Chapter 2

Pumped Hydroelectric Storage

Chi-Jen Yang
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA. Tel. +1 919 9459075. E-mail
address: cj.y@duke.edu

Contents
Introduction
Pros and Cons
Historical Developments
Prospects
4.1 Revival of Conventional Pumped Hydroelectricity Storage
4.2 Alternative and Novel Pumped Hydroelectricity Storage designs
4.3 Retrofits of existing PHS and conventional hydropower stations
References

Abstract
Pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS) is the most established technology for utility-scale
electricity storage and has been commercially deployed since the 1890s. Since the 2000s,
there have been revived interests in developing PHS facilities worldwide. Because most
low-carbon electricity resources (for example, wind, solar, and nuclear) cannot flexibly
adjust their output to match fluctuating power demands, there is an increasing need for
bulk electricity storage due to increasing adoption of renewable energy. This chapter
introduces the PHS technology, the pros and cons, its historical developments, and the
prospect.
Key Words:
Pumped Hydroelectric Storage; Closed-loop; Pump-back; Peak Shaving
1. Introduction:
Pumped hydroelectric storage (PHS) is the most widely adopted utility-scale electricity
storage technology. Furthermore, PHS provides the most mature and commercially
1

available solution to bulk electricity storage. It serves to stabilize the electricity grid
through peak shaving, load balancing, frequency regulation, and reserve generation.
Japan currently has the largest installed PHS capacity in the world [1], followed by China
[2] and the United States [3]. China currently has the most aggressive plan to expand
PHS installation, with 14 GW under construction and many more planned. China is
expected to surpass Japan in installed PHS capacity by 2018. Table 1 shows the installed
PHS capacities in major countries [2, 3, 4, 5].
Table 1. Installed PHS capacities.

Country
Japan
China
USA
Italy
Spain
Germany
France
India
Austria
Korea, South
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Taiwan
Australia
Poland
Portugal
South Africa
Thailand
Belgium
Russia
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Bulgaria
Iran
Slovakia
2

Installed PHS Capacity

/(MW)
27 438
21 545
20 858
7 071
6 889
6 388
5 894
5072
4 808
4 700
2 828
2 687
2 608
2 542
1 745
1 592
1 580
1 391
1 307
1 246
1 145
1 096
1 052
1 040
1 017

Argentina
Norway
Ukraine
Lithuania
Philippines
Greece
Serbia
Morocco
Ireland
Croatia
Slovenia
Canada
Romania
Chile
Brazil

974
967
905
900
709
699
614
465
292
282
185
174
53
31
20

A PHS facility is typically equipped with pumps and generators connecting an upper and
a lower reservoir (Figure 1). The pumps utilize relatively cheap electricity from the
power grid during off-peak hours to move water from the lower reservoir to the upper
one to store energy. During periods of high electricity demand (peak-hours), water is
released from the upper reservoir to generate power at a higher price.

Figure 1. PHS Diagram.

There are two main types of PHS facilities: (1) pure or off-stream PHS, which rely
entirely on water that were previously pumped into an upper reservoir as the source of
energy; (2) combined, hybrid, or pump-back PHS, which use both pumped water and
natural stream flow water to generate power [4]. Off-stream PHS is sometimes also
referred to as closed-loop systems. However, some may define closed-loop systems more
strictly as being entirely isolated from natural ecosystems. The U.S. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission defines closed-loop pumped storage as projects that are not
continuously connected to a naturally-flowing water feature [5].
The efficiency of PHS varies quite significantly due to the long history of the technology
and the long life of a facility. The round-trip efficiency (electricity generated divided by
the electricity used to pump water) of facilities with older designs may be lower than
60%, while a state-of-the-art PHS system may achieve over 80% efficiency.

