Delta Force
Banned
Thermal power stations generate electricity by using heat to drive steam and/or gas turbines (combined cycle uses both). After going through the process, there is still a lot of thermal waste heat left over that isn't suitable for electricity generation. Cogeneration facilities harness this energy to provide space heating or process heat for industrial applications.
Cogeneration facilities can achieve very high efficiencies. Edison built a cogeneration facility in the 1880s that achieved a thermal efficiency of nearly 50%. By comparison, the best modern single cycle systems achieve efficiencies in the mid-30% to mid-40% range, combined cycle plants achieve over 50%, and modern cogeneration facilities can achieve thermal efficiences of nearly 80%. In other words, Edison was achieving thermal efficiences comparable to and in many cases better than those achieved by modern central grid utility power stations with his small power station.
The benefits of cogeneration were realized and it was extensively used on early power stations for electric companies and industrial users. However, as the electric companies grew into utilities and expanded beyond urban areas, power stations weren't always in a location where cogeneration was practical, and eventually it became uncommon.
Electricity demand was growing 7% per year (doubling every decade) between the 1890s and 1973, but demand for heating shouldn't grow that rapidly, and when electricity demand outpaces local supply the needed power can be supplied by the central grid.
A consequence of this is that there would probably be less demand for coal gas/natural gas and petroleum heating, because electric companies would be providing the heating instead. The market for stoves might not be lucrative enough to justify a coal gas/natural gas company. That might slow the expansion of natural gas use, but it could leave more of it for utilities to use in power stations from the 1960s onwards. Maybe some of that natural gas could even be burned in urban cogeneration facilities, where it would produce energy with less health and environmental consequences than coal or petroleum power stations.
Without abandoning the centralized grid approach to things, which has a lot of advantages, could cogeneration have remained popular, at least in some areas? Would this lead to an earlier expansion into natural gas for utilities?
Cogeneration facilities can achieve very high efficiencies. Edison built a cogeneration facility in the 1880s that achieved a thermal efficiency of nearly 50%. By comparison, the best modern single cycle systems achieve efficiencies in the mid-30% to mid-40% range, combined cycle plants achieve over 50%, and modern cogeneration facilities can achieve thermal efficiences of nearly 80%. In other words, Edison was achieving thermal efficiences comparable to and in many cases better than those achieved by modern central grid utility power stations with his small power station.
The benefits of cogeneration were realized and it was extensively used on early power stations for electric companies and industrial users. However, as the electric companies grew into utilities and expanded beyond urban areas, power stations weren't always in a location where cogeneration was practical, and eventually it became uncommon.
Electricity demand was growing 7% per year (doubling every decade) between the 1890s and 1973, but demand for heating shouldn't grow that rapidly, and when electricity demand outpaces local supply the needed power can be supplied by the central grid.
A consequence of this is that there would probably be less demand for coal gas/natural gas and petroleum heating, because electric companies would be providing the heating instead. The market for stoves might not be lucrative enough to justify a coal gas/natural gas company. That might slow the expansion of natural gas use, but it could leave more of it for utilities to use in power stations from the 1960s onwards. Maybe some of that natural gas could even be burned in urban cogeneration facilities, where it would produce energy with less health and environmental consequences than coal or petroleum power stations.
Without abandoning the centralized grid approach to things, which has a lot of advantages, could cogeneration have remained popular, at least in some areas? Would this lead to an earlier expansion into natural gas for utilities?