Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations

From: Baby Elian (SPAM)_at_virgilio.it)
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 23:14:55 GMT

"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4220F4C9.161BA0BF@eagle.ca...
> Hans wrote:
>>
>> Thermal power plants are the backbone of our electricity system.
>> However, because of their relatively low efficiency, these plants are
>> often judged inefficient and should be replaced as soon as possible by
>> 'better ones'.
>>
>> In this SEAL briefing paper, Eike Roth presents an argument that such
>> conclusion may be a bit rash. Efficiency of power plants is defined on
>> a combination of the laws of physics with manmade conventions. In
>> practice, the contribution of each power station should be judged on a
>> combination of factors, such as:
>>
>> - efficiency
>> - environmental impact
>> - availability
>> - dispatchability
>>
>> http://www.sealnet.org/s/9.pdf
>
> Title, "Why thermal power plants have a relatively
> low efficiency". Not insane.
>
> High-temperature nuclear power plants have operated
> relatively high in the relatively low range; thus,
> I was recently informed, the German THTR-300 accomplished
> all its heat rejection using a dry cooling tower.

What's the problem in using this waste heat to make nuclear district
heating?300 MWe corresponds to 450 MW thermal at 40% electric efficiency and
we could satisfy the heat demand of a city of hundreds of thousand of
inhabitants.Is it wrong?