3 ms·

There's something that feels so archaic about using a nuclear reactor to... boil water and spin a turbine. It's disappointing that we haven't figured out a bett

There's something that feels so archaic about using a nuclear reactor to... boil water and spin a turbine. It's disappointing that we haven't figured out a better way to convert to electrical energy than what we were using in the 1800s.

ElFitz 6y ago
You will love these four strips: http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_981.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_981.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_982.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_982.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_983.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_983.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_984.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_984.html
hderms 6y ago
I'm not well versed in physics, but when I think about the fact that electric motors haven't changed all that much it sort of makes sense. Inducing a current by moving something in a magnetic field, or vice versa, may seem like simple designs, but perhaps that's why we haven't replaced them yet. Rotational motion seems easy to service and efficient. Same with water being particularly easy to turn into a gas using heat, as well as being super plentiful on Earth. There are just a lot of things going for a steam turbine
acchow 6y ago
Photovoltaics (solar panels) don't rotate turbines.
zaroth 6y ago
> It's disappointing that we haven't figured out a better way to convert to electrical energy than what we were using in the 1800s. We haven't found a better way to convert heat to electrical energy. We've done great things with solar, kinetic, gravity, etc. I think the better analysis is to chart the efficiency of the conversion over time. I couldn't easily find a chart showing this, but I assume gigawatt scale turbines operating at 50%+ efficiency are modern engineering marvels compared to the earliest 7kW prototype made by Charles Parsons in 1884.
Baeocystin 6y ago
Water is an amazingly capable working fluid. Just because it's ubiquitous doesn't mean it doesn't have remarkable properties!
- mantap 6y ago
  In fact, the fact it's ubiquitous is no coincidence and can be explained by the anthropic principle. The human body is a chemical machine too.
ta8964586 6y ago
We've had solid-state thermoelectric generators for a while that convert heat flux directly to electricity, they're just really inefficient (only 5-8% efficent). [0] I can't find anything suggesting a fundamental limit to the efficiency, but it would take a lot to catch up to steam-powered generators at 33%-48% efficiency [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator#Effic... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam-electric_power_station#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam-electric_power_station#E...
elil17 6y ago
The reason that steam still drives turbines (as opposed to having the salt drive them directly) is that it’s hard to engineer blade materials that will withstand temperatures much higher than superheated steam.

ElFitz 6y ago

You will love these four strips: http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_981.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_981.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_982.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_982.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_983.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_983.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_984.html http://www.geeksworld.org/strip_984.html

hderms 6y ago

I'm not well versed in physics, but when I think about the fact that electric motors haven't changed all that much it sort of makes sense. Inducing a current by moving something in a magnetic field, or vice versa, may seem like simple designs, but perhaps that's why we haven't replaced them yet. Rotational motion seems easy to service and efficient. Same with water being particularly easy to turn into a gas using heat, as well as being super plentiful on Earth. There are just a lot of things going for a steam turbine

acchow 6y ago

Photovoltaics (solar panels) don't rotate turbines.

zaroth 6y ago

> It's disappointing that we haven't figured out a better way to convert to electrical energy than what we were using in the 1800s. We haven't found a better way to convert heat to electrical energy. We've done great things with solar, kinetic, gravity, etc. I think the better analysis is to chart the efficiency of the conversion over time. I couldn't easily find a chart showing this, but I assume gigawatt scale turbines operating at 50%+ efficiency are modern engineering marvels compared to the earliest 7kW prototype made by Charles Parsons in 1884.

Baeocystin 6y ago

Water is an amazingly capable working fluid. Just because it's ubiquitous doesn't mean it doesn't have remarkable properties!

mantap 6y ago
In fact, the fact it's ubiquitous is no coincidence and can be explained by the anthropic principle. The human body is a chemical machine too.

ta8964586 6y ago

We've had solid-state thermoelectric generators for a while that convert heat flux directly to electricity, they're just really inefficient (only 5-8% efficent). [0] I can't find anything suggesting a fundamental limit to the efficiency, but it would take a lot to catch up to steam-powered generators at 33%-48% efficiency [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator#Effic... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam-electric_power_station#Efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam-electric_power_station#E...

elil17 6y ago

The reason that steam still drives turbines (as opposed to having the salt drive them directly) is that it’s hard to engineer blade materials that will withstand temperatures much higher than superheated steam.