Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.

The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned).  It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.

It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.

The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources.  I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.

If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use.  The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)

Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)

I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.

The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.

Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.

[Chris_H]

Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.

The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned).  It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.

It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.

The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources.  I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.

If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use.  The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)

Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)

I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.

The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.

Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.

Those expectations are expressed by vociferous uninformed as well as the knowledgeable, as is the case with many of these modern challenges.

The concerns you express are seen as obstacles to be overcome by engineers, and insurmountable hurdles by the detractors.  The BIG question is how much resource to invest in developing alternatives.  The answer to that lies in our perception of the scale of the problem!  And this is where divergence occurs.  Some appear to believe that energy consumption is a god-given right and that therefore nothing will interrupt it in the future.  At the other end of the scale are some alarmists (possibly the former group in disguise(? ) who would have us believe that the end of (e.g.) fossil fuels is sooner than it is.  Mind you, if BP keep sticking pins in the earth and making it leak even the wasteful Americans might wake up to the fact that nothing lasts forever.

[Dishevelled Den]

Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows.  

Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.

We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course -  but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.

But this is happening Zulu.  My earlier point was that it takes time and money to delelop any of man's inventions, with Rome not being built in a day.  I think I demonstrated how everything starts of as being imperfect, but then with development becomes something that was almost beyond the initial imagination of the inventors.

That is what is happening with alternative energy generation.  Do not expect a perfect solution now, instantly, today!  I know that is what the good people of the West, and East (?) expect in 2010, but life really is not like that.

You have to start developing from the basics, the imperfect, to achieve the ultimate success.  In 2060 I am sure people will be talking about "the early days" of alternative power generation as they step out of their advanced powered house into their electric super self navigating car that everyone now has who is anyone!!

Yes E, I'm with you on the general thrust of your piece.  I am concerned however that the present capacity - as generated by the existing installations - may not remain as reliable in the coming decade, at a time when the stability and availability of supply will be critical to ensure that such efforts in research and development can continue unabated.

It seems sensible to me to increase capacity presently by building more conventional/nuclear stations - although I more than understand that development cost/construction time and so on are factors that will impinge on the early adoption of these new installations.

Not to do this and expect the slack to be taken up by the presently unproven (on a national, real-world basis) alternative technology is a miscalculation in my view.

But is anyone actually doing that in their calculations?  Are we not planning to build new power stations, and re-inforcing our interconental power cable 'grid'?

Those in the real know recognise that the alternatives cannot be rellied on yet to cover any shortfalls, and have calculated the need for new power stations which the Government is persuing


It should be remembered that the power generators are private companies, out to expand their business and profits, and will do all they can to provide the extra power generation they can to boost their objectives.  EDF are certainly one of those at the forefront of ensuring Britain has the power in the future to meet its needs.

I'm concerned with Chris Huhne's over reliance on wind turbines to provide part of the solution although he now seems to accept that nuclear generation may well have to play a part in the quest for energy security.

On the point of those who are presently providing power generation - will they be inclined to meet the capital cost of establishing fresh generating capacity without government subsidy and increased consumer tariffs?

The entire power generation and supply network in this country needs a make-over - for a variety of reasons.  I hope that it's not the consumer who will be left to foot the bill through increased tariffs and forced reduction in energy use to conserve power in a dwindling supply market

[Dishevelled Den]

Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.

The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned).  It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.

It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.

The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources.  I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.

If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use.  The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)

Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)

I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.

The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.

Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.

Those expectations are expressed by vociferous uninformed as well as the knowledgeable, as is the case with many of these modern challenges.

The concerns you express are seen as obstacles to be overcome by engineers, and insurmountable hurdles by the detractors.  The BIG question is how much resource to invest in developing alternatives.  The answer to that lies in our perception of the scale of the problem!  And this is where divergence occurs.  Some appear to believe that energy consumption is a god-given right and that therefore nothing will interrupt it in the future.  At the other end of the scale are some alarmists (possibly the former group in disguise(? ) who would have us believe that the end of (e.g.) fossil fuels is sooner than it is.  Mind you, if BP keep sticking pins in the earth and making it leak even the wasteful Americans might wake up to the fact that nothing lasts forever.

