alt.energy.renewable

Anthony Matonak wrote in
news:47dcc2da$0$16655$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> Gordon wrote:
>> EconomicDemocracy Coop wrote in
news:ece169b4-
>>
>>> Besides, the engine is efficient, cost-effective,
>>> scalable, and capable of other applications like power generation.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO: Power Generation!! Oh that's a good one.
>
> Well, not so laughable if the thing actually worked as claimed.
>
> You could think of the reversible multi-stage compressor and
> air motor combined with the x-thousand psi storage tanks as a
> form of electrical battery. You can charge it by running the
> motor as a compressor and get the energy back by running the
> compressor as a motor.
>
> I imagine that the high pressure tanks required for any
> reasonable amount of storage would be rather expensive and
> require regular inspection. At these pressures, a failure
> of a very large tank could be quite dramatic and lethal.
> Perhaps putting it in underground concrete bunkers might be
> required.
>
> Anthony

But that's not really power generation. It's energy storage.
Now if you used a wind turbine or water turbine to compress
the air, then had an intermediate storage tank. THen used
the air engine to generate the power. That might be something.
Actually, the wind power thing makes sense. The storage tanks
would act like capacitors to even out the availability
of power in variable wind conditions.
But still, it's not really power generation exactly.