2. Pros and Cons

By storing electricity, PHS facilities can protect the power system from outages. Coupled
with advanced power electronics, PHS systems can also reduce harmonic distortions, and
eliminate voltage sags and surges. Among all kinds of power generators, those peak-load
generators typically produce electricity at much higher costs than the base-load ones.
PHS provides an alternative to peaking power by storing cheap base-load electricity and
releasing it during peak hours.
PHS facilities provide very large capacities of electricity, with low operation and
maintenance cost, and high reliability. The levelized storage cost for electricity using
PHS is usually much lower than other electricity storage technologies.
There are several drawbacks to PHS technology. The deployment of PHS requires
suitable terrains with significant elevation difference between the two reservoirs and
significant amount of water resource. The construction of a PHS station typically takes
many years, sometimes over a decade. Although the operation and maintenance cost is
very low, there is a high upfront capital investment in civil construction, which can only
be recouped over decades.
Environmental impacts are also serious concerns and have caused many cancellations of
proposed PHS projects. Conventional PHS construction sometimes involves damming a
river to create a reservoir. Blocking natural water flows disrupt the aquatic ecosystem and
the flooding of previously dry areas may destroy terrestrial wildlife habitats and
significantly change the landscape. Pumping may also increase the water temperature and
stir up sediments at the bottom of the reservoirs and deteriorate water quality. PHS
operation may also trap and kill fish. There are technologies to mitigate the ecological
impacts. Fish deterrent systems could be installed to minimize fish entrapment and
reduce fish kill. The water intake and outlet could be designed to minimize the turbulence.
An oxygen injection system could also compensate for the potential oxygen loss due to
warming of the water because of pumping. In some cases, the PHS system may serve to
stabilize water level and maintain water quality [6]. The potential impacts of PHS
projects are site-specific and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Governments
usually require an environmental impact assessment before approving a PHS project.
Most PHS facilities have good safety records. Nevertheless, the upper reservoir failure of
Taum Sauk PHS station in the United States should be heeded as a reminder of its
potential danger. On December 14, 2005, the upper reservoir of Taum Suak was
overfilled, and the embankment was then overtopped and breached. The suddenly leased
water washed away over one square kilometer of forest, uprooted all the trees and
obliterated a house in its path. Although the Taum Sauk PHS station was later repaired
5

and brought back to operation in 2010, the reservoir failure incident should provide
important lessons for future PHS design, construction and operation.
3. Historical Development
The earliest PHS in the world appeared in the Alpine regions of Switzerland, Austria, and
Italy in the 1890s. The earliest designs use separate pump impellers and turbine
generators. Since the 1950s, a single reversible pump-turbine has become the dominant
design for PHS [7]. The development of PHS remained relatively slow until the 1960s,
when utilities in many countries began to envision a dominant role for nuclear power.
Many PHS facilities were intended to complement nuclear power in providing peaking
power.
In the 1990s, the development of PHS significantly declined in many countries. Many
factors may have contributed to the decline. Low natural gas prices during this period
make gas turbines more competitive in providing peaking power than PHS.
The earliest PHS facilities were built in Italy and Switzerland in the 1890s [7]. Before the
1950s, most of the PHS facilities were located in Europe. The United States completed its
first PHS station in 1928. Japan built its first PHS in 1934 and China in 1968. Since the
1950s, the adoption of PHS has gradually spread all over the world. As of 2014, the U.S.
DOE Global Energy Storage Database recorded over three hundred operating PHS
stations with total capacity of 142 GW in 41 countries [8].
The design and site selection for PHS facilities are greatly influenced by national policies.
Japan, China, and the United States have the largest PHS capacities in the world. Table 2,
3, and 4 list the PHS facilities in Japan, China, and the United States. The distinctive
policies and regulatory regimes for PHS in Japan, China, and the United States offer
interesting contrasts and may reveal useful policy insights.
The buildup of PHS capacities in Japan has been relatively steady over several decades.
The Japanese power sector is mainly composed of vertically-integrated regional electric
power utilities, which build, own and operate the PHS facilities. The vertically integrated
power sector structure has provided a stable and predictable business environment that is
favorable to the investments in PHS. The path of PHS development PHS in Japan is an
epitome of PHS development worldwide. Before the early 1960s, PHS facilities were
rare and small, mostly of hybrid design. The deployment started to accelerate since the
1960s and continued throughout the 1990s. Since the 1970s, pure/off-stream PHS has
become the dominant design, which is likely a result of increased concerns for ecological
impacts of the hybrid systems. In addition to having the worlds largest PHS capacities,
Japan is also the world leader in employing seawater PHS and variable-speed PHS.
6

