New Large Scottish Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Dams

Scotland best for pumped-storage hydroelectricity energy economy

This is a statement of the obvious as far as Scottish electrical power-generation engineers and scientists are concerned I expect but I am making this statement anyway, not for the benefit of our scientists or engineers but to inform the political debate about the potential of the Scottish economy "after the North Sea oil runs out" because political debate involves mostly non-scientists and non-engineers who need to have such things explained to them.

The Scottish economy has a profitable living to make in future in the business of electrical energy import/export from/to English electrical power suppliers and perhaps even to countries further away one day.

The tried and tested engineering technology we Scots can use in future to make money is pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

In Scotland, the Cruachan Dam pumped-storage hydroelectric power station was first operational in 1966 and was built there to take advantage of Scotland's appropriate geography and available capital.

So Scotland has the appropriate geography for pumped-storage hydroelectric power and we have the capital particularly if we invest some of the taxes on North Sea oil before it all runs out and it is all spent.

Investment in wind-power energy generation is proceeding apace, in Scotland, in England, on and offshore, and that's very "green" and quite clever, though wind power is not as dependable as tidal power, but unless and until sufficient capacity to store energy becomes available to supply needs when the wind isn't blowing then conventional, and perhaps increasingly expensive, coal, gas or oil burning or nuclear energy power will still be needed to keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow.

Scottish opportunity
Here is the opportunity for the Scottish economy in a future where wind-power generation is increasingly rampant: if we Scots build a large capacity of new pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations, not only can we supply all our own Scottish energy needs from "green" renewable energy schemes, but we could provide energy storage capacity for customers outside Scotland, particularly in England, who live in a land not so well endowed with appropriate geography for hydroelectric power.

In future, a Scotland with investment in a massive pumped-storage hydroelectric capacity could buy cheap English wind-power while the wind is blowing then sell the same energy back to English power suppliers, at a profit, when the wind isn't blowing and the English will pay more for energy.

So everyone wins, the energy is all green, the electricity supply is always available when it is needed and that is how the Scottish energy economy does very well after the North Sea oil runs out.

So problem solved but not job done as yet. We Scots do actually need to get busy investing and building pumped-storage hydroelectric power generation and supply capacity in Scotland now.

 

I am presenting here my vision for a large pumped storage hydroelectric 2-square kilometres surface-area reservoir and 300+ metre tall dam which I have designed for the Coire Glas site, Scotland.

(View site using Google Earth where the convenient label is "Loch a' Choire Ghlais" - or, http://tinyurl.com/coireglas)

I was inspired to conceive and to publish my vision by learning of the Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) proposal to build a smaller hydroelectric pumped-storage scheme at Coire Glas which has been presented to the Scottish government for public consultation.

I have not long been aware of the SSE plan for the Coire Glas scheme, not being a follower of such matters routinely, but I was prompted by an earlier tangentially-related news story (about energy storage technology for renewable energy generators such as wind farms) to write to Members of the Scottish Parliament on the merits and urgency of new pumped storage hydroelectric power for Scotland on 14th February and a reply from Ian Anderson, the parliamentary manager for Dave Thomson MSP received the next day, the 15th February informed me about the SSE plan and Ian added "initially scoped at 600MW but, to quote SSE, could be bigger!"

I replied to Ian "So the schemes proposed by the SSE are welcome and ought to be green-lighted and fast-tracked, but I am really proposing that Scots start thinking long term about an order of magnitude and more greater investment in pumped storage hydroelectric capacity than those SSE plans."

So I had in mind "bigger would be better" but it was not until the next day on the 16th February when a news story informed me that the SSE plans had been submitted to the Scottish government for public consultation that I thought "this needs consideration now".

So starting late on the night of the 17th, early 18th February and all through the weekend, I got busy, outlining my alternative vision for a far bigger dam and reservoir at the same location.

So this is my vision as inspired by the SSE plan. If my vision is flawed then the fault is mine alone. If my vision is brilliant, then the brilliance too is mine.




Image also hosted on postimage

The black contour line at 550 metres elevation shows the outline of the SSE proposed reservoir of about 1 square kilometre surface-area and the grey thick line shows the position of the proposed SSE dam which would stand 92 metres tall and would be the tallest dam in Scotland and indeed Britain to date though it seems our dams are several times smaller than the tallest dams elsewhere in the world these days.

