Talk:Pumped-storage hydroelectricity

message: Several of the California State Water Project reservoirs are used as pumped storage.  Their pumps are bidirectional.  --Nagle 07:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Water Project 

message: 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)
thread_title: edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additional reversible hydropower plants 

message: 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.
*The above unsigned edit created by User:Xaf-bcn, overwriting a previous unrelated talk page entry, on 23 Sep 2006.  Tidied up by WLD 11:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor User:Xaf-bcn has taken to renaming some of the pumped storage stations in Spain in Catalan, and removing Castillian Spanish names of the same places.  As I understand it, Castillian Spanish is an official language over all of Spanish territory, so at the very least, I would expect both names to be listed, in much the same way as articles involving Welsh place names include the name in both English and Welsh variants. Thoughts, anyone? WLD 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place names in Spain 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HPSP 

message: 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)
replies: text: GW/MW and GWh do not nominally refer to the same thing. A watt is a measure of power, a watt-hour is a measure of energy (equal to 3.6kilojoules. Aside from that, I agree. For the list of capacities, it's completely pointless just to list their maximum throughput capacity without also mentioning their storage capacity. It might also be worth mentioning the maximum volume of water in the top dam, and the head height --naught101 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology / numbers 

message: 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)
replies: text: If we are being precise, then this does not store electricity, it stores energy in the form of potential energy. In the same way, batteries store energy as chemical potential energy. DB DrpBr (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  storing electricity 

message: "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)
replies: text: Why? 32 GWh out of total 188 GWh hydropower and 5,5% of total capacity. --Jklamo 13:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsense statement 

message: 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.
*Nagarjuna Sagar PH, Andhra Pradesh, 810 MW (1 x 110 MW + 7 x 100 MW)
*Srisailam Left Bank PH, Andhra Pradesh, 900 MW (6 x 150 MW)
Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague parentheticals 

message: 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)
replies: text:  I speculate that the reason MW are always given instead of MWHr is that pretty much all purmped storage plants get used in about the same way for daily load levelling - the storage capapcity is always a few hours at full output. The MW size gives you an good idea of the capacity and importance of the plant. Water Power and Dam Construction doesn't give MWhr storage capacity so it's hard to get these numbers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. Watts is not a measure of storage capacity or energy. Units of Energy (like MWh) should be used. Paullb (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with [User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]], the unit you are listening is installed net power and not capacity. Capacity is mostly in GWh or TWh for pumped storage plants and means the total amount of (net) energy when turbining all the residual water in the retaining "vessel".--Cosy-ch (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   I know it's strange, but in the energy industry "capacity" refers to power measured in watts.  So when energy industry folks mean "energy storage capacity," they say "storage capacity" explicitly.  
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)

text: Number should be cited. The multi-year Ulla-Førre alone uses 282 GWh of pump energy per year, so 740 GWh worldwide would be way too small. Capacity can mean power or energy, and should be clarified as such in each case. TGCP (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units: Watt vs. Watt-hr 

message: Could a mass-based energy storage page be made ?
Images displaying what this means are the following:
thumb|right|150px
thumb|right|150px
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)
replies: text: Umm, no, WP:NOR says no original research. Also, Wikipedia is not about something you made up in school one day. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, several manufacturers are allready working out systems.
Examples are Energy Cache and Advanced Rail Energy Storage
KVDP (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass-based energy storage

message: 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)
replies: text: Now that I look at it, it's also weaselly - 'lower' than what? --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Motivations for pumped hydro (intro)

message: How to translate following term Ringwallspeicher? (see also: Energy Island) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.153.79 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal from me= thorus-dam storage
--Cosy-ch (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translate Ringwallspeicher 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know what {The World} says, but "Power Plant" is somewhat misleading as pumped-storage consumes power netto, rather than producing power as most power plants do. Their justification is that they produce less power at a high price and consume more power at a low price, usually creating a net profit despite their energy loss. TGCP (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abreviation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Where is this "island"?  At present that scheme is no more of a reality than Dr Blofeld's "hollowed out volcano" scheme, and just as much of a fiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a reverse pumped storage technology where the supply reservoir is the sea. I think it is worth mentioning. It is only in the early feasibility stages though.--NortyNort  (Holla) 15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pumped-storage hydroelectric island

message: * Height (difference between upper reservoir and turbines) 
* Year built 
* Cost
Tetsuo (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional columns in chart? 

message: This week an anonymous editor added this sentence to the lead,
: Solar power or wind power can also be used to power the pumps which fill these reservoirs.
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)
replies: text: As mentioned, earlier, please learn to read. And if you'd like to whine, go somewhere else. The article does mention renewables three or four times, even before the edits. Thank you for your understanding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.107.130 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition to lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: This was discussed in detail on reddit's /r/energy when the news broke initially, it is indeed pumping water out to draw a vacuum instead of pumping air in to displace the water (although there was quite a bit of arguing happening over how viable that technique was for numerous reasons and I personally still have significant doubts about the entire project). Garzfoth (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with section on Underwater reservoirs 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi. A bit late to the discussion, as the original post was 2017. Currently the Kidston Hydro project in Queensland Australia is being constructed using the two pits of an old mine as upper and lower reservoirs. Some similar projects proposed but not advanced to construction. DB DrpBr (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source given for using mines as pumped hydro appears to make no reference to using mines for pumped hydro 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613185611/http://www.iea-pvps.org/products/rep8_02s.htm to http://www.iea-pvps.org/products/rep8_02s.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160125083857/http://energinet.dk/EN/El/Nyheder/Sider/Dansk-vindstroem-slaar-igen-rekord-42-procent.aspx to http://energinet.dk/EN/El/Nyheder/Sider/Dansk-vindstroem-slaar-igen-rekord-42-procent.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817202300/http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001020676 to http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?Abstract_id=000000000001020676
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528144341/http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/excel/aeostimtab_9.xls to http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/excel/aeostimtab_9.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103080341/http://www.dom.com/about/stations/hydro/bath-county-pumped-storage-station.jsp to http://www.dom.com/about/stations/hydro/bath-county-pumped-storage-station.jsp
*Added  tag to http://www.industcards.com/ps-china.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707050431/http://www.chincold.org.cn/news/li080321-9-Guangzhou.pdf to http://www.chincold.org.cn/news/li080321-9-Guangzhou.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707050326/http://www.psp.org.cn:8080/upload/news/n2008101309031157.pdf to http://www.psp.org.cn:8080/upload/news/n2008101309103489.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707050326/http://www.psp.org.cn:8080/upload/news/n2008101309124620.pdf to http://www.psp.org.cn:8080/upload/news/n2008101309124620.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707050326/http://www.psp.org.cn:8080/upload/news/n2008101309031157.pdf to http://www.psp.org.cn:8080/upload/news/n2008101309031157.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604171616/http://www.japannuclear.com/files/Electricity%20Review%20Japan%202003-04.pdf to http://www.japannuclear.com/files/Electricity%20Review%20Japan%202003-04.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711020407/http://en.for-ua.com/news/2009/12/23/162625.html to http://en.for-ua.com/news/2009/12/23/162625.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is not the storage capacity, it is the installed generation capacity. The units are correct. Maybe better to clarify this point in the table. The energy storage capacity is a much harder figure to find. If you have access to this information you can add it to the article. And you are probably guessing wrong, since most pumped storage power plants can run for more than 4 hours. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wong Units Used