Table 2 PHS stations in Japan.

Plant Name
(Japanese)

Plant Name
(English)
Ikejirigawa
Omorikawa
Morotsuka
Hatakenagi No.1
Mio
Ikehara
Ananaigawa
Shiroyama
Yagisawa
Shinnaruhagawa
Nagano
Kagetaira
Azumi
Takane No.1
Midono
Kisen'yama
Shintoyone
Numappara
Okutataragi
Niikappu
Ohira
Namwon
Mazekawa No.1
Futai Dam
Shin-Takasegawa
Okuyoshino
Okuyahagi No.2
Okuyahagi No.1
Tamahara
Motokawa
Daini Numazawa
Takami

Location
Nagano Prefecture
Kochi Prefecture
Miyazaki Prefecture
Shizuoka Prefecture
Nagano Prefecture
Nara Prefecture
Kochi Prefecture
Kanagawa Prefecture
Gunma Prefecture
Okayama Prefecture
Fukui Prefecture
Tokushima Prefecture
Nagano Prefecture
Gifu Prefecture
Nagano Prefecture
Kyoto
Aichi Prefecture
Tochigi Prefecture
Hyogo Prefecture
Hokkaido
Kumamoto Prefecture
Hiroshima Prefecture
Gifu Prefecture
Niigata Prefecture
Nagano Prefecture
Nara Prefecture
Aichi Prefecture
Aichi Prefecture
Gunma Prefecture
Kochi Prefecture
Fukushima Prefecture
Hokkaido

Type
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Pure
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Hybrid

Rating/
(MW)
2
12
50
137
36
350
13
250
240
303
220
47
623
340
245
466
1 125
675
1 932
200
500
620
288
1 000
1 280
1 206
780
323
1 200
615
460
200

Commission
Year
1934
1959
1961
1962
1963
1964
1964
1965
1965
1968
1968
1968
1969
1969
1969
1970
1972
1973
1974
1974
1975
1976
1976
1978
1979
1980
1980
1980
1981
1982
1982
1983

Matanoagawa
Tenzan
Imaichi
Shimogo
Okawachi
Okumino
Shiobara
Futai Dam No.2
Kazunogawa
Okinawa Seawater
Pumped Hydro
Kannagawa
Omarugawa
Shumarinai
Kyogoku

Tottori Prefecture
Saga Prefecture
Tochigi Prefecture
Fukushima Prefecture
Hyogo Prefecture
Gifu Prefecture
Tochigi Prefecture
Niigata Prefecture
Yamanashi Prefecture

Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure

1 200
600
1 050
1 000
1 280
1 500
900
600
1 200

1986
1986
1988
1988
1992
1994
1994
1996
1999

Okinawa Prefecture
Gunma Prefecture
Miyazaki Prefecture
Hokkaido
Hokkaido

Pure
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Pure

30
940
1 200
1
200

1999
2005
2007
2013
2014

China is a latecomer in the worldwide PHS deployment, but it is catching up quickly.