Part of the red contour line at 775 metres elevation, where the red line surrounds a blue shaded area, blue representing water, shows the outline of my larger reservoir of about 2 square kilometres surface-area and the thicker brown line shows the position of my proposed dam which would stand 317 metres tall which would be one of the tallest man-made dams in the world.

Enhanced satellite photograph




Image also hosted on PostImage.Org

 

Cross section of the Dow-dam
The Dow-dam would be more than 3 times higher than the proposed SSE-dam. In this diagram, a horizontal line one third of the way up the Dow-dam indicates the relative height of the SSE dam although it is not aligned with this cross-section.




Image also hosted on PostImage.Org

 

Maps showing the line of cross-section viewed from each side




Image also hosted on PostImage.Org




Image also hosted on PostImage.Org

 

Cross section of the Dow-dam reservoir



Cross section along the major diameter of the elliptical excavation of the reservoir bed


Also hosted on PostImage.org

Excavated Reservoir Bed

The green ellipse of major diameter of 1.5 kilometres and minor diameter of 1 kilometre represents an excavated reservoir bed, as flat and as horizontal as practical, at an elevation of 463 metres.

Since an excavated reservoir bed is not, that I can see, part of the SSE plan, at any size, I will provide some more information about my vision for that now.

The basic idea of excavating a flat or flattish reservoir bed is to increase the volume of the water stored in the reservoir because more water means more energy can be stored.

Depending on the geology and strength of the rock of Coire Glas the walls of the reservoir bed perimeter could be as steep as vertical from the reservoir bed up to the natural elevation of the existing rock surface which would mean, presumably, blasting out rock to create a cliff which at places could be as much as about 290 metres tall.

Near the dam, the reservoir bed perimeter wall would be only 40 metres or less tall. The further from the dam, the higher the wall will be and the more rock needs to be excavated.

A vertical reservoir bed perimeter wall would be ideal to maximise reservoir volume wherever the geology provides a strong stone which can maintain a vertical wall face without collapse, (a stone such as granite perhaps).

Where the geology only provides a weaker stone then a sloping perimeter wall at a suitable angle of repose for reliable stability would be constructed.

So the reservoir perimeter wall could be as sloped as shallow as 45 degrees from the natural elevation at the perimeter of the eclipse sloping down to the reservoir bed at 463 metres elevation in the case of the weakest and most prone to collapse kinds of stone.

Exactly how strong the stone is at each location I guess we'll only find out absolutely for sure if and when engineers start blasting it and testing the revealed rock wall face for strength.

The shape of the perimeter of the excavated reservoir bed is not absolutely critical. So long as it ends up as a stable wall or slope, however it is shaped by the blasting, it will be fine. There is no need to have stone masons chip the perimeter smooth and flat! The ellipse is simply the easiest approximate mathematical shape to describe and to draw. If the end result is not a perfect ellipse, don't worry, it will be fine!

OK, well I guess that's the vision part over. The rest is fairly straight-forward engineering I hope. Oh, and there is always getting the permission and the funding to build it of course which is never easy for anything this big.

OK, well if anyone has any questions or points to make about my vision or can say why they think the SSE plan is better than mine, or if you don't see why we need any pumped storage hydroelectric scheme at Coire Glas, whatever your point of view, if you have something to add in reply, please do.

 

There is an added bonus in some of this too - you will end with acres of what is now marginal land going back to even light forestation - not a bad thing

 

Firstly...your postscript.....excellent.

The Scottish highlands was almost all forestry...wonder who change this?

As for the dam project...all you need to look at is the surfing shaft at Foyers!

http://www.scottish-places.info/features/featurefirst3852.html

The dam above Gorthleck was a very small and according to the planning application wasn't going to get any bigger!
Profit margins being necessary more important....it now reaching the road, almost twenty times larger.

Problems with the shaft,and a continual one.....is small earthquakes, this has damaged the shafts.

So having a proposed dam on this scale and no safety margins...is a bit of a non starter.


Regards
Highlander

 

It's always good to see someone taking an interest in the history of the Highlands and it's flora and fauna. This link should tell you all you need to know about the deforestation of Scotland.

http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/humanimpacts/deforestation.html

I've always been a great fan of the reversible turbine, it's a shame there aren't more places geologically suited. Let's hope that politics don't get in the way of this project going ahead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9104876/SSE-says-independence-referendum-is-creating-economic-uncertainty.html

 

Good thread, Peter. Not that I understand what you're on about.

