I don’t know why this is constantly criticized as a method of energy capture. Liquids allow for maximum surface area contact, creating more efficient heat transfer from the irradiated rods.
Armchair nuclear physicists should release an improved model before being so critical of the most effective and reliable method of energy generation we currently have.
I don’t think it’s a criticism? It’s more about highlighting the slight absurdity of super-high tech power generation still using the same method that has been used since the very start of electricity generation. A turbine spun by evaporated water.
Oh for sure. It’s like a desire path or evolution’s crab in that way. I think I just misunderstood people’s criticisms as belittlement of the process without them understanding why it’s still the standard.
On the nuclear side there are also alpha voltaics, beta voltaics and gamma voltaics that take radiation and generate electricity. Alpha rely on alpha particles ionizing usually a gas, Beta voltaics rely on beta particles which are electron or positron emissions and gamma voltaics take photons in the gamma region and use them to excite electrons to generate electricity.
Overall though heating water is significantly easier to do, more efficient, and more robust
Solar (photovoltaics), wind turbines, and hydroelectric are a few non-steam energy sources in use.
As for theoretical sources, some of the pulsed-power fusion concepts use the electromagnetic pulse from fusion to directly induce electrical power. But none of these have been demonstrated yet.
Excluding things that still involve moving fluid through a turbine or piston engine mechanically driving a dynamo or alternator while simply swapping out the steam for another fluid (too obvious), here’s all the ones I could find:
batteries
fuel cells
photovoltaics
piezoelectrics (which the other reply already mentioned)
Also not well versed, but last time I saw this topic come up, someone mentioned towers that wiggle in the wind and generate energy via the wiggles, apparently interacting with liquid at no point.
Yup. There are reed-like wind capture devices that generate piezoelectricity from compression. The same technology is being implemented in some nations to capture pressure energy on roadways and paths.
Ah yes, the next solar frickin’ roadways. No this isn’t implemented on any scale and it’s right next to perpetuum mobile’s in terms of magical thinking needed.
The idea is simple: the favorability of a chemical reaction is a function of temperature, some reactions are more favorable at high temperatures, some at lower. For electrochemical reactions (e.g. batteries) this means a change in voltage at different temperatures. Some reactions have higher voltages, some lower. By choosing a pair of redox reactions such that the direction of charge transfer can be reversed within a specified temperature envelope, one can create a thermal engine that directly converts heat to electrical energy without requiring a turbine.
There’s lots of research on this, sometimes called the ‘omnivorous’ flow battery.
Also, water is an amazing coolant. At the molecular level its hydrogen bonding contributes to a bulk property called heat capacity that ends up much higher than most other substances, meaning it can soak up a ton of energy per unit volume (and later release that energy, e.g. into a turbine). And there’s even more of that heat capacity in the phase transition from liquid to steam and back. It’s crazy good.
It’s also super cheap and abundant. The main reason water isn’t the coolant for nearly everything is that it can be corrosive. Also steam can be quite dangerous due to all that energy it carries.
If we were a smarter species, we’d consistently use further heat exchange to use that waste heat for something else, like heating homes. The Blue Lagoon in Iceland uses it to heat a massive outdoor spa.
I mean it does seem kinda weird that running a heat engine to run a generator is more efficient than using a thermoelectric generator with no mechanical inbetween step.
Not only that, but we’re harnessing the humble yet awesome power of phase-changing matter. The same phenomenon breaks mountains down to rubble, constantly chews apart our infrastructure, and keeps our homes and food cool. It makes a lot of sense to use that same phenomenon to do work.
Armchair nuclear physicists should release an improved model before being so critical
They would, but there are limited options for directly generating electricity. Outside of manipulating magnetic fields with kinetic motion, all we have are betavoltaics, photovoltaics, and thermocouples. And they’re all kind of awful in terms of efficiency. Even chlorophyll is awesome at converting air, light, and water, into… sugar, which then has to be oxidized (burned) to be useful.
There’s plenty of room for advancement in alternative energy for sure. My comment about critics was referring more to the method of capturing and converting irradiated rod heat to electricity. Water vapor is still the standard for a reason. It’s like being critical of a jet engine because it’s basically just a compressor.
I don’t know why this is constantly criticized as a method of energy capture. Liquids allow for maximum surface area contact, creating more efficient heat transfer from the irradiated rods.
Armchair nuclear physicists should release an improved model before being so critical of the most effective and reliable method of energy generation we currently have.
I don’t think it’s a criticism? It’s more about highlighting the slight absurdity of super-high tech power generation still using the same method that has been used since the very start of electricity generation. A turbine spun by evaporated water.
Hey now, sometimes it’s a turbine spun by falling water!
