by Twilight » Sat 28 Jul 2007, 14:53:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ferretlover', 'Q')uestion: Wouldn't it be more practical for places like hospitals, police stations, etc have a source like solar power as an alternative power source? Or, some power source that doesn't depend on something that has to be transported?
Only if the footprint is the same as a diesel.
Nothing else has the footprint of a diesel. Not even close. Liquid fuel is the best energy density you can get. Best bang for volume. Beats any battery system.
I've been in places like data centers, you should see a typical 1 MW diesel generator. Talk about compact. Try putting 1 MW of PV, batteries and inverter into a shipping container. It will never happen.
The other problem with PV is if you need it over several days over the full 24 hour periods, you have to be powering the facility during the day
and storing enough power for the night,
guaranteed even in the most unfavourable weather conditions. For example, power loss during a week of winter storms. It's funny how the system could be put to the test under conditions least favourable to its proper operation.
The alternative is topping up battery storage for several days of continuous operation. Big expensive building! And chances are, you will have to continually replace the stuff, whereas a diesel generator can sit there for decades with a bit of maintenance.
Wind gives you an even bigger headache. Similar battery storage requirements, more intensive maintenance (and at height!), and in the winter storm power loss scenario, the blades would be feathered and battery top-up would be zero.
Whichever way we look at it, diesel is the best solution to the backup power problem. It would make perfect sense if we weren't wasting it in 3 litre engine saloon cars.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', 'T')he question is how long could the hospital operate with just the fuel on hand? Probably not more then a few days.
Typical fuel capacity is for 72-100 hours at max load for most applications, even the most critical (more critical than hospitals). I guess the logic is if you haven't fixed the problem after three days, your problems are bigger than a lack of power. Which indeed they would be, if a city in its entirety lost power for more than 4 days.
By the way, it's nice to know the thing started up. That's no guarantee if the estates department neglect it, which some do.
There's that growth thing as well. A lot of places are plugging in more and more electronics, not realising the big emergency box someone put in 10, 20 years ago isn't growing to compensate. That's always a wake-up call.