03-25-2008, 08:11 PM
Re: "[size 1]it will not cost more to pump the water back up the hill."[/size]
[size 1][/size]
This is probably true and is what the company is counting on, but the point is cost. It doesn't relate to the net ENERGY of the entire system. The 20% came from BLFG's post and he wrote that he got the figure from the company's own written proposal paper. It would be a heck of a deal if we could get a net positive energy output by these systems, but the darned laws of thermodynamics say that isn't possible.
"[size 1]as fishermen and outdoorsmen we all should be all for hydro power"[/size]
[size 1][/size]
Sure, along with other alternative energy sources like wind, but I don't see that this is a conventional hydro power project like turbines inside a dam of a naturally flowing river.
[signature]
[size 1][/size]
This is probably true and is what the company is counting on, but the point is cost. It doesn't relate to the net ENERGY of the entire system. The 20% came from BLFG's post and he wrote that he got the figure from the company's own written proposal paper. It would be a heck of a deal if we could get a net positive energy output by these systems, but the darned laws of thermodynamics say that isn't possible.
"[size 1]as fishermen and outdoorsmen we all should be all for hydro power"[/size]
[size 1][/size]
Sure, along with other alternative energy sources like wind, but I don't see that this is a conventional hydro power project like turbines inside a dam of a naturally flowing river.
[signature]