be listed in Watts. 131.107.0.73 ( talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The biggest problem with this generally excellent wikipedia page is the sentence: "... worldwide, representing around 127 GW,[1] with storage capacity at 740 TWh.[citation needed]." Assuming the 127 GW number is right, if the average pumped hydro reservoir could run at full power for 10 hours, that would by just 1.27 TWh, a factor of ~600 less than sited. Perhaps the number is correct but the units should be GWh instead of TWh. John Van Rosendale <j.van.rosendale@gmail.com> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.84.237 ( talk) 04:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Could a mass-based energy storage page be made ? Images displaying what this means are the following:
A link in the see also section of this article would also need to be made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.183.41 ( talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Possibly.
Flywheels and
compressed air energy storage would fall under this category. However, I can't think of any other types of devices that would. Also, I'm not sure if pumped hydro, compressed air, and flywheels have enough in common to be described on the same page. Actually, after a bit of looking around, I found this:
Energy_storage#Mechanical_storage.
Qbert203 (
talk)
22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Examples are Energy Cache and Advanced Rail Energy Storage KVDP ( talk) 17:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I know it is cited, but there is no pumped storage facility that get's an 85% cycle efficiency. That number probabbly includes a facility with a natural water source. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
166.128.145.37 (
talk)
23:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
At the end of the introduction paragraph, it says that the process is about 75% efficient; and it cites a source. I checked the source and found (on page 19 of the cited pdf) that it has a handful of efficiency measurements for both pumps and turbines at different power levels. The overall efficiency of the whole process would be the efficiency of the pump times the efficiency of the turbine. So I averaged the given efficiency values for the pumps and did the same for the turbines, then took the product of those two averages, and came up with about 65%. I will now change the number on the article page to this number. If anybody sees a flaw in my mathematical process, please point it out.
Qbert203 (
talk)
18:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed Although the losses of the pumping process makes the plant a net consumer of energy overall, the system increases total energy output to consumers during the cycle on a smaller capital base. Unit costs at all times can be kept lower, since revenue is obtained during periods of peak demand that would be otherwise unavailable. for several reasons. It's long winded and I don't understand it. It's also wrong - pumped storage plants cost a great deal of money, as much or more than a hydroelectric generation-only plant. It's wrong, as a pumped storage plant consumes energy and so doesn't increase the energy supply. Finally, it's evasive - no-one builds pumped storage plants for any other reason than to make money for the owners. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see the points here, but both the article as it stands and the criticisms enumerated here miss the point. No active energy storage scheme is %100 efficient, and none create energy: nevertheless, storage is an important concern in any "alternative" energy scenario. All that matters here is how the efficiency, and the efficacy, compares to other storage means. Discussion of the overall merits of energy storage vs. energy production do not belong here. 2601:9:4680:1160:3C7E:F65:1563:56E2 ( talk) 04:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Came to see if anyone had discussed adding grid efficiency as a motivation for pumped hydro in the intro. I'm not in the industry, but all (which is not much) I've heard about pumped hydro in the last 5 or so years has been related to smoothing/ofsetting intermittent sources (solar/wind mostly but nuclear historically). I think its role in grid stability is relevant to anyone who would be reading this article. I'm going to carefully add a mention of grid efficiency benefits to the intro Krb19 ( talk) 16:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
How to translate following term Ringwallspeicher? (see also: Energy Island [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.153.79 ( talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
-- Cosy-ch ( talk) 15:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to merge
Wind-hydro station, if merged here, would gain useful background and context that otherwise must be repeated in that article. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 04:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The result of the merger request was: merge into Wind hybrid power systems. Beagel ( talk) 16:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
*Merge. The common nominator of these articles is combining wind power with different storage and generation technologies to balance its intermittent nature. Combining these three articles will give more comprehensive overview and will avoid the potential POVFORK. Beagel ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
*Comment. This modofoed discussion has been opened for 4 weeks. During this, merger was supported by three editors, while opposed by one editor. During last 25 days the discussion has been inactive. Should we close discussion and go forward with merging these articles? Beagel ( talk) 04:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Merged
Someone tagged Small pumped-storage hydropower for merger with this article last month. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 21:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest it would be helpful to put some "teeth" into this merger by citing a more practical small scale example. Whereas the article details the meager storage potential of one cubic meter of water 100M high, such a proposition is absurd upon its face. By contrast, my rough calculations suggest that pumping the contents of an Olympic sized pool (2500m^3 nominal) to a height of 10M above baseline has the potential to store 60KW/h of energy (ignoring losses), plenty to sustain a large home or small business. Many such installations are already hardened against evaporative losses. Although the number of Olympic sized pool installations worldwide may not be very significant, it is nonethless nonzero and, I would suggest provides food for thought. Certainly, where such facilities already exist or are planned, digging a second similar sized hole might represent a very practical alternative to chemical or other storage means on a case-by-case basis. If someone would be so kind as to double-check my math, I would suggest that citing such an example has no downside. 2601:9:4680:1160:3C7E:F65:1563:56E2 ( talk) 05:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not agree with your definition or your choice. Since more than 20 years, the world is labeling pumped storage power plants as 'PSPP'. Why do you invent other abbreviations, and even don't link to the well known (at least for some "old foxes")?
see here or here (just an example) -- Cosy-ch ( talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Can the pumped-storage hydroelectric island project be mentioned at the article ? See http://www.dnvkema.com/services/etd/es/large-scale-storage.aspx KVDP ( talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Tetsuo ( talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
This week an anonymous editor added this sentence to the lead,
I reverted this addition but it was re-instated without comment or explanation. While the statement is strictly true, it puts undue weight on renewable energies, as it presents them as the focus of pumped-storage hydroelectricity. I can find no reference (or even statement) in the body to justify this. Either that statement & reference should be added somwehere, or, we should mention that all types of power production (including nuclear and coal, which greatly benefit from high-response production capacity) can be used to pump the water.
Let me point out also that snide summary edits ("please read the article again, slowly") are highly unwelcome here.
Ariadacapo (
talk)
17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The text says "pump water out of the sphere", now I have my doubts about the sphere then being in a state of vacuum and suspect that the water is actually displaced by pumping surface air into the sphere. After reading both references there is no mention of pumping air. Puzzled. Dougmcdonell ( talk) 04:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't have time to read through the entire source, so I didn't make any edits to the article, but I used ctrl+f to search through the EU report (source 9) for every mention of "pumped hydro" and "mine," and I never found any instance where the report suggested using old mines for pumped hydro. I'm also somewhat skeptical about the viability of converting abandoned mines into pumped hydro facilities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodrokov ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Pumped-storage hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.industcards.com/ps-china.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The pumped storage capacity for each country uses the wrong units. It uses GW which is a rate, not a capacity. It should use GWh.
I am just guessing that most of these storage units will only run for about 4 hours, so the capacity for America should be 84 GWh, rather than 21 GW. .
94.197.9.84 ( talk) 12:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The article as written has a major problem, namely the fact that 99% of global pumped storage opportunities are not river-based. The global pumped hydro atlas lists 616,000 such sites around the world. Please visit the atlas here.
This has been reported in peer review articles here and here that have 140 citations and 50,000 full text downloads. General articles are here and here that have garnered 500,000 reads.
India and Australia and other countries are building their national storage plans to support solar & wind around the global pumped hydro atlas.
In summary, the world has about 100X more pumped hydro storage potential than needed to support 100% renewable energy. The Wikipedia article needs to reflect this, front and centre. Zolwind ( talk) 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is tagged with the "Lead rewrite" tag. Is this still relevant? I'm not sure why the lead needs to be rewritten. Whizkin ( talk) 20:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)