Mel, as interesting as you post is, it doesn't add much to the...

Mel, as interesting as you post is, it doesn't add much to the debate.,

Bevans rightly says that heat engines can struggle is this climate. And yes, they are sensitive to heat and altitude, but without seeing performance graphs, I am yet to be convinced that a reciprocating heat engine (of say 10 MW) would fare much worse than 4.5 MW.

They do have advantages and disadvantages relative to GTs, depending on application and siting. GTs should not be discounted.

4.5 MW is nice little work horse for a small power station.

IMO, what they have done here is select a load curve (an educated guess) and then selected the optimum machine configuration to deliver the power most efficiently. Great promotion.

This configuration IMO is an overkill. They have finely designed the system to service a nonspecific and changing load profile.

As proposed, it might not meet future grid power requirements in its present format, with all the economic gifts and benefits.

They are fast-tracking with this project. Dangerous practice IMO.

If they pull it off, it will be a spectacular achievement and champagne will flow.

If it fails, it will fail spectacularly, and tears will flow.

Just IMO. J L.