View Single Post
Old 07-02-2013, 04:49 PM   #49 (permalink)
ConnClark's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richland,WA
Posts: 983

Das Schlepper Frog - '85 Mercedes Benz 300SD
90 day: 23.23 mpg (US)

Gentoo320 - '04 Mercedes C320 4Matic
90 day: 22.44 mpg (US)
Thanks: 46
Thanked 229 Times in 158 Posts
Originally Posted by RedDevil View Post
I once had a tour round the Amer power plants in Geertruidenberg, the Netherlands. The biggest power plant in Holland at the time.
They were mainly using coal and a bit of natural gas.
Their 3-stage steam turbines and air-jet mattress burning bed (for near total combustion) made them close to 60% efficiŽnt measured from the caloric value of the coal to electricity delivered to the net; claiming a total efficiŽncy of around 50% from coal to house applicances, including transport and conversion losses.

That was July 1982. If 50% was possible then how come there are still plants around that perform significantly less?
A greater demand will no doubt make it more profitable to build fuel efficient power plants.
The electric car would thereby help, not hurt, the environment.
I'm calling BS on the 50% efficiency claim! peak steam cycle efficiency with today's top of the line super heated steam plants is 40% maximum. That is about the thermal dynamic limit. To exceed that you have to go to a binary vapor cycle (biggest was just 40MW) or Kalina cycle (of which are currently only small scale up to 3.6 MW).
  Reply With Quote