Talk:Micro combined heat and power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hi, on the market status: I'm not so sure about it, but I think theres a lot bigger market for CHP existing in germany. Regards, daniel. i added the DE link. Mion 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Removed paragraph 2 Technologies 3 How to remove from a category? 86 "Hydrogen technologies" 4 biased article?

[edit] Removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph:

Additionally, in the U.S., federal and now many state regulations require utility operators to compensate anyone adding power to the grid. From the standpoint of grid operator, these points present operational and technical as well as administrative burdens. As a consequence, most grid operators compensate non-utility power-contributors at less-than or equal-to the rate they charge their customers. While this compensation scheme may seem almost fair at first glance, it only represents the consumer’s cost-savings of not purchasing utility power versus the true cost of generation and operation to the micro-CHP operator. Thus from the standpoint of micro-CHP operators, net-metering is not ideal.

It's hard to follow. The fact that an operator would pay its suppliers less than it charges its customers seems self evident. I can't follow the next sentence at all. I think it means that the rate paid is only that paid to existing generators, which doesn't cover the costs of CHP. Is that right? And if so, doesn't seem that reasonable? - Crosbiesmith 21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is evident is no reason to delete the part, it is only showing that operators will charge costs, a normal thing but it sheds some light how the price is build up.Mion 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the first part. Regarding the second part, the statement, "this compensation scheme may seem almost fair at first glance" seems to imply the compensation scheme is not fair, which doesn't seem a neutral point of view. Perhaps that could be omitted, or re-worded? - Crosbiesmith 17:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree on your point, now i can rewrite it, but i guess that the one having a problem with it, (which i support its not NPOV) , so please make it a neutral statement. (more because i am not native english) reg . Mion 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technologies

I removed the reciprocating engine, as a stirling and a steam motor use pistons, too. So, the expression internal combustion engine, burning heating oil (diesel) or natural gas (otto) is more appropriate. I erased the "rankine cycle" too, as the only rankine cycle engine in microCHP is the steam engine (see [1] which is already mentioned. ORC-cycles [2] are usually to big for the label microCHP. --Gunnar.Kaestle 09:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to remove from a category? 86 "Hydrogen technologies"

This page, according to the information in the article, has nothing at all to do with hydrogen technologies. So would someone remove it from that category? Thanks Beanluc 19:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biased article?

This overview seems very biased towards natural gas mCHP not to mention speculative.

The future of combined heat and power, particularly for homes and small businesses, will be greatly affected if natural gas prices continue to climb. While the waste heat from biomass, solar thermal, coal, diesel, heavy fuel oil and nuclear power plants can be used for CHP, such energy sources are far less convenient, more difficult to transport and more expensive for home use. Nuclear power, in particular, is impractical at small scales. Except for nuclear and solar power, these other energy sources also burn significantly less cleanly than natural gas, except where expensive pollution controls are used. Finally, of all of them, only diesel can be used in gas turbines or reciprocating engines, which are cheap, small and efficient, making them the choice for most small CHP installations.

Biomass can be very clean, and if you consider CO₂ as "dirty" biomass is much cleaner than natural gas. Depending on where you live, it is very easy to get a load of wood pellets delivered to your door directly into your storage bin, the experience being not any different than ordering up fuel oil. "Far less convenient" is subjective.

I'm no expert, but if an expert would include some actual market data it would be useful towards its . Specifically a breakdown of existing mCHP systems being sold by type/percentage/geography (US and Europe are very apart on alternative energy technology, with places like Germany and Sweden having such deep penetration that it is mainstream). Ultimately it would be useful to see a breakdown of mCHP installations in addition to "what is on offer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mieslep (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)