With the largest PHS capacities planned and under construction, China will soon
overtake Japan as the host of the largest PHS capacities in the world. Most of the PHS
facilities in China are relative new, with large capacity and off-steam design.
Chinas regulatory regime for PHS has been through great changes in the past two
decades. Before 2004, most of the PHS facilities in China were built by local
governments and local grid companies with diverse pricing models. In 2002, China
restructured its power sector by separating them into 2 state-owned grid companies and 5
power generation corporations. In 2004, the National Development and Reform
Commission promulgated a regulation which specified that PHS stations are transmission
facilities and should be constructed and managed by the grid companies, and that the
construction and operation costs of PHS should be incorporated into the operation costs
of the grid companies [9]. The decision to treat PHS as transmission facilities has
contributed to the rapid expansion of PHS in China.

Table 3 PHS stations in China.

Plant Name
(Chinese)
8

Plant Name
(English)

Province

Type

Rating/ Commission
(MW) Year

Gangnan

Hebei

Hybrid 11

1968

Miyun

Beijing

Hybrid 22

1975

Panjiakou

Hebei

Hybrid 270

1992

Cuntangkou

Sichuan

Pure

1992

Guangzhou Phase 1

Guangdong

Pure

1,200

1994

Shisanling

Beijing

Pure

800

1997

Yangzhuoyong

Tibet

Pure

90

1997

Xikou

Zhejiang

Pure

80

1998

Tianhuangping

Zhejiang

Pure

1 800

2000

Guangzhou Phase 2

Guangdong

Pure

1 200

2000

Xianghongdian

Anhui

Hybrid 80

2000

Tiantang

Hubei

Pure

70

2001

Shahe

Jiangsu

Pure

100

2002

Huilong

Henan

Pure

120

2005

TONGBAI

Zhejiang

Pure

1 200

2006

Hakusan

Jilin

Hybrid 300

2006

Taian

Shandong

Pure

1 000

2007

Langyashan

Anhui

Pure

600

2007

Xilongchi

Shanxi

Pure

1 200

2008

Yixing

Jiangsu

Pure

1 000

2008

Zhanghewan

Hebei

Pure

1 000

2008

Huizhou

Guangdong

Pure

2 400

2009

Heimifeng Phase 1

Hunan

Pure

1 200

2009

Bailianhe

Hubei

Pure

1 200

2010

Baoquan

Henan

Pure

1 200

2011

Pushihe

Liaoning

Pure

1 200

2012

Xiangshuijian

Anhui

Pure

1 000

2012

Xianyou

Fujian

Pure

1 200

2013

Most of the PHS facilities in the United States were built in the 1970s and 1980s. Since
the 1990s, the construction of PHS slowed down in the United States. Environmental
concerns caused the cancellation of several PHS projects and significantly prolonged the
permitting process. Power sector restructure also contributed to this slowdown. During
the 1990s, the United States started to restructure the power sector by separating
generation from transmission. The nature of energy storage falls into the gray area
between generation and transmission [10]. Because the net electricity output of PHS
operation is negative, a PHS facility usually cannot qualify as a power generator.
Although their crucial load-balancing and ancillary services to the grid and reduces the
needs for transmission upgrades, PHS facilities are not recognized as parts of the
transmission infrastructure [11]. This confusion in business models has deterred the
development of PHS in the United States.
Table 4 PHS stations in the United States.

Plant Name
Rocky River
Flatiron
Hiwassee Dam
Lewiston Niagara
Taum Sauk
Yards Creek
Cabin Creek
W R Gianelli
Muddy Run
ONeill
Thermalito
Edward C Hyatt
Salina
FirstEnergy Seneca
Smith Mountain
Mormon Flat
Horse Mesa
Degray
Northfield Mountain
Ludington
Blenheim Gilboa
Jocassee
10

County
Litchfield
Larimer
Cherokee
Niagara
Reynolds
Warren
Clear Creek
Merced
Lancaster
Merced
Butte
Butte
Mayes
Warren
Franklin
Maricopa
Maricopa
Clark
Franklin
Mason
Schoharie
Pickens

State
CT
CO
NC
NY
MO
NJ
CO
CA
PA
CA
CA
CA
OK
PA
VA
AZ
AZ
AR
MA
MI
NY
SC

Type
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure

Rating/
(MW)
31
9
95
240
408
453
300
424
1 072
25
83
293
288
469
247
54
100
28
940
1 979
1 000
612

