XPost: sci.space.policy
From: Write@Instead.com
"Mike Combs" wrote in
message news:e6ca9h$cv0$1@home.itg.ti.com...
> wrote in message
> news:1149508847.212400.70950@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Some baseload power stations may try to meet peak demand, but they tend
> > to be inflexible about ramping up power output to meet peak demands.
> > Accordingly, other power sources are often used in conjunction with
> > base load stations to meet peak demands. You don't need to have the
> > base load station carry all the work.
>
> Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I seem to recall reading that even in a
> market with SPS cranking out baseload electric power, one might have
> fossil-fuel plants standing by to kick in to help out with peak power
> demands. But in terms of both fuel use and CO2 emissions, that'd still be
a
> far cry from relying on fossil-fuel for both baseload and peak.
What I'm curious about is the expense of the infrastructure
on the receiving end. I would hope it'd much cheaper than
conventional power plants. And SPS would be very expensive
at first I suppose. So wouldn't the initial markets be those where
it's difficult or expensive to built conventional power plants?
Such as low density rural areas, harsh or sensitive environments.
Even is SPS is very expensive at first, it's versatility might
it help find a market.
Jonathan
s
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike Combs
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
> I bid you stand, Men of the West!
> Aragorn
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
