What's wrong with this idea?

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "ed_toronto1" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "victoriatangoman"
> wrote:
> > Usually, when we read of the SPS scenario, there is a SPS and a
> > dedicated rectenna farm.
> >
> > To me, such a scenario negates two of the advantages of GSO,
namely
> > the wide footprint into which a SPS can beam power and the never
> > varying power output of the SPS.
> >
> > To me these limations present three different scenarios for
> > increased efficiency. What are the flaws of logic or engineering
> > that I may be overlooking in the descriptions below?
>
> Why not beam down constant power and store it on the ground until
its
> needed? Current pumped storage facilties can store up to
15,000MWH
> and release it when necessary. (Google on "pumped storage" to see
> how it works.) You could even put the whole faciltiy underground
and
> reuse the same water by pumping it between two reservoirs if you
want
> to leave a pristine Earth.
>
> Ed Milne

Thanks for the information. It made for some interesting reading.
To me it looks very similar to flywheel technologies that have been
discussed for storing surplus energy on the moon during the day and
using that energy during lunar night. That particular technology
spun up very massive flywheels and then at night spun them down.

The pumped storage seems to work on the same principle.

My concerns with this strategy would be whether the additional cost
of constructing this "battery" could be justified by the elctrical
cost savings. I think from our perspective, we High Frontier types
will build the SPS, and the earth side utility can decide whether to
add additional features to their rectenna farms.

What do you think?