• Learning How to Convert Heat Directly Into Power: A Thermoelectric Materials Emulator
    35 replies, posted
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;42652115]Yeah, nuclear waste is really clean and there is absolutely no danger or risk at all. We don't even have nuclear power on our grid in Australia so applying it to dangerous nuclear reactors wouldn't do anything for us over here.[/QUOTE] Here mate, nuclear power isn't dangerous, if anything coal power has killed more people thanks to the insane amount of carcinogenic compounds pumped into the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;42652469]Interesting point but I'm thinking of the risk involved with handling radioactive materials. Also what do they do with nuclear waste? And given the nature of the people of this country I wouldn't trust anyone here to run a nuclear plant anyway. So if thermoelectric materials were used for nuclear power, we'd miss out completely.[/QUOTE] I admit I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject of disposal of spent nuclear waste. As well, there is no problem with using this technology with coal power, anything which makes power generation more efficient in any way is good, I just believe it is better used with nuclear power. Since Australia already gets most of its power from coal, this technology could perhaps lower the amount of needed coal plants, which would also reduce pollution. However, in the long run, we're going to [I]need[/I] to switch to nuclear energy as citizens of this planet in order to meet our power production needs as coal and other fossil fuels just can not generate the same amounts of power.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;42653018]I admit I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject of disposal of spent nuclear waste. As well, there is no problem with using this technology with coal power, anything which makes power generation more efficient in any way is good, I just believe it is better used with nuclear power. Since Australia already gets most of its power from coal, this technology could perhaps lower the amount of needed coal plants, which would also reduce pollution. However, in the long run, we're going to [I]need[/I] to switch to nuclear energy as citizens of this planet in order to meet our power production needs as coal and other fossil fuels just can not generate the same amounts of power.[/QUOTE]Well that or solar.
[QUOTE=RoboChimp;42659311]Well that or solar.[/QUOTE] If we could convert heat to electricity directly, and at a high efficiency, we could basically forget about photovoltaic cells altogether and generate power from sunlight by using mirrors to reflect the light to a central point They already do this in some places but just like nuclear reactors, we're just using it to boil water
Alright, I do know (and hope) that most people here understand this topic, but I gonna make a bit of a summy series of replies to clear up how this stuff works with my limited highschool knowledge of physics. [QUOTE=Stents*;42644570]Does this mean in the future when they get small enough I could power my PC with the heat from my CPU?[/QUOTE] Of course not, that's against the laws of thermodynamics. Lets sum this up. I myself get tangled in the terms, which is only worse due to the language barrier, so my use of the term "Heat" might be wonky as I am not entirely sure I won't fuck up somewhere on the way. This technology doesn't produce energy from something being hot, it produces energy from something being hot AND something else being COLD. It works with difference in temperature between two bodies, like any other thermoelectric generator (Like the steam turbines, too! We will get to that in a while, tho). Unless I am entirely stupid, you could, theoretically, increase [I]efficiency[/I] of your computer, yes. The heat your computer outputs is capable of producing work - passing over energy - even if you don't use any of this technology, the hot air from your computer will be lighter than the ambient and ascend, producing very subtle air currents in your room (and would, even if you didn't have fans in there), and you could already theoretically capture that air current, run it through a turbine, and produce energy! The problem is, the system converting the energy will a) always work at sub 100% efficiency so you will NEVER get as much energy as your PC burns, and b) will only work if the environment has a temperature lower than your PC and it will get more and more inefficient as the temperatures even out. So, yes, you could use it in your PC to increase the efficiency your PC works at, but it wouldn't be worth it at all, at least with the technology we have today (and honestly probably never will be). [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=lintz;42644640]Would this make it possible to make solar farms that beam power back to Earth? or no, i suppose the atmosphere would dissipate too much of the energy to make it cost/energy effective.[/QUOTE] Yes, but we already can use standard photovoltaics for that. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;42644862]couldn't this be used in nuclear reactors?[/QUOTE] Yes, but that's already practically the case - for example, in the mentioned Curiosity probe, and many other space probes - they get energy from the temperature difference of a core heating up from spontaneous fission of radioisotopes and a heatsink on the outside. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Helix Snake;42645629]That's exactly what I'm referring to though, doesn't something with ambient heat emit electromagnetic energy regardless?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Eltro102;42645741]as blackbody radiation, sure a small amount in theory we could harvest that (and that's how those infrared cameras work) but we wouldn't get any meaningful work out of it because of the small amount radiated and the inefficient methods we have to catch it[/QUOTE] The electromagnetic radiation which [I]is[/I] a form of energy is sorta a butt-radiation in terms of getting stuff done. You can produce electricity from that, sure, but the sad catch is that whatever is receiving the heat to try to make a meaningful use of it has to have lower ambient temperature than the body giving out the energy - for example, photovoltaic panels lose efficiency as their temperature increases, and that's to the degree where a colder body can't pass any energy to a warmer photovoltaic panel. Again, it's strictly about differences in temperature. Again, this is matter of laws, of the principles of physics as we know them. Now matter how efficient technology we come with, we will always be looking at a loss of energy. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Van-man;42652159]So does this mean we can make internal combustion engines more efficient? Imagine using the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_efficiency"]energy wasted as heat[/URL] to spin a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage#Motor_sports"]flywheel generator[/URL] that dumps the electrical energy into hub mounted electric motors on-demand. For silent city driving or wicked fast acceleration boost.[/QUOTE] And finally, this. Yes, there was this idea already, and I think there were actually some proof of concept experiments from people? Yes, you will increase efficiency of your combustion engine, thing is, the increase won't be all that massive and it would be far more meaningful to ditch the wasteful combustion engine altogether, get the energy elsewhere and charge an electric engine out of a battery or a fuel cell.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42659632]If we could convert heat to electricity directly, and at a high efficiency, we could basically forget about photovoltaic cells altogether and generate power from sunlight by using mirrors to reflect the light to a central point They already do this in some places but just like nuclear reactors, we're just using it to boil water[/QUOTE]Yeah, I was aware of that, that's why I mentioned solar. [IMG]http://econews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/solar-thermal-plant-SA-460x250.jpg[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.