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 <> 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

Reply via email to