|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2006 > Generator efficiency
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Generator efficiency
|
|
| Bruce Richmond 2006-12-22, 3:25 am |
| There are about 140,000 BTUs in a gallon of Diesel fuel, and 3415 BTU
per kilowatt hour. So at 1005 efficiency you would get about 41
kilowatt hours per gallon of fuel. Anyone got any idea what a little
unit like this would do?
http://www.allworlddieselgen.com/adg_kubota_Marine.htm
I would assume that a low rpm model would be more efficient than a high
rpm model, but that may not be true. I notice for these nearly
identical units the power outputs are 4.5/2000 vs 7/2800. So for a 40%
increase in rpm you get a 55% increase in power. Of course there is
nothing saying that the fuel used is directly proportional to the rpm.
Anyone got any links to sites where they give specific info on fuel
useage at a given power output?
In the automotive world turbo Diesels not only put out more power for a
given size engine, they also get better fuel mileage. Anyone know of
any small (under 10 KW) turbo Diesel generators?
Thanks, Bruce
| |
|
| Bruce Richmond wrote:
> I would assume that a low rpm model would be more efficient than a high
> rpm model, but that may not be true. I notice for these nearly
> identical units the power outputs are 4.5/2000 vs 7/2800. So for a 40%
> increase in rpm you get a 55% increase in power. Of course there is
> nothing saying that the fuel used is directly proportional to the rpm.
==================================
Power is torque x speed, so same cylinder firing more often gives more
power. Usually longevity is important in a generator, so slower is
better. Weight of generator is less important for non mobile use. You
want to use this out behind the barn, or in your car?
I think the idea of 'super tuning' the intake and exhaust to run at
exactly one speed is interesting... I calculated that the time between
'bangs' at 1800 rpm traveling down an exhaust pipe that was 1/4 of a
wvelength of the bang frequency needed a 19' exhaust pipe. Maybe rig up
a telescoping pipe and a fuel flow gauge and 'tune' it for min fuel
consumption like a trombone.
| |
| sylvan butler 2006-12-22, 1:25 pm |
| On 21 Dec 2006 21:37:19 -0800, Bruce Richmond <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I would assume that a low rpm model would be more efficient than a high
> rpm model, but that may not be true. I notice for these nearly
I doubt it is. Low RPM is usually used to optimize noise and equipment
life. Higher RPM usually puts the engine more into the power band,
which is typically more fuel efficient (and also allows using a smaller,
lighter engine albeit with more noise and shorter lifespan).
sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com
| |
| Loren Amelang 2006-12-22, 5:25 pm |
| On 21 Dec 2006 21:37:19 -0800, "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>There are about 140,000 BTUs in a gallon of Diesel fuel, and 3415 BTU
>per kilowatt hour. So at 100[%] efficiency you would get about 41
>kilowatt hours per gallon of fuel. Anyone got any idea what a little
>unit like this would do?
>
>http://www.allworlddieselgen.com/adg_kubota_Marine.htm
>
>Anyone got any links to sites where they give specific info on fuel
>useage at a given power output?
There are lots of marine "DC Charger" sites that claim "1/8 GPH" for
those little Kubota E-300 engines, typically at 2800 RPM. But I
haven't seen any specific load specification to go with that claim.
Look for the thread "hot shower from generator heat", especially my 9
Dec 06 post:
-----
If "Bruce in Alaska's" rules of thumb are right, I can recover 75% of
1/3 of the fuel input from the coolant of an EA300 making 2250 W of
power, maybe 1875 W or 6.4 KBTU/Hr. And 50% of another 1/3 from the
exhaust, maybe 1250 W or 4.2 KBTU/Hr (or 2 RunHr/"Hollywood Shower").
And it will eat about 7500 W or 25.6 KBTU/Hr or 0.19 Gal/Hr of diesel.
-----
Loren
| |
| Bruce Richmond 2006-12-22, 9:25 pm |
|
BobG wrote:
> Bruce Richmond wrote:
> ==================================
> Power is torque x speed, so same cylinder firing more often gives more
> power. Usually longevity is important in a generator, so slower is
> better. Weight of generator is less important for non mobile use. You
> want to use this out behind the barn, or in your car?
> I think the idea of 'super tuning' the intake and exhaust to run at
> exactly one speed is interesting... I calculated that the time between
> 'bangs' at 1800 rpm traveling down an exhaust pipe that was 1/4 of a
> wvelength of the bang frequency needed a 19' exhaust pipe. Maybe rig up
> a telescoping pipe and a fuel flow gauge and 'tune' it for min fuel
> consumption like a trombone.
