[efarmer]

Pumped hydroelectric storage yields about 70% to 80% of input energy back, which is decent. The turbine that reclaims the power from the gravity potential does so by reducing it's head pressure of course by taking power out of the water column, hence cascading more turbines in the flow path can be difficult by robbing the power required to insure sufficient flow and adding pumps to restore flow requires more power and it becomes a zero sum game quickly. This is why pumped hydorelectric with electrical grid sharing of surplus energy has won the game so far.

[evilgenius]

Pumped hydroelectric storage yields about 70% to 80% of input energy back, which is decent. The turbine that reclaims the power from the gravity potential does so by reducing it's head pressure of course by taking power out of the water column, hence cascading more turbines in the flow path can be difficult by robbing the power required to insure sufficient flow and adding pumps to restore flow requires more power and it becomes a zero sum game quickly. This is why pumped hydorelectric with electrical grid sharing of surplus energy has won the game so far.

I wonder about Tesla turbines in this capacity? They spin at such a high rate. They could be the spinning core of a generator. They'd probably wear out, but why not build the system with bypasses around each of them. Turn the water off through them and them replace the whole section as a unit. I think there are solutions that the 21st Century can come up with.

[Newfie]

Some years ago Scientific American had a cover piece on how to fix our energy problem. Mint had three elements.
1-Replace our piecemeal grid with a HVDC grid.
2-Solar and wind farms in the SW to generate power for that fpgrid.
3-Use excess energy from farms to pump high pressure air into natural gas vaults. Then extract said air/nt mix during peak periods burning that mix in base load turbines.

Mad sense to me.

[Shaved Monkey]

Im hoping for higher interest rates to give me more money to spend
Deflation to give me more buying power.
Low oil prices and a high $AUD so I can do a few more trips OS before TSHTF.
Good regular rainfall so I can grow more fruit and veg so I dont need to buy any would be good too

[evilgenius]

Pumped hydroelectric storage yields about 70% to 80% of input energy back, which is decent. The turbine that reclaims the power from the gravity potential does so by reducing it's head pressure of course by taking power out of the water column, hence cascading more turbines in the flow path can be difficult by robbing the power required to insure sufficient flow and adding pumps to restore flow requires more power and it becomes a zero sum game quickly. This is why pumped hydorelectric with electrical grid sharing of surplus energy has won the game so far.

I wonder about Tesla turbines in this capacity? They spin at such a high rate. They could be the spinning core of a generator. They'd probably wear out, but why not build the system with bypasses around each of them. Turn the water off through them and them replace the whole section as a unit. I think there are solutions that the 21st Century can come up with.

Plus, if you can allow the flow to stop in reservoirs along the way to rebuild pressure, why would it be inefficient? Time isn't important in this scheme. It's more about the cycles the alternative energy farms undergo. I do see what you mean. I've heard people talk about the over and over, uphill to the same reservoir, concept with this as if it were perpetual motion. They discount the drop off you mentioned. Sometimes, they can get away with it, like in mountains with a significant amount of wind for pumping power. Usually they can't.

I'm not talking about pumping it uphill again and again, but about moving it around the country. It can go downhill, in some places, much farther than it ever got pumped uphill. The alternative energy farms built to provide the pumping power wouldn't just provide that power, but contribute to the grid as well. When they aren't going the various water stores can flow, to provide night, slack wind, or bad weather power. Of course, in drought, they'd have to go when there was need. If they are mostly providing night power, they don't have to provide as much power as the energy farms would.

I am making the assumption that we would want to save the various cities; Phoenix, Los Angeles, Vegas, Amarillo, Topeka, etc, not to mention watering crops, that would be endangered by potential lack of water. I think there have been prior civilizations that have undergone equal situations endangering their cities. They may have tried all kinds of methods and given up. Like those ancient abandoned cities in India were eventually given up. Those people probably just built new cities where there was water. A few hundred years on, and nobody was the wiser. But, currently, imagine the level of protection a nation would have if it insulated itself from climate change in this manner. While everyone else was busy thinking about moving, you'd be busy extracting from them whatever you could get for the things your position enabled you to enjoy.

[Zarquon]

Now jump to global terrorist. We have more then enough capability to hunt them down in their strong holds. That might involve violating the sovereign rights of the host counteries. Might enflame more local antyi-American sentimeng. Might alienate major players like the KSA. But the point is we already have the weaponry we need. What's missing is the will to do so.

Bottom line: the US already has the armed military today to conduct any of those ops. But if we lack the will to pursue some or all of those options today then more expensive weapon systems won't change the dynamics.

I didn't take you for a chickenhawk, but I think you're really missing the point here. Going in, guns blazing, and merrily killing all the Bad Guys doesn't work as a strategy. Didn't work in Vietnam. Didn't work in Afghanistan. Didn't work in Iraq, either. With no idea of how a political solution might look like, all you could do is pour more gas into the fire. What made the Sunni tribes in Iraq support ISIS in the first place? And what would the "exit strategy" be for the US? Put a hundred thousand boots on the ground for another ten years, then withdraw and watch it happen all over again?

[ROCKMAN]

Z - " Didn't work in Vietnam". Of course it didn't work. You missed the point: it didn't work because we didn't put boots on the ground in the north and kill every NVA that didn't surrender. It didn't work because we didn't bomb the shit out of every Chinese supply column coming in. Same plan would have worked for the Russians in Afghanistan.

Just as the same approach worked during WWII in Germany and Japan. All it takes is a commitment to spend as much $''s as needed and to accept the casualties on your side, right? Which is back to my original point: that plan cannot work if the govt doesn't have full public support. Support we didn't have in Vietnam. And the same support we didn't have in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Support the US govt lacks for any serious involvement in the Middle East.