So is there a workable solution that isn't going to cost us - as consumers - a fortune in our energy bills?

[Chris_H]

Yes Zulu, that is what we need to do certainly for now, but with developing other alternatives as and when technology allows.  

Actually I do agree with you E but I'm concerned that the present alternatives we have on offer - turbines in particular - are not the panacea to additional and sustainable energy generation that our political masters and the operators would suggest.

We do need to embark on a dedicated research programme for future energy supply – of course -  but the need for sufficient capacity to enable and sustain this must be uppermost in our minds especially with the concerns for the stability of the supply in the coming decade.

But this is happening Zulu.  My earlier point was that it takes time and money to delelop any of man's inventions, with Rome not being built in a day.  I think I demonstrated how everything starts of as being imperfect, but then with development becomes something that was almost beyond the initial imagination of the inventors.

That is what is happening with alternative energy generation.  Do not expect a perfect solution now, instantly, today!  I know that is what the good people of the West, and East (?) expect in 2010, but life really is not like that.

You have to start developing from the basics, the imperfect, to achieve the ultimate success.  In 2060 I am sure people will be talking about "the early days" of alternative power generation as they step out of their advanced powered house into their electric super self navigating car that everyone now has who is anyone!!

Yes E, I'm with you on the general thrust of your piece.  I am concerned however that the present capacity - as generated by the existing installations - may not remain as reliable in the coming decade, at a time when the stability and availability of supply will be critical to ensure that such efforts in research and development can continue unabated.

It seems sensible to me to increase capacity presently by building more conventional/nuclear stations - although I more than understand that development cost/construction time and so on are factors that will impinge on the early adoption of these new installations.

Not to do this and expect the slack to be taken up by the presently unproven (on a national, real-world basis) alternative technology is a miscalculation in my view.

But is anyone actually doing that in their calculations?  Are we not planning to build new power stations, and re-inforcing our interconental power cable 'grid'?

Those in the real know recognise that the alternatives cannot be rellied on yet to cover any shortfalls, and have calculated the need for new power stations which the Government is persuing


It should be remembered that the power generators are private companies, out to expand their business and profits, and will do all they can to provide the extra power generation they can to boost their objectives.  EDF are certainly one of those at the forefront of ensuring Britain has the power in the future to meet its needs.

I'm concerned with Chris Huhne's over reliance on wind turbines to provide part of the solution although he now seems to accept that nuclear generation may well have to play a part in the quest for energy security.

On the point of those who are presently providing power generation - will they be inclined to meet the capital cost of establishing fresh generating capacity without government subsidy and increased consumer tariffs?

The entire power generation and supply network in this country needs a make-over - for a variety of reasons.  I hope that it's not the consumer who will be left to foot the bill through increased tariffs and forced reduction in energy use to conserve power in a dwindling supply market

Seeing as the consumer funds the government it will be the consumer.

[Chris_H]

Unfortunately you seem to derive satisfaction from 'knocking' modern forays into the unknown.

The system on Eigg was not installed for the national benefit (although useful lessons will undoubtedly be learned).  It would have cost 4-5mGBP (2004 figures) to run a feed from the mainland, and 1.6mGBP to create the system they chose.

It is a very small-scale installation serving 37 households and 5 commercial premises with pre-agreed consumption levels (that are on trips and covered by fines would you believe) and the misleadingly termed "old-fashioned diesel" backups are not old-fashioned, they are part of the integrated system (along with a 24-hour UPS!) to take account of the un-predictable nature of the primary energy sources.

The OP report was triggered by longer-than-anticipated drop in input from the primary sources.  I am sure too, that the allocation of 5kW per household in the planning stage was rather mean.

If you look at pictures of the installations, they are mickey-mouse compared to anything that the mainland is testing for public use.  The whole concept though, will give excellent feedback on how to integrate these energy sources for application on the mainland (IMHO)

Storm in a teacup I'm afraid. (I bet you could harvest energy from that?)