The efficiency I was interested in was getting the most KW hours out of
a gallon of fuel, which is not the same as getting the most power out
of the engine. Running slower means less internal pumping losses, less
friction, more time for complete combustion. The cam timing, injector
timing and manifold lengths can be optimised for the chosen rpm.
What I have in mind is using a liquid cooled generator to heat a house.
The electrical power could be used to run a geothermal heat pump. All
the heat dumped into the cooling system would heat the house. The
exhaust could be run through a heat exchanger for the heating system,
then a heat exchanger to warm the intake air for the Diesel, then
through a heat pump coil to get it down to or slightly below the
outside air temp.
If the engine/generator is 40% efficient, and the heat pump has a COP
of 8, then it would pump .4*8=3.2 times as much heat into the house as
was contained in the fuel used. Add to that the remaining 60% of the
energy that was given off as heat from the engine/generator. Since no
heat is allowed to leave the house from the cooling system or exhaust
it must all be going to heat the house. That means a total of 3.8
times the fuel energy would be available.
Looked at another way, heating fuel consumption could be cut by 76%.
| |
| Jens Kr. Kirkebø 2006-12-23, 9:25 am |
| On 22 Dec 2006 18:54:50 -0800, "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>If the engine/generator is 40% efficient, and the heat pump has a COP
>of 8, then it would pump .4*8=3.2 times as much heat into the house as
>was contained in the fuel used.
You won't be able to get a geothermal heat pump with a COP of 8. The
highest "marketing numbers" today are around 5, the best real-world
results about 4.
| |
|
| On 22 Dec 2006 18:54:50 -0800, "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
>If the engine/generator is 40% efficient,
I don't think you'll get to this conversion level unless you are in
the 100kW(e) class, even then you have to look at engine conversion
efficiency and electrical generator efficiency separately. With high
rate of flux cutting permanent magnet generators you may get 90% but
small excited field alternators tend to be less, I did some sums which
suggested the investment in pm alternator paid off in about 20k
running hours.
>and the heat pump has a COP
>of 8, then it would pump .4*8=3.2 times as much heat into the house as
>was contained in the fuel used.
Of course the COP will change with delta T so it could depend on how
it is configured, even so this is a high claim.
In principle I like the idea as using an electrical powered heat pump
can optimise the engine load and put its overall efficiency up. In
practice the 10kVA one we installed had an induction generator, had
only simple controls, ran at constant revs variable load and we only
captured a small amount of exhaust heat from the manifold and coolant
so we appeared to get 20% electrical conversion overall.
AJH
| |
| Ecnerwal 2006-12-23, 9:25 am |
| In article <1166765839.762392.253740@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Anyone got any links to sites where they give specific info on fuel
> useage at a given power output?
Yup, go to http://www.generatorsales.com and read the specs. They vary
widely, but a typical on the good side figure is 0.07-0.08 gal/KWh, and
on the bad side it trends towards 0.1-0.12 gal/KWh. The smallest units
do not have the best specific (i.e., fuel in to KWh out) fuel
consumption, and different units vary widely, such that one 8 KW unit
may burn as much fuel as another 14 KW at full output. Really large
units can do even better, but only if you are actually using some
significant portion of their capacity.
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
|
| Ecnerwal wrote:
> In article <1166765839.762392.253740@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yup, go to http://www.generatorsales.com and read the specs. They vary
> widely, but a typical on the good side figure is 0.07-0.08 gal/KWh, and
> on the bad side it trends towards 0.1-0.12 gal/KWh. The smallest units
> do not have the best specific (i.e., fuel in to KWh out) fuel
> consumption, and different units vary widely, such that one 8 KW unit
> may burn as much fuel as another 14 KW at full output. Really large
> units can do even better, but only if you are actually using some
> significant portion of their capacity.
>
The very first one I calculated worked out to .127 gal/KWh, which is
outside the range you cited. Perhaps you could say more specifically
how you got your numbers?
http://www.generatorsales.com/order...497000_tri_fuel
..89 gal/7KWh=.127
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
| |
| Arnold Walker 2006-12-23, 5:25 pm |
|
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1166842490.371630.237800@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> BobG wrote:
>
> The efficiency I was interested in was getting the most KW hours out of
> a gallon of fuel, which is not the same as getting the most power out
> of the engine. Running slower means less internal pumping losses, less
> friction, more time for complete combustion. The cam timing, injector
> timing and manifold lengths can be optimised for the chosen rpm.
>
> What I have in mind is using a liquid cooled generator to heat a house.