Commission
Year
1928
1954
1956
1962
1963
1965
1967
1967
1967
1968
1968
1968
1970
1970
1970
1971
1972
1972
1973
1973
1973
1974

Bear Swamp
Castaic
Carters
Fairfield Pumped Storage
Raccoon Mountain
Wallace Dam
Grand Coulee
Harry Truman
Mount Elbert
Helms Pumped Storage
Clarence Cannon
Bath County
J S Eastwood
Bad Creek
Waddell
North Hollywood
Rocky Mountain
Richard B Russell
Lake Hodges

Berkshire
Los Angeles
Murray
Fairfield
Hamilton
Hancock
Grant
Benton
Lake
Fresno
Ralls
Bath
Fresno
Oconee
Maricopa
Los Angeles
Floyd
Elbert
San Diego

MA
CA
GA
SC
TN
GA
WA
MO
CO
CA
MO
VA
CA
SC
AZ
CA
GA
GA
CA

Pure
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Pure
Pure
Pure
Pure
Hybrid
Pure
Hybrid
Pure

600
1 275
250
511
1 714
209
314
161
200
1 053
31
2 862
200
1 065
40
5
848
328
42

1974
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1980
1981
1983
1984
1984
1985
1987
1991
1993
1993
1995
2002
2012

The diverged paths of PHS development in Japan, China, and the United States have
shown that the national regulatory and institutional environments have tremendous
impacts on the deployment of PHS. PHS facilities are large facilities that require huge
upfront capital investments, and the paybacks are spread over many decades. If a
government wishes to facilitate the development of PHS, it needs to provide a stable and
predictable regulatory environment, and a reasonable pricing scheme that allow the PHS
facilities to be compensated for their services to the transmission grid.
4. Prospects
In recent years, due to increasing concern for global warming and the call to de-carbonize
electricity, there has been increasing commercial interest in PHS [12]. Developers are
actively pursuing new PHS projects around the world.
4.1 Revival of conventional PHS
More than 100 new PHS plants with about 74 GW capacities worldwide are expected to
be in operation by 2020 [13]. China has the most aggressive plan. In 2014, the Chinese
government announced its plan to more than quadruple its current PHS installations to a
total capacity of 100 GW by 2025 [14]. Driven by the need to accommodating rapid
11

growth of intermittent renewable electricity, Europe is also witnessing a renaissance of

PHS, particularly in Spain, Switzerland, and Austria, with 27 GW new PHS capacity
expected by 2020 [15]. Although Japan already has the highest density of PHS
installation in the world, Japanese power companies are continuing to develop more PHS
plants. The United States is also experiencing a revival of PHS development. In 2014, the
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued licenses to construct and operate two
new PHS facilities (1.3 GW Eagle Mountain PHS and 400MW Iowa River PHS).
Another application for construction and operation license (for the 1 GW Parker Noll
PHS) is currently under review. In addition, there are over 40 proposed PHS projects
currently conducting feasibility studies with issued preliminary permits. With the mature
technology and high volume of commercial development activities, PHS will certainly
remain the most dominant energy storage technology in the foreseeable future.
4.2 Alternative and novel PHS designs
Variable Speed PHS: Most existing PHS facilities are equipped with fixed-speed pump
turbine. While those fixed-speed PHS facilities may provide economical bulk electricity
storage, they can only provide frequency regulation during its generating mode, but not in
pumping mode. With the increasing adoption of variable power sources such as wind and
solar, there is an increasing demand for frequency regulation. New variable speed
technology allows PHS facilities to regulate frequency at both pumping and generating
modes. Japan has pioneered the variable-speed PHS technology and has successfully
operated such systems at the Okawachi PHS station for over twenty years [16, 17].
European countries are actively introducing variable speed PHS in recent years in order
to accommodate more variable renewable electricity in their power portfolios [18].
Seawater PHS: In addition to the worldwide revived interests in developing conventional
PHS projects, many developers are also proposing new approaches. Japan has pioneered
seawater PHS. The Okinawa seawater PHS station, which has commenced operation in
1999, is the worlds first seawater PHS system [19]. The Okinawa PHS station uses the
open sea as the lower reservoir together with a constructed upper reservoir at 150 meters
above sea level. New seawater projects have been proposed in Ireland, Greece, Belgium,
and the Netherlands [20, 21, 22, 23]. The energy islands concept proposed by the Dutch
consulting company DNV KEMA has an unusual approach; they plan to use the open sea
as the upper reservoir, and construct the lower reservoir by dredging and building a ring
of dikes at a depth of 50 m below sea level.
Underground PHS: Researchers since the 1970s [24], have proposed the possibility of
utilizing underground caverns as lower reservoirs for PHS projects but so far none have
been built [25]. The commercial interests in developing underground PHS have
resurfaced in recent years in the United States. Several U.S. developers have received
12

