▲ | godelski 2 days ago | |||||||
I think you're missing some use cases and some parameters. For the average home, this doesn't make sense. But for a hospital? A data center? There are plenty of places that are happy to pay a premium for an independent, redundant, and/or emergency power source. Somewhere like a hospital is going to get big advantages from something like this because it not only provides electricity but hot water (reducing the electrical demand that would go to hot water creation). There are also big advantages to remote places. Getting power in Alaska[0]. It's even difficult to get it in places like Alberta or Montana, both of which will also would take advantage of the heat source. Even at 5 years, this is more reliable than something like a gas generator and has a lot of logistical advantages. This says it does 1MW or electric power and 1.9MW of thermal. I found a 1MW generator[1], and it looks to consume between 77-87 gal/hr. A gallon weighs 7lbs, so 80 gal is 560lbs and takes 0.3m3. At one day's consumption (1920 gal) you need to be able to store over 13klbs and it'll take up 7.3m3 (not including the volume of the container and that it needs to be stored somewhere that is dry but also well ventilated). On top of that, diesel has a self life of 6mo (can extend to a year), so you're going to be doing a lot of deliveries... Given that, I can see a lot of places that would gladly make those trade-offs. Also, if it can fit self-contained in a container, the parts are going to be much smaller. You gotta start somewhere, right? Doesn't seem a bad idea to start with edge customers who are willing to pay a premium. [0] https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/US-AK/72h/hourly [1] https://mart.cummins.com/imagelibrary/data/assetfiles/007036... | ||||||||
▲ | AnthonyMouse a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> But for a hospital? A data center? There are plenty of places that are happy to pay a premium for an independent, redundant, and/or emergency power source. Those places are just going to keep a diesel generator, because they only need it once or twice a year and it costs less. > Somewhere like a hospital is going to get big advantages from something like this because it not only provides electricity but hot water (reducing the electrical demand that would go to hot water creation). Diesel generators can do the same thing. Meanwhile on ordinary days the power would be supplied from the grid, which is even cheaper than diesel generators. > There are also big advantages to remote places. Getting power in Alaska But how many people need a MW of continuous power in the wilderness and are willing to pay that much for it? The major industry in those areas is oil and gas. > I found a 1MW generator[1], and it looks to consume between 77-87 gal/hr. Diesel generators are typically used for emergency power and then the fuel consumption isn't a major concern because they're infrequently used. Power plants for continuous stationary use will typically use the same generation methods as the grid and can then attach to natural gas pipelines or use generation methods like wind/solar/hydro that don't consume fuel. For transient use you'd need to move fuel, but in the alternative you have to move the reactor. > Doesn't seem a bad idea to start with edge customers who are willing to pay a premium. Sure, but who actually are they? What usage needs a MW of continuous power but has to be in a place that can't connect to the grid? Remote mining operations maybe? But their equipment is designed to run directly on liquid fuels because electricity is assumed to be unavailable. It's not impossible that it exists but it doesn't seem like a huge market. | ||||||||
|