I last visited Cruachan about a year ago and went inside the hollow hill to see the installation which is built right under the mountain. It's like something from a Bond film. Worth a visit if you're ever over. It's also a lovely area to visit regardless of power installations and I want to encourage your aspirations but extract a promise you won't become a BP and destroy the natural beauty of the area.

I read a while back about plans for Scotland to create enough renewable or green energy to potentially fuel all of Europe. I think that related to the undersea wave farm being built up in the Sound.

Whether this particular project is feasable or not, we should be looking to take any and every green energy possibility forward regardless of the political future, but particularly if independence goes ahead it will be really important to press ahead. Nuclear power is a risk and oil is too expensive. Any alternatives need to be explored. People can hardly afford to pay the astronomic bills for power, we need to move away from being held to ransom over energy.

 

"Surfing" shaft? I presume you mean "surge" shaft?

Quoting from your link.

Well my plan for Coire Glas maximises the potential of the site.

My dam would be 1475 metres long, compared to the SSE dam's 650 metres long, more than twice as long, 2.27 times as long to be exact.

My dam would be 317 metres tall compared to the SSE dam's 92 metres, more than three times as high. Since my dam is 3.44 times as high, it should be 3.44 times as thick as well. So the transverse cross-sectional area of my dam would be 11.8 times larger.

Since my dam is 2.27 longer and has a cross-sectional area 11.8 times larger this means that my dam would have a volume of 2.27 x 11.8 = 26.8 times larger than the SSE dam. The mass of the dam and the cost of the dam will be in proportion to the volume, so my dam may cost 27 times more than the SSE dam.

So I would try to build the biggest the site could cope with from the start.

This is my worry about the SSE plan - it doesn't make best use of the site and in years to come people will look back and say "Why on earth didn't they build it bigger like that visionary Dow suggested? Now we have to tear down the smaller SSE dam and build the much bigger dam they should have built in the first place!"

You should provide a link which describes this in more detail. It ought to be possible to shore up and secure any underground shaft. This is basic engineering.

Whose scale? The SSE dam's scale, 650 metres long, 92 metres high? Or the Dow-dam's scale, 1475 metres long, 317 metres high?

What do you mean "no safety margins"?
The Cruachan pumped-storage hydro dam scheme has been working safely since 1966.

I just don't know why you say "non-starter"? The SSE are already well advanced with their plans and have just recently submitted an application to the Scottish government for permission to build it.

OK my much bigger plan is just at the vision stage, but the diagrams and maps I have posted above is at least a start.

 

Oh, OK. You're hired.

The geology is a given we have to deal with as is. No-one should be ashamed of the geology. Geology is no-one's fault.

However, this is not the case with the human decisions of what dams are built where. Here there is an infinity of choices to make. Which locations, which sizes of dam, etc. If the wrong choices are made, that is the real shame.

Now, since there are, as you correctly point out, few places geologically suited, this means we ought to maximise the use of the few suitable sites. This means building the biggest we reasonably can as each precious site is allocated for new build.

So now that the SSE plan for Coire Glas is on the table, we need to ask is this the best use of the site or should we, as I propose, be building bigger while we are at it?

That's an interesting and very "on-topic" article for this post. So I'll quote it in full.

SSE says independence referendum is creating economic "uncertainty"

The independence referendum is endangering the Scottish economy after one of the country’s largest businesses confirmed “uncertainty about the future” is affecting its investment plans.



By Simon Johnson, Scottish Political Editor
6:00AM GMT 25 Feb 2012


SSE, previously known as Scottish and Southern Energy, said it has “no alternative” but to take into account the “additional risk” of separation when deciding whether to press ahead with energy projects north of the Border.


Although the company will not declare a moratorium on an estimated £3.5 billion of schemes that are already in the pipeline, the referendum makes it less likely they will get the go-ahead.


SSE said this situation will continue until the ballot is held and, in the event of independence, it becomes clear whether the British Government will continue to subsidise a separate Scotland’s green energy industry.


However, such a lengthy delay would destroy the First Minister’s hope of turning Scotland into green energy powerhouse by the end of the decade. His targets rely on rapidly building new offshore wind and wave farms, the projects that are most at risk.


The intervention by SSE, Scotland’s second largest company, is also extremely embarrassing for Mr Salmond after he poured scorn on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s claims the referendum is damaging the economy.


It further increases pressure on him to bring forward his preferred autumn 2014 date for the referendum. Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, this week set out an alternative timetable to stage the ballot in September 2013.


