QUOTE: As energy security concerns grow alongside volatile oil prices, a game-changing innovation in hydropower could make it possible to generate and store clean energy on ordinary hills – not just mountains or dams. Engineers in the county of Devon, southwest England, are testing a new approach that replaces water with a dense, mineral-rich liquid. This development could bring reliable power to communities in areas once considered infeasible. The technology, developed by energy storage company RheEnergise, comes after years of chemical and engineering research.

Pressure due to a head of liquid = Density x Gravity x Height.

Instead of increasing the head or height to increase the pressure, increase the density. Cunning.

Instead of increasing the head or height to increase the pressure, increase the density. Cunning.


Indeed. I hope they can make it economical enough to be a winner.

Also, density = mass/volume, so volume = mass/density. So the volume of liquid to be handled is less for the same mass. So smaller equipment would be needed for the same mass or power; or more power for the same volume or size of equipment.

Haven't thought out if mass is linearly proportional to power developed. But whatever it is certainly a fascinating concept.

It would maybe mean salt(s) of some kind dissolved in water, or a slurry, or an inherantly dense liquid. Be interesting to see which way they go.

Looking at their website they are coy about the mineral in the water. But all sorts of slurries are pumped, not the least concrete. So the materials and equipment should already be developed, just used as a turbine instead of a pump. Gets cunninger! Keeping the viscosity low maybe key.

Low viscosity? Like - water?

Like we already do - extensively - in NSW.

Like we already do - extensively - in NSW.

Did you watch the video? The topic addresses a viable potential solution for low height locations.

"Keeping the viscosity low maybe key."

Dredging the memory for fluid flow learnt in late 60s, the type of flow in a pipe can be lamina (smooth) or turbulent (chaotic). The factor that decides this is the dimensionless Reynold's Number, which is pipe diameter x fluid velocity x fluid density/ fluid viscosity. The formulas for calculating flow rates differ for lamina and turbulent flow.

Lamina flow is the most efficient, NReabout 4000; transition between the two states in between about 2000 - 4000. Whatever sort of flow they want, NRe goes down as viscosity goes up. So a higher viscosity might be needed to balance the higher density.

So my quote at the heading may be wrong; a balance against the other factors may be needed. For best efficiency lamina flow might be needed; but if the particles separate out, they might want turbulent flow to keep them suspended.

Sounds like someone involved in pumping slurries has had a brain wave.

There was a push to get coal trucks off the roads 30 years ago by piping coal suspended in water down the Illawarra escarpment (300-400m). It wasn't taken up, and I don't know the reasons. But fluid fow would have come into it and I wonder if generating power from the flow was considered.