Lockheed 100MW Power Plant: This One Looks Better - Small Footprint 680 MW ! Canada

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
The Lockheed 100 MW Power Plant looked impressive but this one completed in 2010
in Ontario, Canada looks better if you run it on Natural Gas. Total output is 680 MW.

It's a little deceiving. You need to dig into the details to see what is going on to reach
680 MW.



The truth:

The 2 Siemens Gas Turbines Generators generate 190 MW each. That's adds up to 380 MW.

The waste heat from the turbines is sent to boilers which create steam that turn a steam

turbine rated at 300 MW. 380 MW + 300 MW = 680 MW

This is the Halton Hills Power Plant completed in 2010.




posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The term for this type of installation is cogeneration.

Here is an article about the cogen plant that has been supplying the Reading Hospital and Medical Center with electrical power, heating and cooling (through absorption chillers) for a couple of years now. If you take notice to the pic at the bottom of the link, there are no cooling towers.
Natural gas fired turbines drive electrical generators and the exhaust generates steam in two boilers. The steam is used for heating, cooling, making domestic hot water and clean steam for autoclaves.
Albright College, a few miles away from this installation has also installed a cogeneration plant.

Reading Hospital Cogeneration Plant



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
An enhanced efficiency gas consuming power station is better than a small fusion reactor? I dont think so, sorry.

One will revolutionise mankinds power generation. The other is a gas power station.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
An enhanced efficiency gas consuming power station is better than a small fusion reactor? I dont think so, sorry.

One will revolutionise mankinds power generation. The other is a gas power station.


The Lockheed Martin Fusion Reactor requires Deuterium and Tritium.

Tritium's radioactivity requires special attention.

You would have to run 7 Lockheed Fusion Reactors in parallel to match the output

of 680 MW Halton Hill Combined Cycle Power Plant.

There is no radioactivity to worry about with Gas Turbines running on natural gas.

BTW, where do i buy a truck load of Tritium?



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I'd be impressed if the costs were competitive AND the Co2 emissions were regulated stiffly enough to make a signfiicant difference in the AGW issue. Remember that modern day climatologists are not calling for reduced emissions. That's much too weak. They're calling for drastic cuts.

They're forecasting upwards of 800pm Co2 by 2100 and a 3-6c rise in temperature.

The last time Co2 concentration was as high as it's now (~400) was about 15 million years ago. You like warm weather? Well subtract the north pole and most of hte ice in antarctica? Still like that warm weather? You may indeed like, but millions (maybe more) of people will have to move away from coastal areas. Big migrations of creatures to new places to establish new ecosystems. Increasingly acidic oceans that're killing off coral and eating the shells of marine life. All this mess will happen in the span of 100 years. This means tremendous strain will be applied to the earth system.

We will not only be required to cut emissions drastically but we'll also have to geoengineer.

I do not see a bleak future, unlike many people. I happen to think we will not only find ways to produce energy more cheaply, but we'll do it cleanly too. But it'll be a pain getting there. But I'm not so sure it'll be as bad as many fear. People exaggerate things or sometimes have misplaced fears. I'm not saying here that vast disruption to our economy will not also lead to vast numbers of deaths and/or sequences of war. I'm only saying that no matter how much we think we know the future we do not. We just have to be smart about our choices. The rest just magically happens.

Being smart can be a b**** though. Didn't say it was easy.
edit on 4-3-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I'd be impressed if the costs were competitive AND the Co2 emissions were regulated stiffly enough to make a signfiicant difference in the AGW issue. Remember that modern day climatologists are not calling for reduced emissions. That's much too weak. They're calling for drastic cuts.

They're forecasting upwards of 800pm Co2 by 2100 and a 3-6c rise in temperature.

The last time Co2 concentration was as high as it's now (~400) was about 15 million years ago. You like warm weather? Well subtract the north pole and most of hte ice in antarctica? Still like that warm weather? You may indeed like, but millions (maybe more) of people will have to move away from coastal areas. Big migrations of creatures to new places to establish new ecosystems. Increasingly acidic oceans that're killing off coral and eating the shells of marine life. All this mess will happen in the span of 100 years. This means tremendous strain will be applied to the earth system.
edit on 4-3-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


Since we all live on Earth, i think China should shut down ALL of the coal fired power plants

and build these 680 MW power plants all over the place.

BTW, i think in less than 100 years we will be living on floating cities in the sky that have

ZERO emission power generation.



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 

I agree.

IF the climatologists are right then yes those coal power plants should be shutdown.

But unlike you I'm unsure these NG plants are the solution. Show me that they will cut Co2 emissions enough to make a dent in the forecasts. Show that it satisfies leading climatologists.
edit on 4-3-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Its not cogeneration, its called combined cycle. A Brayton cycle (gas turbine) + Rankin cycle.(HRSG)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Its not cogeneration, its called combined cycle. A Brayton cycle (gas turbine) + Rankin cycle.(HRSG)

You are correct.
I wasn't thinking there.
I will say that cogeneration is more efficient. No cooling towers dumping heat into the atmosphere.

I have worked with a number of powerplants here in the Northeast US that have leased property to greenhouse operations that use the heat to grow tomatoes.



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Its not cogeneration, its called combined cycle. A Brayton cycle (gas turbine) + Rankin cycle.(HRSG)


They take the waste heat from the turbines and then boil water. Well, i guess that will work for now.

It's too bad we don't have a 100% efficient thermoelectric generator.

We could forget about the high maintenance steam plant and switch to a more

solid state solution.

Oh well, maybe next year. In the meantime, lets boil some water and send the steam

to a steam turbine.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join