I certainly would agree that the installation in question seems to have been purpose built for operation in Eigg and would not necessarily be suitable for use on a broader scale on the mainland.

The thing I'm concerned about is the expectation shown by many that such technology will provide a reckonable amount of alternatively sourced energy to meet the expected needs of the nation in the near future.

Existing alternative technology obviously can generate power, but can this be done so efficiently and reliably, as one lesson I would take from the Eigg experiment would be that energy derived from the new technology is entirely dependent on the ever changing behaviour of the weather.

Those expectations are expressed by vociferous uninformed as well as the knowledgeable, as is the case with many of these modern challenges.

The concerns you express are seen as obstacles to be overcome by engineers, and insurmountable hurdles by the detractors.  The BIG question is how much resource to invest in developing alternatives.  The answer to that lies in our perception of the scale of the problem!  And this is where divergence occurs.  Some appear to believe that energy consumption is a god-given right and that therefore nothing will interrupt it in the future.  At the other end of the scale are some alarmists (possibly the former group in disguise(? ) who would have us believe that the end of (e.g.) fossil fuels is sooner than it is.  Mind you, if BP keep sticking pins in the earth and making it leak even the wasteful Americans might wake up to the fact that nothing lasts forever.

So is there a workable solution that isn't going to cost us - as consumers - a fortune in our energy bills?

We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously!

There will be a workable solution but as to cost...

Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation.  There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account).  Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.

[Dishevelled Den]

We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously!

There will be a workable solution but as to cost...

Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation.  There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account).  Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.

  I did notice that.

I think it fair to say that the days of cheap energy are over.  I only hope that the increased amounts we will be obliged to pay for our future energy needs are not squandered on technology that seems to offer a solution because so many people want it to, and the fact that it isn't what we're using at the moment.

[Chris_H]

We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously!

There will be a workable solution but as to cost...

Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation.  There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account).  Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.

  I did notice that.

I think it fair to say that the days of cheap energy are over.  I only hope that the increased amounts we will be obliged to pay for our future energy needs are not squandered on technology that seems to offer a solution because so many people want it to, and the fact that it isn't what we're using at the moment.

You're showing signs of agematurity there Zulu

As an engineer myself, I pride myself in the number of ideas that I have that I discount as un-workable or unacceptable - it should be part of the role.  Our society currently however, derides experience (current thinking) as out-of-date, without assessing it for its true value.  My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced.  I consider that a taxation!!  I cannot see that as something I taught her.

A big part of the problem is that, due to prolific communications, every Tom, Dick and Harry has equal access to the minutae of decision-making and the 'real' experts (I think there are still a few around  ) get swamped with the barrage of resulting inputs.  You only have to add a politician or journalist with more sound-bites than common-sense and it all goes horribly wrong.

[Dishevelled Den]

We're in a race hear Zulu, editing our respective replies semi-synchronously!

There will be a workable solution but as to cost...

Oil already costs vastly more than it did a few decades ago so the comparisons move in tandem with the costs of new resource investigation.  There is also energy security to consider (and Eigg took this into account).  Being able to control your own sources has a price of some sort - you never know when an oil-rich state is going to play hard-to-get.

  I did notice that.

I think it fair to say that the days of cheap energy are over.  I only hope that the increased amounts we will be obliged to pay for our future energy needs are not squandered on technology that seems to offer a solution because so many people want it to, and the fact that it isn't what we're using at the moment.

You're showing signs of agematurity there Zulu

As an engineer myself, I pride myself in the number of ideas that I have that I discount as un-workable or unacceptable - it should be part of the role.  Our society currently however, derides experience (current thinking) as out-of-date, without assessing it for its true value.  My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced.  I consider that a taxation!!  I cannot see that as something I taught her.

A big part of the problem is that, due to prolific communications, every Tom, Dick and Harry has equal access to the minutae of decision-making and the 'real' experts (I think there are still a few around  ) get swamped with the barrage of resulting inputs.  You only have to add a politician or journalist with more sound-bites than common-sense and it all goes horribly wrong.

