Mitch, I don't think you're tracking what I'm saying... I even put the key bit in italics!
Dillon Nichols wrote:
I'm convinced that batteries are a better solution for the portion of your power storage that you ultimately wish to use as electrical power.'
I stand by this. The hot water and gravity flow suggestions are, as Steve says, not intended for electrical generation, but rather to utilize solar power to provide other needs in a way that reduces battery requirements.
Your updated electrical goals are a very far cry from the initially described problem.
If you want to live off grid and pretend you are on grid, I suggest you suck it up and throw money at a very large battery system. It may not make sense to use the solar panels for heat in this scenario, since you will need a lot of the available power for all these electrical wants.
400W is 6-10x the power I saw for small DC recirculating pumps. Looking at a plumbing supply site, pumps meant to fill this role *in a house* are rated from 1/40th to 1/6th HP, so even at the larger end a long ways from 400W. This is still the most immediate problem to resolve IMO.
As for the alternatives, I simply do not think that you will ultimately see better results, in terms of cost efficiency, from a system that attempts to take electrical power, convert it to to another form for storage, and then convert it back to electrical power. The stirling engine is very cool, but 1 engine with added generator, pressure box, and fire box will run you nearly 3 grand shipped for a theoretical max of 1000W. To the best of my knowledge stirling cycle engines have not surpassed 50% efficiency. Add that loss to any other efficiency losses along the way, and you will see that this proposed double-conversion is a very inefficient process.
Hydroelectric means a lot of water. If you have 50ft of head, you need 6,363 gallons of water to get 1 KWh... without accounting for efficiency losses during generation. So your existing pond wouldn't hold enough for 30KWh; plus, you'd need another pond to hold the water at the bottom, so you could then pump it back up. You'll have to do the math here... A lot would depend on the site, if you can easily put two ponds in close proximity with a 100ft drop between them, near your house and your solar location, that would be a big help....
Ultimately, my guess is once you add up the various costs(not just installation, but maintenance and increased risk of Murphy as component count and complexity increases) and drags on efficiency of any of the multiple conversion options discussed, you will find solar/battery to remain cheaper.
If your site has lots of wind, consider that as an option?
Good luck!