Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
- From: "R.H. Allen" <kkarie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:31:10 -0500
Bret Cahill wrote:
A 450 megawatt plant including coal and maintenance sheds and yard will
take up most of a square mile or 250 watts/m^2.
You can do better that with dish stirling.
Several studies have concluded that if you account for all of the surface land area required to operate a coal-fired power plant it is one of the land-hoggingest energy technologies we use. Wind and solar PV both typically do much better than coal in that regard. (Though once you account for capacity factor, solar PV is rather on par with coal, with wind still doing a bit better. I can't say for dish stirling.)
Of course, one of the "advantages" coal has is that much of the disrupted land is in the middle of nowhere where nobody but mining communities ever see it. Solar and wind are often, if not usually, located nearer to civilization where people can see it. If they don't like looking at it, the land-use argument is one of the first that comes to mind....
.
- References:
- Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
- From: Bret Cahill
- Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
- Prev by Date: Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
- Next by Date: Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
- Previous by thread: Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
- Next by thread: Re: Energy Density of Coal Fired Power Plant
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
