Robin van Spaandonk writes: >>That is not true. If the RO process is 40 times more efficient than MSF (as >>it was in some situations, in some locations), then even though 60% of the >>heat used to generate the electricity is wasted, the overall efficiency is >>still far ahead of MSF. This is similar to the use of heat pumps instead of >>gas fired furnaces for space heating. > >No it isn't. The energy cost for MSF can be essentially zero, when attached to >a >thermal power plant, because that heat is normally thrown away anyway.
Ah, I see your point. However, RO might be a good choice in areas served by wind power or nuclear power, especially at night. I believe there was a nuclear powered MSF/electric plant, or maybe only proposals for one (I do not recall). See: http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Projects/nd/index.html - Jed