The SSE warning echoed a similar report by banking giant Citigroup, which was also dismissed by the SNP, that companies should exercise “extreme caution” over investing in Scotland before the vote takes place.

Peter Atherton, Citigroup’s energy market analyst, last night told the Daily Telegraph the prospect of Scottish separation is now being raised with him by worried investors at every meeting he holds, whether in Switzerland or the US.

SSE outlined its concerns in an official submission to separate consultations on the referendum being staged by the Coalition Government and Scottish Executive.

Although the company did not express a view on independence, the company said Britain should retain a single energy market regardless of the referendum’s result.

This is because energy companies rely on subsidies paid by all 27 million UK households to fund new projects. However, there is no guarantee this situation would continue after separation, creating “additional uncertainty about the future”.

"This additional risk will apply up to the date of the referendum” and would continue until any separation negotiations between London and Edinburgh are concluded, SSE said.

In the meantime, the uncertainty could cause the company to deduct a “risk premium” from the level of income it expects to generate from future energy projects.

Its directors will then “have to assess the impact of that premium on whether or not to proceed with the investment proposal.” Although existing projects will continue to be developed, they may no longer get final approval.

Mr Atherton welcomed the intervention and said energy companies have come under pressure from shareholders following international publicity about the referendum last month.

“They (SSE) will carry on with their onshore wind farm programme because that can be done before the referendum, but the offshore projects are the ones that will deliver the Scottish government’s renewables policy,” he said.

“It’s these projects SSE are saying they cannot go ahead with until they know the outcome of the referendum.”

Mr Moore last night said the company had made a “crucial point”. He said: “SSE’s submission adds considerable weight to the case for having the referendum sooner rather than later.”

Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader, said: “This significant intervention demonstrates the growing uncertainty the delay over the referendum is creating.

“With a national crisis in unemployment in Scotland, we cannot afford for business to shelve or delay plans to wait to see if we are remaining in the United Kingdom.”

Ruth Davidson, her Tory counterpart, added: “Our businesses need clarity about their future, yet the SNP are refusing to provide this by dragging the process out until 2014. This is simply not good enough.”

But SNP ministers said the submission was “extremely positive” because SSE said it had no plans to move from its Perth headquarters and is committed to “ongoing investment” in Scotland.

Fergus Ewing, the Energy Minister, said: “We agree with SSE that post-independence we should maintain a single Great Britain energy market, within an increasingly unified single EU market.”

​

I'll take my time to digest that before responding.

 

Well the SSE want to build a bigger version of Cruachan at Coire Glas, to use it to store up excess energy generated from wind farms when the wind is blowing hard, so that the stored energy can be supplied when the wind is calm.

I am happy that the SSE are planning to build a hydro-dam but I am proposing that instead of authorising the SSE's plan for the dam of the size they propose, there should be an even bigger dam built on the same site so that in future when there are far more wind farms than there are now we would not be stuck with the SSE's size of dam which would be too small to store all the excess energy.

In my opinion, hydro dams are impressive feats of engineering for the public good. A big hydro dam is a country's major achievement. It is something to boast about and to show off. It is like an Apollo moon project only much more useful.

So I don't apologise that my much bigger dam would stand out in the landscape far more than the smaller SSE dam would. I celebrate that fact. I would say to potential tourists to Scotland - "Come see the Scots' big dam. You'll be impressed!"

Whether we are fuelling just Scotland, all Britain or all of Europe, we need the power available all the time and many of the best sources of renewable or "green" energy are intermittent. That is why there is a need for big pumped-storage hydro-dams to store up energy.

Actually Scotland doesn't have a monopoly on wind power, but we do have a very significant advantage in suitable sites for hydro dams. So not only could Scotland generate masses of energy, more than we need, but we could competitively import and store up excess wind energy generated from outside Scotland then export the same energy when it is needed. So it is a big commercial opportunity for us Scots.

The SSE think their size of dam is economically feasible enough to apply for permission to build.

The economics of my, much bigger dam, is equally soundly based but because it is a much bigger investment it will take longer before it is showing a profit but eventually my bigger dam will pay back many times more.

So really, the size of investment I am looking for for my dam - around about £20 billion, would need to be a government investment, financed like the Concorde or Apollo projects, as a national or international prestige project.

Now there is plenty of cash available for investment, though at the moment hundreds of billions of pounds is being given away to bankers with no strings attached.