preliminary permits to study the feasibility of building underground PHS facilities at their
identified sites. A British company Quarry Battery is also working on developing
underground PHS facilities with abandoned quarries [26].
Compressed Air PHS: A promising innovative design (Figure 2) is to replace the upper
reservoir in PHS with a pressurized water container [27]. The air within the pressure
vessel becomes pressurized when water is pumped into the vessel. Instead of storing
potential energy in elevated water, the proposed compressed air pumped hydro system
stores the energy in compressed air. This innovative design could potentially free PHS
from the geographic requirements and make it feasible at almost any location with
flexible and scalable capacity. This concept is discussed in more detail in chapter 7.

Figure 2. Diagram of compressed air PHS

Undersea PHS: Another innovative concept (Figure 3) is to utilize the water pressure at
the bottom of the sea to store electricity from off-shore wind turbines [28]. The system
places submerged pressure vessels (hollow concrete tank) on the sea floor. It uses
electricity to pump water out of the tank to store energy, and generate electricity when
seawater is filling into the tank through the generator. This concept is further discussed in
chapter 6.

13

Figure 3. Diagram of undersea PHS

4.3 Retrofits of existing PHS and conventional hydropower stations

Many existing PHS facilities were built many decades ago and therefore were equipped
with outdated and inefficient technology. There is a significant potential in increasing
PHS capacity simply by renovating and upgrading the existing PHS facilities. Upgrades
to old PHS facilities typically include replacing outdated pumps/turbines, impellers, and
control systems with new advanced equipment. Many existing PHS station may increase
the capacity by 15% to 20% and efficiency by 5% to 10% [7]. In addition, many existing
conventional hydropower stations could be re-engineered to add a lower reservoir and
pump-back units to pump the water back to the upper reservoir during off-peak hours,
and become combined PHS stations for use with intermittent energy from renewable
sources such as wind turbines and solar panels.
Although PHS may be an essential enabling technology for de-carbonizing electricity, the
political will to mitigate carbon dioxide and to remove regulatory barriers for PHS is far
from certain. The price of natural gas is also a key determinant in the future of PHS.
Because PHS is essentially a peak-load technology, which competes directly with gas14

fired power, low natural gas price may render PHS uncompetitive. The vision of decarbonizing electricity and how PHS fits into it, will likely vary from country to country.

