Pat's Peak New 21M gal. Summit Reservoir

TomWhite

https://www.newenglandskiindustry.com/viewstory.php?storyid=1137
This report on NESI reminds me of one of the resorts I grew up skiing at, Seven Springs east of Pittsburgh. They built a summit lake decades ago. It was for snowmaking, and recreation in the summer. Obviously, space will often be an issue, but few resorts do this. What is the advantage to this, as opposed to a pond at the base? My question presumes there is no massive spring that can fill a pond year after year. Thus, pumps must be used to bring water up from a stream/river near the base.

hazlntskier

I would assume they can pump water up to the pond at a flow rate much lower than what they would need for snowmaking. Then they can draw from the pond downhill at a much higher flow. Remember the owners also own a well company. Read the site about the seven sisters (wells). Incidently, almost all skyscrapers have large water tanks on roof of the building for the same reason. Just accommodating all the toilet flushes at end of coffee breaks instead of snowmaking.

newpylong

Largest advantage:

With traditional base to summit distribution lines, you have to discharge water at a very high pressure (usually 600-1200 PSI) in order to still maintain working pressure wherever you are making snow. This requires very high HP vertical turbine pumps (anywhere from 200 to 600 HP). If your water is at the top, you can use much smaller pumps and motors to move water around. You let gravity provide much of the pressure.

Beast Patroller

It’s always more efficient & cheaper to let gravity do the work. Berkshire East has both a base pond & a summit pond and besides the increase in capacity it allows them to produce more snow at a lower cost.

TomWhite

Thanks for all the comments.