So instead of letting the bankers pirate away our cash to stuff their own pockets with, let's invest some of that money in a worthwhile hydro dam scheme.

 

It may be basic engineering....but again...Earthquakes are mightier!

Regards
Highlander

 

Yes but did they do the basic engineering of securing the shaft or did they leave it to chance, unsupported, just the bare rock?

Even without earthquakes many rock types won't support vertical faces of rock indefinitely. Even if the rock type is very strong it is possible that the drilling or blasting to construct the shaft will create fractures in the surrounding rock, enough to leave the rock in a precarious state, ready to collapse.

It is really prudent engineering for something that is meant to last and it is critical to its functioning that the shaft remains clear, to build the shaft in this fashion - drill / blast a section of shaft out, secure the rock face you have exposed, drill / blast another section of shaft, secure that bit and so on.

Sure even the most secure underground shaft, cave or what have you is vulnerable to a collapse in a big earthquake but doing a good job of securing the rock makes such underground structures able to withstand the tiny little tremors we get in Scotland a lot better.

Scotland doesn't get big earthquakes and thank goodness but it does mean there is no excuse for shoddy construction that falls down at the first wee tremor.

It really sounds to me like someone was cost-cutting in the first place and didn't secure as the shaft was made.

Now, I don't have all the information about the particular situation you are talking about, but I simply don't accept such work can't be done safely and securely.

 

With all due respect.....I thing the engineers took into consideration the likely hood of earth quakes when the were building the surfing shaft at Foyers(well that's what the workers called it) and it is damaged!

Believe it or not...The great Glen fault is an equivalent to the San Andreas fault lines! Not so much......wee tremors!


But of course...I'll bow to your superior knowledge!

Regards
Highlander

 

Well let's consult Wikipedia.

The bigger the Richter scale number the bigger the earthquake.

Then the Open University has something to say about the dam that was breached by the Comrie earthquake in 1839.

So how well a dam copes with earthquakes is all to do with how well it is constructed. Shoddily or soundly constructed? It matters. It makes all the difference.

It is the same with everything that is made.

The fact is that there is no good reason for not securing that shaft, or any dam, or any building or construction you can think of against earthquakes.

Again, it is basic engineering that 1 out of 3 little pigs knows very well.

 

Nay...perhaps its because I'm cynical.......and dived the dams including Foyers that I base my opinion!
Re-enforced shuttered concrete! Some thing earthquakes damage without any difficulty!
http://www.quakes.bgs.ac.uk/hazard/Hazard_UK.htm

As for wiki.....any idiot can write "facts"!

Another fact....many dams in Scotland now belonging to German power companies, and too much notice of earthquakes will make people pay attention! Perhaps even close them!
To generate power at peak demand the companies have opened the dams Aigus and all the dams above in 1981 and just paid the damage to local areas like Beauly, profit margins were so great!


Regards
Highlander

 

Pumped hydro is the best means for storing electricity on a large scale. It would work very well in Scotland.

In Scotland, natural precipitation would more than make up for evaporative losses.

Pumped storage would make wind power feasible for Scotland. The wind could blow as it may but the Scots could have electricity from the dams dispatchable on demand.

Pumped hydro is very site-dependent. It requires sites with the right characteristics. Scotland is hilly and has lots of steep, unpopulated valleys, perfect for flooding with hydro power. But do the Scots have the will to flood numerous valleys?

More to the point, do they have the will to divert their oil royalties from entitlements into pumped hydro systems?

 

Aye these wilderness areas used to be full of people! Over one million people resided in the Highlands of Scotland in the early 1900's and after one hundred years and many wars in which they my nation have been used as fodder...only just over three hundred thousand remain!

We are an endangered species!

We deserve WWF protection from those Aristocracy and politicians south of the border!
(that's my humour)

There are areas which could be used but what's the point of allowing your land to be used in this manner when the nation gets no benefit!
Mind you again the land is divided into estates by the Aristocracy where the Scottish nation cannot buy or live in its own land! More than ninety percent of Scotland is marginalised in this manner! Something that will change as it did in Ireland when they received their independence. Another nation that suffered in the same manner as the Scottish people!
Blighted by thievery!

One thing though what's....."natural precipitation would more than make up for evaporative losses"
Obviously you have not been in Scotland very often and if you have you must of frequented the bars more than you should!

Its bloody freezing and to be honest no bloody likelihood of anything evaporating...ever!

