Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations
From: Baby Elian (SPAM)_at_virgilio.it)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Jo Stein: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Previous message: Jo Stein: "Re: historical energy price data"
- In reply to: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Next in thread: Hatunen: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Reply: Hatunen: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:37:38 GMT
> Co-generation is good, but the piping to distribute heat from a nuclear
> power plant many miles from a population center must no be economical.
> Otherwise, it would be used now.
> Dist rict heating requires a district to heat. Nuclear power
> plants in the USA are purposefully located far from population
> centers. The distances are simply too great for piping heat to
> the population center. Even conventional plants stopped supplying district
> heat once
> central stations were moved out of city centers.
For example,I thought about a small Htgr reactor,e.g. a 165 MWe pebble bed
reactor,located *not so far* from a city center
How far could we put a thermal plant to be this district heat cost
effective?Is there an economical- technical document (or paper) on the web?
What can we estimate the thermal energy requiriments for a one hundred
thousand (or more) of inhabitants town?
- Next message: Jo Stein: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Previous message: Jo Stein: "Re: historical energy price data"
- In reply to: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Next in thread: Hatunen: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Reply: Hatunen: "Re: About good, bad and ugly power stations"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|