2 ms·
That isn't how it works. The 85% in this case is producing steam that is nowhere near hot enough. A steam plant only gets up to reasonable efficiency when the h
by lotsofmangos 12y ago
That isn't how it works. The 85% in this case is producing steam that is nowhere near hot enough. A steam plant only gets up to reasonable efficiency when the hot end of the steam plant is at a very high temperature and pressure, which in this case would then react with the carbon element.
Have a look at this - "The Mechanism of the Steam-Carbon Reaction" http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/193/1034/377 http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/193/1034/377
- msandford 12y agoRight, I'm well aware. But I was trying to be conservative as to how pessimistic we should be. We can always be more pessimistic, but we should be no less pessimistic than halving the efficiency. It's not a useful number except to show that on the back of the envelope it's not that great for power generation. The 85% case is probably more about desalinization than it is about making steam to do useful work unless that useful work is heating. A concentrator, some of this stuff and you could make solar powered steam kettles which are very common in large kitchens.
- lotsofmangos 12y agofair enough, is just that your calculation on power generation put it as being massively better than the best commercially available solar power, which struck me as wildly optimistic
- msandford 12y agoIt's only better until you figure in the costs to make it work. Nobody cares about actual efficiency, they care about dollars per watt. Even at 38% (which you can't get) there's no way it would be cheaper than PV because of all the infrastructure you'd need to concentrate sunlight and do all the piping, etc.