Regards
Highlander

 

How many "valleys", glens or wee nooks and crannies of a glen, like Coire Glas, you'd like to use for pumped storage hydro dam schemes eventually, when the oil has run out, depends on how much use you can get out of each site.

Now my plan for Coire Glas has the capacity to store 20 times more energy storage than the SSE plan for the same site does.

So that means when the oil is running out and energy companies are coming crying to Scots "boo, hoo, we need more sites for pumped storage hydro schemes" that to get the same energy storage out of "SSE size" plans, you'd need to waste 20 sites with 20 smaller schemes but only efficiently use one site, Coire Glas, under my size of plan. So my plan is the land-saving way to do it in the long run.

So if we are smart, we will build it big. We should do it right first time and there'll be no need for "numerous" sites used up when only a few will do.

It's a good investment for a future energy economy which we'll need after the oil runs out. So yes, we ought to invest in this now but the question is whether the Scots or the Britons have the wits to insist on a good investment now or whether we'll allow the kingdom to be its usual short-sighted self.

 

To replace oil, you'll need thousands of pumped storage lakes.

Without storage, wind energy is trash.

 

Regarding your earlier posts there obviously is protests about the effect on the scenery, not least by Donald Trump. Some sort of balance will need to be found there.

Scotland is not talking so much about replacing her oil, she is more interested in being the world's No 1 on Green Energy. She already can pass on energy to England when the winds are high and has plans to build a pipeline to Norway and to work together producing energy for Europe. Not just wind but tidal, wave, hydro electric and so on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Scotland

or here is the Scottish Government's website

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/B...ng/National-Planning-Policy/themes/renewables

Storage is of course needed but there seems to be many better alternatives to doing that than destroying the whole landscape of Scotland.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/212607/0112909.pdf

 

Not thousands. Not unless it is thousands of teeny-weeny "lakes" or puddles as we Scots call them.

Like I explained, it depends on what quantity of energy each pumped-storage hydro dam scheme can store.

The scheme I have presented here can store upwards of 600 GigaWatt-hours, that's 20 times more than the SSE scheme can store (only 30 GigaWatt-hours).

My scheme could keep the lights on in Scotland oh for 100 hours easy.

So don't talk nonsense about "thousands of pumped storage lakes", "Junior".



Agreed it is more of a task to keep Scotland warm, replacing oil, coal and gas from heating, but that comes next.

Right. Now go back to my last post and read it carefully this time, Junior.

 

The balance between Trump, a few hired hands, on the one hand, and the people of Scotland and their need for clean, plentiful, cheap renewable energy, on the other? The wind snuffed Trump's candle out long ago.

OK.

I don't like that document. It is misleading to suggest to policy makers that hydrogen and fuel cells is an efficient, cost-effective way to store energy now. They're not.

The tried, tested and widely deployed technology, used by each of us, every time we switch the kettle on after the popular soap goes to adverts, is pumped-storage hydroelectricity.

I have already quoted this so read it again. This is Wikipedia. I didn't make this up. Pay attention.

Got that now?

I am so sorry you are being misled about "destroying the whole landscape of Scotland." I don't know why Junior here, Taxcutter, wants to spread that misinformation.

I don't know why that document you downloaded from the Scottish government is hyping up inefficient and very expensive methods of storing electrical energy.

You have got yourself dug into a deep hole and you are digging yourself in deeper.

Stop. Now listen.

Firstly, pumped-storage hydro is the most efficient, affordable, mass energy storage technology there is. It's the gold standard. Fact.

Secondly, pumped storage schemes can be limited to a limited number of sites, and the bigger you build them, the fewer sites you need.

Don't go off on a tangent and get yourself in knots. Simple. Easy.

Renewable energy and pumped storage hydro.

 

Why not, you are. Pumped storage may be the cheapest most efficient method of storing large amounts of electricity but it is still darned expensive and it is still inefficient. It's not that it isn't crap, it's just that there isn't anything better, a bit like governments really.

Green energy to start with is expensive, the only reason people are putting up windmills and solar panels is because the government is giving them tax payer's money to do it. Add to that it's in the wrong place, a HVDC undersea line to the North of Scotland would cost billions and only carry a gigawatt. Then if you have to add the expense of storage it's looking like there will be a glut of very expensive electricity.

I'm not against green energy but it's purpose is to combat climate change not to make money, saving the world is going to cost a fortune. Why is the Scottish government conning people the energy will be free and make us a fortune?