Couldn’t we have a lead box lined with these radiation to electricity converters with a small amount of radioactive material in the center, and have an energy generating device that would last for thousands or even millions of years? Imagine putting the sun in a box lined with solar cells, but on a much smaller scale.

Is there a reason this wouldn’t work?

  • @nukeworker10
    link
    251 year ago

    This article has a good breakdown. The biggest issue is efficiency. RTGs are around 5-9% efficient. Standard steam cycle generators are around 30% (see this article ) . You get much more usable energy from fuel used in a commercial reactor vice a RTG.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      From the article it looks like RTGs are just converting the heat energy into electricity. Seems like there’s a lot unused potential being missed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Yes, I don’t think RTGs are really what you’re asking about. It’s just a solid state way of turning heat into energy instead of using steam.

    • @RangerAndTheCat
      link
      11 year ago

      Can you ELI5 why the efficiency is so low on the RTGs?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        RTGs aren’t radioactive-specific, they are just a solid state way of turning a temperature difference into electricity. The better way to do this (at scale) is e.g. a steam engine, which is what big power plants do.

      • @nukeworker10
        link
        31 year ago

        They take the waste heat from nuclear decay and convert it to electricity through the use of a peltier device. Those work off of differential temperature and are pretty inefficient to begin with. Unmderated Nuclear decay doesn’t produce a lot of heat at one time, which is why reactors use a moderator to increase the power output.