> The electrical power could be used to run a geothermal heat pump. All
> the heat dumped into the cooling system would heat the house. The
> exhaust could be run through a heat exchanger for the heating system,
> then a heat exchanger to warm the intake air for the Diesel, then
> through a heat pump coil to get it down to or slightly below the
> outside air temp.
>
> If the engine/generator is 40% efficient, and the heat pump has a COP
> of 8, then it would pump .4*8=3.2 times as much heat into the house as
> was contained in the fuel used. Add to that the remaining 60% of the
> energy that was given off as heat from the engine/generator. Since no
> heat is allowed to leave the house from the cooling system or exhaust
> it must all be going to heat the house. That means a total of 3.8
> times the fuel energy would be available.
That 40% efficient number is for full throttle and full load at constant
speed.
Varying load and throttle will deliver half that number.
Car manufacturers play that game ......by advertising that a gas engine got
23% on
on the dyno.But fail to mention your trip across town is 10 or 12%,not the
dyno numbers.
On a diesel,your waste heat in btu's is higher from the radiator than the
exhaust.Reversved from what you get with a gas engine.
Part of the reason diesels usually have a bigger radiator for a given engine
displacement than gas.
I have done some combined cycle work at the shop to know,,,,,PC crowd would
probalby call them , ic/steam hydrids.
The educated guys call them combined cycle.....like they have been known for
the past 70-100yrs.
Now back the efficiency number.....suppose that you wanted to use all the
waste heat to generate electricity and heat a house.
1...house only needs 15psi hot water to heat it.(look at the radiant floor
pressures or the old time radiators)
2..low pressure steam can be used to help the diesel turn the
generator.(smaller engine and less fuel for a KW of electricity)
>
> Looked at another way, heating fuel consumption could be cut by 76%.
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Ecnerwal 2006-12-23, 5:25 pm |
| In article <458D6C68.4090205@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
wrote:
> The very first one I calculated worked out to .127 gal/KWh, which is
> outside the range you cited. Perhaps you could say more specifically
> how you got your numbers?
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order...=PM0497000_tri_
> fuel
>
> .89 gal/7KWh=.127
Well, to begin with, I looked at _diesel_, not tri-fuel
(gas/propane/natural gas) which tend to be significantly less efficient,
and don't last as long.
Nor do I regard 0.127 .vs. 0.12 as hugely significant, since it's
already at the wrong end of the range and not worth looking at anyway
when the 0.07 gal/KWh units are available. But it's not even the right
type of generator, and the fuel does not contain the same amount of
energy to begin with, so it's irrelevant...
My particular area of interest has been 1800 rpm liquid-cooled diesel
units in the 6-20KW class, and since the OP specifically mentioned
_diesel_, I offered up the numbers I have found for that class while
shopping and comparing. Which is not to say that some could not be
worse, but comparing to a non-diesel is apples to oranges. It may help
you to grasp one of many reasons that diesel is the better option for
serious power production.
I generally look at the prime power (not standby power) rating as 100%
and do the logical thing with the math. I also compare at 75% and 50%
since the numbers are provided. A good diesel will scale down fuel
consumption almost directly with load, which is another reason diesel is
better than a carburated engine - as I know to my regret, a gasoline
generator sucks nearly as much fuel running a 100 watt light bulb as it
does cranking out 8KW.
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
| Arnold Walker 2006-12-23, 5:25 pm |
|
"Loren Amelang" <loren@pacific.net> wrote in message
news:ejnoo2p2h5rif15h1smqfvap8j4u239ci6@4ax.com...
> On 21 Dec 2006 21:37:19 -0800, "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> There are lots of marine "DC Charger" sites that claim "1/8 GPH" for
> those little Kubota E-300 engines, typically at 2800 RPM. But I
> haven't seen any specific load specification to go with that claim.
>
> Look for the thread "hot shower from generator heat", especially my 9
> Dec 06 post:
> -----
> If "Bruce in Alaska's" rules of thumb are right, I can recover 75% of
> 1/3 of the fuel input from the coolant of an EA300 making 2250 W of
> power, maybe 1875 W or 6.4 KBTU/Hr. And 50% of another 1/3 from the
> exhaust, maybe 1250 W or 4.2 KBTU/Hr (or 2 RunHr/"Hollywood Shower").
> And it will eat about 7500 W or 25.6 KBTU/Hr or 0.19 Gal/Hr of diesel.
> -----
>
> Loren
Bruce's number are pretty close to what I get for my combined cycle
work......