Easy there future man… One life-changing generation method per century
What about a turbine spun by the convection of evaporation from a large body of water being pulled toward a dry landmass?
That’s madness
I’d not that it’s criticized, it’s just kinda funny that everything comes back to steam engines
Oh for sure. It’s like a desire path or evolution’s crab in that way. I think I just misunderstood people’s criticisms as belittlement of the process without them understanding why it’s still the standard.
Fair enough, I’m sure people DO criticize it but it’s mostly a joke.
On a side note, are there any theoretical energy sources that DON’T involve steam? I’m not well-versed
On the nuclear side there are also alpha voltaics, beta voltaics and gamma voltaics that take radiation and generate electricity. Alpha rely on alpha particles ionizing usually a gas, Beta voltaics rely on beta particles which are electron or positron emissions and gamma voltaics take photons in the gamma region and use them to excite electrons to generate electricity.
Overall though heating water is significantly easier to do, more efficient, and more robust
Solar (photovoltaics), wind turbines, and hydroelectric are a few non-steam energy sources in use.
As for theoretical sources, some of the pulsed-power fusion concepts use the electromagnetic pulse from fusion to directly induce electrical power. But none of these have been demonstrated yet.
There’s also natural gas turbines
Excluding things that still involve moving fluid through a turbine or piston engine mechanically driving a dynamo or alternator while simply swapping out the steam for another fluid (too obvious), here’s all the ones I could find:
Also not well versed, but last time I saw this topic come up, someone mentioned towers that wiggle in the wind and generate energy via the wiggles, apparently interacting with liquid at no point.
edit: Also maybe this YouTuber’s creation? https://youtu.be/BSxK5VagSb8
Yup. There are reed-like wind capture devices that generate piezoelectricity from compression. The same technology is being implemented in some nations to capture pressure energy on roadways and paths.
Ah yes, the next solar frickin’ roadways. No this isn’t implemented on any scale and it’s right next to perpetuum mobile’s in terms of magical thinking needed.
That makes sense.
Besides that, does solar power use steam? I would assume not, at least not directly.
Photovoltaics do not. But here are solar powered steam generators
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/69/11/17/415388/Solar-steam-generator-needs-no-lenses-or-mirrorsA
Thermo-electrochemical cycles.
The idea is simple: the favorability of a chemical reaction is a function of temperature, some reactions are more favorable at high temperatures, some at lower. For electrochemical reactions (e.g. batteries) this means a change in voltage at different temperatures. Some reactions have higher voltages, some lower. By choosing a pair of redox reactions such that the direction of charge transfer can be reversed within a specified temperature envelope, one can create a thermal engine that directly converts heat to electrical energy without requiring a turbine.
There’s lots of research on this, sometimes called the ‘omnivorous’ flow battery.
Oh, there are many. I was referring specifically to finding a more efficient way to convert the heat from irradiated rods to electrical energy.
Also, water is an amazing coolant. At the molecular level its hydrogen bonding contributes to a bulk property called heat capacity that ends up much higher than most other substances, meaning it can soak up a ton of energy per unit volume (and later release that energy, e.g. into a turbine). And there’s even more of that heat capacity in the phase transition from liquid to steam and back. It’s crazy good.
It’s also super cheap and abundant. The main reason water isn’t the coolant for nearly everything is that it can be corrosive. Also steam can be quite dangerous due to all that energy it carries.
The heat of vaporization is also a huge negative of using water as you need to condense the water and then reboil it which wastes a bunch of energy
If we were a smarter species, we’d consistently use further heat exchange to use that waste heat for something else, like heating homes. The Blue Lagoon in Iceland uses it to heat a massive outdoor spa.
I mean it does seem kinda weird that running a heat engine to run a generator is more efficient than using a thermoelectric generator with no mechanical inbetween step.
Diagram please?
Not only that, but we’re harnessing the humble yet awesome power of phase-changing matter. The same phenomenon breaks mountains down to rubble, constantly chews apart our infrastructure, and keeps our homes and food cool. It makes a lot of sense to use that same phenomenon to do work.
They would, but there are limited options for directly generating electricity. Outside of manipulating magnetic fields with kinetic motion, all we have are betavoltaics, photovoltaics, and thermocouples. And they’re all kind of awful in terms of efficiency. Even chlorophyll is awesome at converting air, light, and water, into… sugar, which then has to be oxidized (burned) to be useful.
There’s plenty of room for advancement in alternative energy for sure. My comment about critics was referring more to the method of capturing and converting irradiated rod heat to electricity. Water vapor is still the standard for a reason. It’s like being critical of a jet engine because it’s basically just a compressor.