On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:57:02 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

microCHP is ideal if they are subsidised in new estate developments as less
electrical infrastructure needs to be run in. The microCHP copes with
peaks. The power companies can subsidise the installations. It also gives
dispersed power generation, so less power stations needed. Millions of
homes are needed and are planned (Credit Crunch is a blip which will go
away). If these homes are all fitted with microCHP the country will
benefit, as well as the householder too.

It all makes sense. It all adds up.

A report by Advantica the research and development department spinoff
of Centrica or Transco (I can't recall which) said that MicroCHP could
probably mitigate 0.45kW of electrical load per household for eight
hours a day across the winter heating period. On a development with
200 homes that's around 350A. When the electrical supply for those
200 homes will be capable of circa 20000A then the gains from
electrical infrastructure changes are zero because a reduction of that
level has no real impact on the overall design. Scale it up to a
small eco town of 10,000 homes and it makes a difference of a few 10's
of amps at 132kV, insignificant and making no real difference to the
design of the equipment.

The conclusions that a number of studies are coming to is that CHP can
work with a heating or cooling demand in a single installation of
around the 250kW level but below that the picture is far from
conclusive. What we can be sure of is that if MicroCHP had clear
benefits for reducing carbon emissions or infrastructure spend then
the likes of EdF and Eon would have been involved in a large scale
roll out programme more than two years ago. They haven't and that is
as clear a sign as any that it doesn't offer any real benefits to the
user, the utility or the environment.


--