Maturity is nice - but in reality, it's age, crusty 'old git' age

I can certainly agree that too many cooks may well spoil the broth - lets hope that the recipe has been sufficiently well conceived to produce an acceptable and palatable result.

[Nickbat]

My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced.

My IKEA desk has just passed its 20th birthday.

[Dishevelled Den]

My daughter for example appears to believe that IKEA furniture is the best there is, and is quite unperturbed when it collapses and has to be replaced.

My IKEA desk has just passed its 20th birthday.

That's splendid news Nick 8-)   but it is my duty to inform you that I have been - and remain - daughter-less.

[jereboam]

I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish. 

I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power.  The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions.  On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development.  There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.

There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable.  Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy.  We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area.  (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)

We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists.  And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.

I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil.  And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain.  Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.

We're doomed, we're all doomed...

The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish. 

I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power.  The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions.  On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development.  There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.

There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable.  Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy.  We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area.  (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)

We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists.  And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.

I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil.  And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain.  Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.

We're doomed, we're all doomed...

The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work.

I understand and agree with what you are getting at Jereboam, but how can you say these are already well developed when no of us know what discoveries will be made that will make current progress seem positively archaic.  My earlier post was also touching on how man initialy thinks he has the answers then technological and scientific advancements produce staggering possibilities that cannot be predicted in the contempary environment.

Like with all technological advancements we have seen nothing yet in terms of wind and solar power development.   The only way you can say for sure what we have now is to live and have a 22nd century mind with all the knowledge by then accumulated.  Of course none of us have that yet.  We can only aim for that time, making mistakes all the way whilst we learn

[Dishevelled Den]

I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish. 

I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power.  The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions.  On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development.  There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.

There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable.  Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy.  We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area.  (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)

We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists.  And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.

I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil.  And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain.  Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.

We're doomed, we're all doomed...

The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work.

Yes, I enjoyed reading that - perhaps the following experiment will bear some fruit;

http://www.iter.org/

[Chris_H]

I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, so perhaps I'm talking absolute rubbish. 

I don't think that the technological advances over time that Lizzie Zoom is talking about can really be expected with wind or solar power.  The examples she quotes tend to be development from new discoveries or inventions.  On the other hand, wind and solar power are not new, and are already well advanced in development.  There are mathematical, physical and engineering constraints on how much further they can actually be developed.

There is a (somewhat informally defined) law of diminishing returns, and I would imagine that as far as mechanical generation of electricity from wind power is concerned, this is already applicable.  Solar energy is always going to be limited by the amount of light energy reaching the light sensitive material, as well as the conversion rate of that energy.  We will no doubt get more efficient conversion media, but we can't increase the amount of energy available over a given area.  (OK - we can use parabolic mirrors to concentrate the light, but the cost of manufacturing and controlling them - they have to be moved continuously - would be prohibitive.)

We do have some way to go with tidal and wave power, although tidal seems to upset the environmentalists.  And wave power hasn't actually been very successful so far, although I'm sure there's room for the technology to improve.

I tend to think we're stuck with nuclear, but if everybody goes down that route, we're going to run out of uranium before we run out of oil.  And the complexity of a nuclear power station means that they take forever to build, cost an unreasonable amount, and then cost even more to maintain.  Not mentioning, even, the decommissioning problem.

We're doomed, we're all doomed...

The only hope is nuclear fusion, and we're not even near to making that work.

Not absolute rubbish Jereboam, relative rubbish!   Only joking, there's a lot of sense in what you say (except that a parabolic mirror needs to cover the same area to collect the rays so only saves on area of pv convertor).

There are developments that can be made though with all these types of sporadic sources of energy, and that is in storage.  If we have sufficient (and that can usually be achieved by scale) total energy available (albeit random), we can store excess for use in quiet times. This is what Eigg did with their massive 24hr UPS).  On a larger scale this is done by pumping water up hills into reservoirs and then reversing it later with hydro-electric generation (called pumped storage hydroelectricity).

Cheap and high-density electric storage is likely to unlock a whole raft of benefits for society, not least in electric vehicles.  As with all large stores of energy, there will be nasty accidents and safety will be one of the determining factors in its acceptance.