You and I concur on all the details of a workable solution -it was just that I thought I clearly read that it was a flexible structure… Ol’ Bab
Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 7:55 PM To: Vortex Subject: Re: [Vo]:Article on approaches to energy storage David L. Babcock <olb...@gmail.com> wrote: I read the hole-in-water one. All BS, and stupid. To get a “head” the hole has to be not just empty when the seawater enters, it has to have a rigid shape. But when empty, and 100 feet deep, the upward pressure on the bottom will be 50 psi . . . I believe you are envisioning something like a single structure. A gigantic bathtub or ship hull. I do not think that is what this "hole in the ocean" will be. It will resemble a dike in the Netherlands or New Orleans, below sea level. Or like a earthen dam. No doubt some water will leak through the walls but earthen dams work well and do not leak much. Water is let into the structure in one place only, where the generator turbines are located. This is like putting turbines in one part of a dam and forcing all of the water to go through them. There would be no "upward pressure" and no structure to push up. It is just a large lake that happens be located in the ocean. If you were to go to an island and dig a pond in the middle of it, digging until it goes below sea level, you would have a similar structure. The walls and bottom of the pond would be rocks and sand, not anything that can pop up. You could build a similar structure next to a large lake (such as one of the Great Lakes) or the Hudson River. It would be large hole that extends well below the surface of the lake or river, located perhaps a kilometer away from the lake. - Jed
