Ed,
Thanks for pointing out the "excess capacity" part, I didn't give it consideration in my answer. Of course, I'm curious about what excess your referring too. Now you've added another layer, since generally power plants are run above capacity but with no capturing of the reserves not used. This would mean that to store the energy until you needed it, you would need some form of battery or very large capacitor type setup. You've now added a layer of cost that reduces your ability to make this economical even further. All the equipment needs to be taken into account when determining what is economical or cost effective.
From my point of view, and I think this is a big part of where we diverge, something is economical when it can produce a significant savings. Personally, when it comes to power consumption I don't consider 70 - 85% to be economical, because you're expending almost a third more in the amount of energy required to produce the savings, so you're actually working at a loss of anwhere from 15 - 30%, not including the infrastructer that needs to be built to make this project work.
Rather than look at hydrology, why not consider a combination of solar and wind to supplement the power station? Turn things around a bit more, and use the daytime juice, or a portion of it to pump liquid out of the ground, and place a well at the same or lower level than the source. This would be a big boost in terms of energy savings, and place it all above the power station so gravity now does all the work. Then in the evening, release the water from the well to create your hydro-electric generated power. Again, increasing the value by using a less effecient source when energy demands are much less.
This does make me thing of another quest though, once the water has traveled through the turbine, what do you do with it? You've changed the local ecology, and I would imagine from that you don't want to contribute negative actions to the local environment.
T