3 ms·
Can anyone explain to the ignorant among us (i.e. me) why converting to heat is so much more efficient than converting to electricity? The article makes the cla
by mark-r 8y ago
Can anyone explain to the ignorant among us (i.e. me) why converting to heat is so much more efficient than converting to electricity? The article makes the claim but doesn't back it up. What are the losses involved with each approach?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bluGill 8y agoUltimately all approaches convert to heat with 100% efficiency. However the in between stages and what you do with the heat are in question. A Generator is 80-90% efficient in general, then you have battery charging losses (which I do not know), then battery discharge losses, finally, you have power transmission losses to get the electric around. All of the above losses are not captured. They are claiming that because everything is converted directly to heat near where it is used their total losses are less. (they assume insulation here) The losses in their system are gears (some of which exist in most generator systems), and tank losses over time. It is plausible they are right. However it all depends on local install factors which can be manipulated either way.
- sleavey 8y agoI think the main point the article was eluding to was that if you use wind power to first generate electricity then convert this into heat, you have two conversion steps with loss: wind to electricity, and then electricity to heat. The overall efficiency is then the product of the efficiencies of the two steps. If you produce heat directly from wind, you cut out one conversion with its associated inefficiency.
- mark-r 8y agoI always figured electricity to heat was nearly 100% efficient, it's the generating of electricity where the losses occur.