|
|
|
|
|
by PaulHoule
2087 days ago
|
|
Not economically competitive with a gas-turbine power plant powered by methane. (almost the same thing as the power plant on a jet airplane) The real hazard of the current "renewable energy" economy that is when the sun doesn't shine the backup power is generated from methane (aka 'natural gas') which has very high power density and very low capital cost compared to the steam turbine either in a coal or nuclear plant. (If the airplane was propelled by a steam turbine, the turbine would be the size of the fuselage) Almost no coal plants have been built in the period in which no nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. for pretty much the same reason. The steam turbine is so expensive it wouldn't be worth it even if the heat was free. --- If a new power source can beat fossil fuels in direct economics it saves the planet. The job is done. With anything that involves forcing somebody to pay somebody else to make something that is allegedly sustainable the one thing you do know is somebody will get rich on the friction, if the earth is saved is beside the point. If you love your children's grandchildren choose wisely. |
|
Doesn't natural gas power plants also use turbines to generate electricity? How can it be cheaper than the steam turbine portion of a coal/nuclear power plant?