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| James Lerch 2006-12-24, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:12:13 GMT, Ecnerwal
>My particular area of interest has been 1800 rpm liquid-cooled diesel
>units in the 6-20KW class, and since the OP specifically mentioned
>_diesel_, I offered up the numbers I have found for that class while
>shopping and comparing.
I'd be interested in the models you've found data on.
Early last summer I measured my 1800 rpm 1cyl 1.2liter ChangFa
Generator, and it's best was 0.091 gal/hr while making 9.2Kw. On
either side of 9.2kw the efficiency was worse.
I also gathered as much published data as I could find (it's on my
web-page in my sig below, work day 7&8). I used the data to build
some interesting graphs. All things considered, my home built
generator seems to be in the right ball park with regards to
efficiency.
Take Care,
James Lerch
http://lerch.no-ip.com/atm (My telescope construction, Testing, and Coating site)
http://lerch.no-ip.com/ChangFa_Gen (My 11.2Kw generator project)
Press on: nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Calvin Coolidge
| |
| Ecnerwal 2006-12-24, 5:25 pm |
| In article <458eda2c.634734@news-server.tampabay.rr.com>,
jlerch@no.spam.tampabay.rr.com (James Lerch) wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:12:13 GMT, Ecnerwal
>
>
> I'd be interested in the models you've found data on.
Assuming we believe the numbers, as these are published rather than
personally measured...
All (or most) at Generatorsales (central Maine diesel) list their
consumption at load, 3/4, and 1/2. Since I don't have those written down
in a list and they are easily available on the net, you can get them if
you have not already done so. I tend to run them on the fly and hone in
on where I want to go, rather than building a large list. I'm currently
thinking the 14KW 12-lead (1 or 3 phase) model which goes at:
14.4KW @ 0.92 Gal/hr, 10.8KW @ 0.68 Gal/hr, 7.2KW @ 0.47 Gal/hr
All somewhere in the 0.06X Gal/KWh range, thus attractive to me as I
expect to make a good deal of use of the generator, and fuel costs money.
Westerbeke 8BDTA claims 8KW @ 0.82 Gal/hr
Northern Lights NL753K - 8KW @ 0.73, 6KW 0.56 Gal/hr @ 4KW @ 0.37 Gal/hr
I've never gotten a straight answer (wattage out for this number, if
it's not BS) from those 1/8 gallon per hour on the EA300-series diesel
folks (several), and furthermore the engine's own data sheet (as
published at Aquamarine - Kubota does not seem to have a good web site)
does not back them up, so I think it's BS.
To use that chart, you have to convert pounds of fuel per BHP-hr to
gallons per hour at various horsepower (which varies with RPM) - a
gallon of diesel weighs 7.3 lbs. I get a quarter-gallon per hour at
3.5BHP and 1800 rpm, up to 0.38 at 6BHP and 3000 RPM. Figure a BHP at
746 watts, and electrical generator efficiency at 80 or 90 percent... I
get in the 0.11 Gal/KWh range for it, which is a lot more believable
than the (literally) incredible 2.8KW @ 0.125 G/hr that another place
claims; which would be 0.044 Gal/KWh, nice if it was real, but I very
much doubt it...and all those boat places cost too much. I suspect that
the 1/8 gal/hr figure may be real, at a low wattage, but they carefully
never quantify consumption at what load, so you are left to assume that
a device advertised as 2800 watts and 1/8 gallon per hour is doing those
at the same time, and it's not - why buy from misleading advertisers?
--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
| |
| Bruce Richmond 2006-12-24, 8:25 pm |
| Ecnerwal wrote:
> In article <458D6C68.4090205@prodigy.net>, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> Well, to begin with, I looked at _diesel_, not tri-fuel
> (gas/propane/natural gas) which tend to be significantly less efficient,
> and don't last as long.
>
> Nor do I regard 0.127 .vs. 0.12 as hugely significant, since it's
> already at the wrong end of the range and not worth looking at anyway
> when the 0.07 gal/KWh units are available. But it's not even the right
> type of generator, and the fuel does not contain the same amount of
> energy to begin with, so it's irrelevant...
>
> My particular area of interest has been 1800 rpm liquid-cooled diesel
> units in the 6-20KW class, and since the OP specifically mentioned
> _diesel_, I offered up the numbers I have found for that class while
> shopping and comparing. Which is not to say that some could not be
> worse, but comparing to a non-diesel is apples to oranges. It may help
> you to grasp one of many reasons that diesel is the better option for
> serious power production.
