Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: The economy of scale says that one room sized CO2 supercritical electric > turbine is far more economical then 10 million sterling electric power > generators. >
I doubt it. Not when you include the cost of the wires, substations, the people who repair the wires after storms and so on. > > If you are a standalone survivalist, have the capital and the square > footage to install your own power system . . . > You are forgetting that a standalone system also functions as a heating and thermal airconditioning system. It eliminate electricity and gas and replaces the furnace, the airconditioner and the water heater. Your supercritical turbine cannot do all that. I have my open HVAC system at my house, and my own washer, dried and refrigerator. It might be more "efficient" to use district heating and pump steam through pipes for heat, the way they do at the campus at Cornell U. But it is not worth the trouble. Look at it this way. Automobiles are very inefficient. Everyone has his own, and they sit in the parking lot all day. Trains, buses or taxis make much better use of equipment, take up less space and cost far less. In cities such as Paris, the cars are crammed together. But we like to have individual ones because it is so convenient. It will not be more "convenient" to have one or two generators at home (one for backup) because no one cares where electricity comes from, but it will be cheaper and simpler in the long run, and that trumps efficiency. Eventually, thermoelectric power supplies will be built into everything. Everything from watches to refrigerators the automobiles will be self-powered. There will be no electric wires. It will be a lot safer. Note that refrigerators will use mainly heat, rather than electricity. - Jed
