There are still many arguments in favor of the train system: cost, responsiveness:remundo wrote:Except for sites where dam lakes can not be built, I do not think these trains are good.
- "ARES incorporates recent advances in generators / motors and power electronics to control them" indicates James Kelly. "An efficiency of 78,3% is thus achieved" on a complete cycle of ascent / descent of the train. "
- "the cost of investing in an ARES plant is 40% cheaper than that of an equivalent WWTP."
- "it can be set up wherever a slope of 7 to 8% is available over a few kilometers: suitable sites are plethora of worldwide."
- "The gradual passage of water from the upper basin to the lower basin is accompanied by a drop in pressure, a problem that does not exist with the ARES solution. In addition, the reaction time of penstocks in a WWTP is not immediate, whereas the wind, and thus the electro-wind production, can vary abruptly. These problems disappear with the solution developed by ARES. "
- "for example near very large wind and solar parks that can be installed in the deserts of the western USA, the Sahara or Gobi. An ARES plant of 333 MW x 8 hours requires two stations ( one at the top and one at the bottom), 3 rails of 12,8 km connecting them, and 70 shuttles made up of 4 wagons, shuttles each transferring 2 MWh. "
- "The two storage stations (one at the top and one at the bottom) can be hidden under a green roof thus allowing a very good landscape integration. The space consumed by the two stations can also be valued thanks to photovoltaic solar roofs. "