>
> I generally look at the prime power (not standby power) rating as 100%
> and do the logical thing with the math. I also compare at 75% and 50%
> since the numbers are provided. A good diesel will scale down fuel
> consumption almost directly with load, which is another reason diesel is
> better than a carburated engine - as I know to my regret, a gasoline
> generator sucks nearly as much fuel running a 100 watt light bulb as it
> does cranking out 8KW.
>
> --
> Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Thanks. I did notice that the first liquid cooled Diesel did .07
gal/KWh.
http://www.generatorsales.com/order/06711.asp?page=6711
At 40 KW it was a bit more than I was looking for though ;)
The 10 KW one
http://www.generatorsales.com/order...asp?page=1000TS
got .85 gal/KWh and it didn't matter if you were at 1/2, 3/4 or full
load.
This one was a surprise
http://www.generatorsales.com/order...page=yanmar_4kw
getting .076 at 4.5 KW.
This one is a winner if the numbers are any where near correct
http://www.generatorsales.com/order/2000TS_demo.asp
gettin .050 at full load and .056 at 1/2 load.
The above is more credible after seeing this one
http://www.generatorsales.com/order...sp?page=KBM2100
at .049 and .056 at 1/2 load.
..07 gal/KWh figures out to 35% efficiency. The 40% I had figured would
be .061 gal/KWh which seems possible with enough looking. Didn't see
any turbo diesels at this site. Not sure if they make them this small
but I'm going to do some more looking.
Thanks again,
Bruce
| |
| Bruce Richmond 2006-12-24, 8:25 pm |
|
Jens Kr. Kirkeb=F8 wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2006 18:54:50 -0800, "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> You won't be able to get a geothermal heat pump with a COP of 8. The
> highest "marketing numbers" today are around 5, the best real-world
> results about 4.
Thanks for the info. It was easy to find info on the theoretical COP
but not the real world numbers.
Bruce
| |
| Arnold Walker 2006-12-26, 3:25 am |
|
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1167007650.279605.54540@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ecnerwal wrote:
>
> Thanks. I did notice that the first liquid cooled Diesel did .07
> gal/KWh.
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order/06711.asp?page=6711
>
> At 40 KW it was a bit more than I was looking for though ;)
>
> The 10 KW one
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order...asp?page=1000TS
>
> got .85 gal/KWh and it didn't matter if you were at 1/2, 3/4 or full
> load.
>
> This one was a surprise
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order...page=yanmar_4kw
>
> getting .076 at 4.5 KW.
>
> This one is a winner if the numbers are any where near correct
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order/2000TS_demo.asp
>
> gettin .050 at full load and .056 at 1/2 load.
>
> The above is more credible after seeing this one
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order...sp?page=KBM2100
>
> at .049 and .056 at 1/2 load.
>
> .07 gal/KWh figures out to 35% efficiency. The 40% I had figured would
> be .061 gal/KWh which seems possible with enough looking. Didn't see
> any turbo diesels at this site. Not sure if they make them this small
> but I'm going to do some more looking.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Bruce
>
>
There are ,but most are obtained by DIY like the one shown on utterpower.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2006-12-26, 3:25 am |
|
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1167007650.279605.54540@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ecnerwal wrote:
>
> Thanks. I did notice that the first liquid cooled Diesel did .07
> gal/KWh.
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order/06711.asp?page=6711
>
> At 40 KW it was a bit more than I was looking for though ;)
>
> The 10 KW one
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order...asp?page=1000TS
>
> got .85 gal/KWh and it didn't matter if you were at 1/2, 3/4 or full
> load.
>
> This one was a surprise
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order...page=yanmar_4kw
>
> getting .076 at 4.5 KW.
>
> This one is a winner if the numbers are any where near correct
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order/2000TS_demo.asp
>
> gettin .050 at full load and .056 at 1/2 load.
>
> The above is more credible after seeing this one
>
> http://www.generatorsales.com/order...sp?page=KBM2100
>
> at .049 and .056 at 1/2 load.
>
> .07 gal/KWh figures out to 35% efficiency. The 40% I had figured would
> be .061 gal/KWh which seems possible with enough looking. Didn't see
> any turbo diesels at this site. Not sure if they make them this small
> but I'm going to do some more looking.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Bruce
Might add that combined cycle on small units is obtained by DIY.
They will usually roll 60% effiecency numbers on a turbo diesel.
Add a little ammonia and you can push 65 to 70% on a combined cycle running
kalina cycle.
A quick google will show you what I mean......large utility companies have
been installing them worldwide for the last
20years.With Kalina cycle being the newest development.
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
|
|