Generating power without steam?

[Anonymous No.10948721]

What are the alternative when it comes to transforming whatever energy (fission, solar and maybe one day fusion) into electricity?

Are we bound to steam turbine? Basically we just need to move large magnets to make electricity, can we skip the steam generating step? Are maybe going more direct?

[Anonymous No.10948738]

steam turbine bad

[Anonymous No.10948764]

>>10948738
>not wanting to explore new things
OR
>not providing any arguments for not to
>/sci/

[Anonymous No.10948767]

>>10948764
new thing good

[Anonymous No.10948775]

>>10948767
that was not a very intelligent discussion

[Anonymous No.10949010]

>>10948721
You could use MHD.

[Anonymous No.10949033]

>>10948721
Heat ends up being the common currency of energy manipulation... Any form of energy can be used to create a temperature difference and turbines will generically convert a temperature difference into electricity.
Direct conversion requires a "custom" construct for each kind of source energy, like photovoltaics for ligth, or slowing down ions in aneutronic fusion.
It's a lot more complicated to engineer direct conversion than to use heat as an intermediate

[Anonymous No.10949100]

>>10948721
>Are maybe going more direct?
How direct and from what source? ICE is about as direct as you can get. The explosions make for instant work energy. Thus, a simple gasoline generator fits the criteria. That is why ICE vehicles are the norm. They have the best energy density to usable work.

[Anonymous No.10949724]

>>10948721
Stirling engine.

[Anonymous No.10949738]

>>10948721
Hydroelectric, wind, photovoltaic, and diesel generators all do not require steam as a working fluid

[Anonymous No.10949769]

>>10949738
turbines are turbines, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10949775]

>>10948721
You could use a stirling engine. Turbines are used because they are efficient. It's easy to pipe steam around and regulate its pressure, the turbine spins and generates 60hz of AC power at the alternator, it's very very simple, and most importantly, easy to control. If you want to generate ac power without a lot of fuss, it's the best way we know right now. You could try some sort of reciprocating engine, but you're adding extra steps. To get that good clean 60hz on a turbine all you have to do adjust the rpms

[Anonymous No.10949780]

>>10949775
I want something else.

[Anonymous No.10949784]

>>10948721
Nothing is as simple, cheap and efficient as using a temperature difference to move a working fluid. Why would you want to use something else? Are there specific restrictions for the thing you're planning to run?

[Anonymous No.10949791]

>>10949780
You could build a giant rtg

[Anonymous No.10949797]

>>10948721
A thermoelectric generator (TEG), also called a Seebeck generator, is a solid state device that converts heat flux (temperature differences) directly into electrical energy through a phenomenon called the Seebeck effect (a form of thermoelectric effect). Thermoelectric generators function like heat engines, but are less bulky and have no moving parts. However, TEGs are typically more expensive and less efficient.

[Anonymous No.10949825]

>>10949797
following up on this anon's post.
TEG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DudsKeB39p8

[Anonymous No.10949920]

>>10949769
>are we bound to steam turbine?
>no, look at all these examples that dont need steam turbine (some of which dont use turbines whatsoever)
>durrr turbines are turbines

[Anonymous No.10950034]

>>10948721
Differential Temperature Generator.

[Anonymous No.10950590]

>>10948738
I hate any and all moving parts...

IIRC there's a fusion concept that turns plasma directly into electric power without use of a steam generator.

[Anonymous No.10950761]

convert to hydrogen, raise many large gasometers and store the energy as gravitational potential to generate electricity later as and when needed, plus ya get hydrogen too.

[Anonymous No.10950776]

>>10950590
The plasma spins a turbine. It's still moving. You've done nothing but change the medium of which it is done with. The steam turbine will never be surpassed in terms of simplicity, and perfection. You resent its success because it is humble and lowly. I assume you despise Christianity for the same reason. In another 1000 years, Christianity will still be around, so will the turbine, particularly the steam turbine, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.10951075]

>>10948721
Dielectric elastomer generators are cool!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62JQ3DPJ9ek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SIUuGRv3R0

Thermoelectric generator are cool too, have no moving parts but isn't very effective. They are used in space!

[Anonymous No.10951085]

>>10948721
Photovoltaic
Stirling thermal engine
Diesel/Oil

Steam is standard because water is a cheap medium and we can do it in large quantities.

[Anonymous No.10951106]

>>10948721
Moving salt water over graphene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9kFV8_ttjk

[Anonymous No.10951116]

gas turbines

[Anonymous No.10951123]

>>10949033
>It's a lot more complicated to engineer direct conversion than to use heat as an intermediate

But the payoff is a potential far higher efficiency.

[Anonymous No.10951136]

>>10951123
Getting 10% more efficiency doesn't really matter if it is 1000 more expensive to build and maintain.

[Anonymous No.10951143]

>>10951136
True, but if it has no moving parts then it can probably be engineered to have a far lower maintenance cost.

Engineering is for homos tho.

[Anonymous No.10951153]

>>10949920
You are retarded, all of your examples obey the same thermodynamic principles a steam turbine does. Read a book.

[Anonymous No.10951163]

>>10951136
don't solid state solutions almost always overtake traditional methods though? It's usually just a matter of time / research into the technology until it's mature. everything starts out inefficient or expensive.

[Anonymous No.10951177]

>>10951106
I wonder what perpetual motion machines capillary action and that graphene could produce?

[Anonymous No.10951178]

>>10951153
Then the OP should not have specified "STEAM turbines" like times. Learn to communicate, nigger.

[Anonymous No.10951200]

If you had a plasma made during a fusion process, maybe you could use its magnetic field to induce current

[Solivagus No.10951413]

>>10949033
Then technically we could do 'magnet-on-mountain' energy. As heat increases, the need for space increases.

