On Feb 15, 11:10 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com"
wrote:
> On Feb 15, 12:09 pm, Dan Bloomquist
>
> > bsr3...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 14, 1:46 am, Dan Bloomquist
> > >> bsr3...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > >>> They have the cost down to
> > >>> 5 c per kwh.
> > >> Gee, now there is some kind of claim. Where do you get it?
>
> > >http://www.yourownpower.com/Power/2007GRCPaper.pdf
>
> > First they say:
> > ($1350/kWhr installed)
>
> For the equipment provided by UTC.
>
> > then:
> > project expenses totaled $2,007,770
> > for 400kw. $5000/kwh.
>
> To drill the hot source well, the well to inject the hot water back
> into, the well for the cold water, lay 3000 feet of 8" pipe for the
> hot water and 2700 feet of 18" pipe for the cold water, construct a
> building to house the generators and tie it all into the existing
> local grid. They only over ran their estimated cost by 5%. The last
> nuclear plant built around here over ran their estimate by over 300%.
>
> > Now, at 100% utilization for 20 years and no operating cost, the
> > $2million will net at some $.03/kw. So, maybe they will get by with
> > $.02/kw of operating and capital cost.
>
> From the final report for the Alaska Energy Authority
>
> http://www.yourownpower.com/Downloads/PowerPlantReport.pdf
>
> "Maintenance cost for the power plant is expected to be 1=A2 per kWhr."
>
> > But, compared to the 15Terawatts the world demands in energy, this is
> > just a nice story for that little community. In our house we demand 2kw
> > and all heating comes from propane.
>
> Oh, I see, if we can't get all our power from a single source it isn't
> worth looking at.
no dude, it's well worth looking at, for your house, or for a company,
or for many things, however, for an overall energy solution and
looking at the world grids, it needs to be able to provide a
measurable fraction like say 10% fully deployed to be worth
considering. Granted that this is a technology worth exploring
wherever it is viable, but it's unlikely to make a splash.