References
[1] Electrical Japan. .
http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/earthquake/201103-eastjapan/energy/electricaljapan/type/5.html.ja (accessed October 20, 2014)
[2] W. Peng, D. Chen. Some considerations on the development of pumped hydroelectric
storage power station in China (In Chinese: ).
State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Peoples Republic of China. 2010.
http://www.serc.gov.cn/jgyj/ztbg/201006/t20100621_13195.htm (assessed Nov. 24, 2010)
[3] EIA. Electricity: Form EIA-860 detailed data 2012. Energy Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. Washington DC. 2012.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/
[4] Army Corps. Engineering and design - hydropower. No. 1110-2-1701. Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army. Washington, DC. 1985.
[5] U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/pump-storage.asp (accessed
October 21, 2014)

[6] C.-J. Yang, R. Jackson. Opportunities and barriers to pumped-hydro energy storage in
the United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2011) 839844.
[7] R. Baxter. Energy Storage: A Nontechnical Guide, PennWell, Tulsa, OK, 2006.
[8] Available from: http://www.energystorageexchange.org/
[9] M. Zeng, K. Zhang, D. Liu. Overall review of pumped-hydro energy storage in China:
Status quo, operation mechanism and policy barriers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 17 (2013) 3543.
[10] APS Panel on Public Affairs Committee on Energy Environment. Challenges of
Electricity Storage Technologies. American Physical Society, 2007.
[11] FERC Encourages Transmission Grid Investment. Docket No. ER06-278-000.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC; March 20, 2008.

15

[12] J.P. Deane, B.P. Gallachir, E.J. McKeogh. Techno-economic review of existing and
new pumped hydro energy storage plant. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14
(2010) 12931302.
[13] Ecoprog GmbH. 2013. The World Market for Pumped-Storage Power Plants. Kln,
Germany.
[14] Xinhuanet, 2014. http://news.xinhuanet.com/energy/2014-11/19/c_127223035.htm
[15] M. Zuber. Renaissance for Pumped Storage in Europe, Hydro Review Worldwide 19
(2011). http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-19/issue-3/articles/newdevelopment/renaissance-for-pumped-storage-in-europe.html
[16] O. Nagura, M. Higuchi, K. Tani, T. Oyake. Hitachis adjustable-speed pumpedstroage system contributing to prevention of global warming. Hitachi Review 59 (2010)
99105.
[17] J.M.Henry, F. Maurer, J-L Drommi, T. Sautereau. Converting to variable speed at a
pumped-storage plant. Hydro Review Worldwide 21 (2013).
http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-5/articles/pumpedstorage/converting-to-variable-speed-at-a-pumped-storage-plant.html
[18] N. Lefebvre, M. Tabarin, O. Teller. A solution to intermittent renewable using
pumped hydropower. Renewable Energy World, March/April 2015. 4957.
[19] Available from: http://www.kankeiren.or.jp/kankyou/en/pdf/en108.pdf
[20] E. McLean, D. Kearney. An evaluation of seawater pumped hydro storage for
regulating the export of renewable energy to the national grid. Energy Procedia 46 (2014)
152160.
[21] D.A, Katsaprakakis, D.G. Christakis, I. Stefanakis, P. Spanos, N. Stefanakis. 2013.
Technical details regarding the design, the construction and the operation of seawater
pumped storage systems. Energy 55, 619630.
[22] M. LaMonica. A manmade island to store wind energy. MIT Technology Review,
February 5, 2013.
[23] Available from: http://earthtechling.com/2013/01/energy-island-for-wind-powerstorage-draws-belgiums-interest/
[24] S.W. Tam, C.A. Blomquist, G.T. Kartsounes. Underground pumped hydro storage
an overview. Energy Sources 4 (1979) 329351.
[25] W.F. Pickard. 2012. The History, Present State, and Future Prospects of
Underground Pumped Hydro for Massive Energy Storage. Proceedings of the IEEE 100,
473483.
16

[26] Available from: http://www.quarrybatterycompany.com/

[27] H. Wang, L.Wang, X. Wang, E. Yao. A Novel Pumped Hydro Combined with
Compressed Air Energy Storage System. Energies 6 (2013) 15541567.
[28] A.A. Slocum, G.E. Fennell, G. Dundar B.G. Hodder J.D.C. Meredith, M.A. Sager.
Ocean renewable energy storage (ORES) system: analysis of an undersea energy storage
concept. Proceedings of the IEEE 101 (2013) 906924.

17