[Solivagus No.10951422]

>>10951163
Correct, however 'other' humans always get their panties in a bunch over how communal resources are being spent and keep demanding that 'their' special project is more important.

The inter-argument is, quite frankly, a waste of everyone's time.

The problem really is that even if someone presented a full schematic for a working displacement reactor (which is all energy generation is, displace this energy for a completely different one, the resulting reaction is what we can exploit to generate our own electricity) some human would think a money number is what is more important and then blah blah.

[Anonymous No.10951441]

>>10951177
>perpetual motion
Obviously, none. Some equilibrium would be eventually reached and no extra work can be extracted from the system.

[Anonymous No.10951508]

>>10948721
Idea: Memory metal that creates energy or stores it maybe when it changes forms or maybe changes states, and this is either controlled chemically or magnetically

thoughts? pls no bully am stop going to school at age 14

[Anonymous No.10952198]

>>10951163
>research into the technology until it's mature
and that sometimes takes a thousand years pal

[Anonymous No.10952328]

>>10948721
You can use electric thermocouplers (using the Seebeck effect), but the overall efficiency is very low conpeted to steam turbine.

[Anonymous No.10952398]

>>10948721
Supercritical CO2 turbines are being heavily looked into because of the efficiency and simplicity it has over steam. The CO2 behaves like a liquid, which transfers more energy to the turbines per cm^3 than steam. A 10 MW co2 turbine takes up a tenth the space that a 10 mw steam turbine.
https://energy.sandia.gov/energy/renewable-energy/supercritical-co2/

[Anonymous No.10953588]

>>10948721

no thanks, i like having warm running water

[Anonymous No.10954931]

>>10948721
>Are we bound to steam turbine?

yes, YOU are.

[Anonymous No.10956135]

>>10948721
Learn some thermodynamics you dumb bitch.

Steam turbines are a type of heat engine based on the Rankine cycle. Their efficiency is about 30%, limited by the strength of the turbine blade materials to withstand higher temperatures.

All heat engines have a theoretical maximum efficiency of the Carnot efficiency, which depends on the temperature difference between the hot and cold reservoirs. With our current technology the theoretical maximum thermal efficiency of a single cycle is about 65%.

It may be possible to achieve slightly higher efficiencies than the steam Rankine cycle with a Brayton cycle using supercritical CO2 as the working fluid, and that technology is currently being developed. Higher efficiencies can also be achieved by having reheat and also reusing the lower quality waste heat for an organic Rankine cycle (ORC).

[Anonymous No.10956278]

>>10948721
Ever heard of photovoltaic?

[Anonymous No.10956409]

>>10956371

[Anonymous No.10956998]

>>10948721

Get woke nigga. Steam turbines powered by solar panels is the best way to generate electricity.

[Anonymous No.10957062]

>>10951153
The irony of this post.

[Anonymous No.10957071]

>>10948775
ooga booga grug smash

[Anonymous No.10958145]

>>10957062
>heh im a moron so il say this person is ironic, gotem
You gave a list of turbines to someone asking "is there another option than steam turbines" when the topic at hand is the efficiency of energy generation. The question was not "can turbines be used other than through a forced heat exchange system".

[Anonymous No.10958160]

>>10948721
OP should have been more specific.
Heat engines in general are quite shit.
Turbines are good tho.

[Anonymous No.10958164]

>>10956278
You still need an efficient way to store the energy. The only way that photovoltaic is viable is within our current network where it's backed up by conventional power sources that fill in the demand when necessary.

[Anonymous No.10958165]

>>10948721
Fuel cells
Thermocouples (Thermoelectric generators)
Betavoltaic cells

come to mind fuel cells are very promising TEGs are utter dogshit right now (%4) but nanomagic can make it viable

[Anonymous No.10958235]

bump eet

[Anonymous No.10958238]

>>10958165
>fuel cells
You need electricity for creating hydrogen for the cells. Or am I missing something new?

[Anonymous No.10958248]

>>10958238
you can use other organics to generate hydrogen so you don't have to store it as gas

[Anonymous No.10958263]

>>10958248
Fair enough, but you need energy for the steam reforming. It's like fosil fuel electricity with extra steps, not a full alternative for steam turbines.

[Anonymous No.10958268]

wind , hydro and solar needs no steam

[Anonymous No.10958438]

>>10958268
good luck getting off this rock with those 3 brainrot greenshit
>>10958263
because there isn't one :) fuels cells have the potential to be much more efficient than engines and TEGs can pretty much replace turbines as they directly generate electricity from a temprature difference but we have to wait for nanotech for that to be viable. maybe nanotech will never deliver in that case we are stuck with turbines forever

[Anonymous No.10958840]

>>10958438
you are crazy if you want to leave the only place in the universe where you can live
also if you do, you rely on solar power

[Anonymous No.10958886]

>>10950776
No...it converts alpha particles into current, its called direct energy conversion, companies like Helion Energy plan to use it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion

[Anonymous No.10959170]

>>10958164
that's the case for all kinds of power plants, it does not matter if it's coal or solar, all are connected to the grid

But photovoltaic can also be used for off grid power if you got a battery.

[Anonymous No.10959254]

>>10959170
>that's the case for all kinds of power plants
Not really. A traditional coal-fired power plant does not have any reason to store electricity.

[Anonymous No.10959307]

>>10951153
my foot in your ass obeys the same thermodynamic principles as a steam turbine

[Anonymous No.10959317]

>>10958840
>only place in the universe you can live
almost certainly false, the current consensus is that earth may not even be particularly suited to life compared to certain warm ocean super earths

>only place [in the solar system] you can live
Earth is the only planet with the right atmosphere, temperature and pressure for humans to live on the surface without survival gear, but that's a lot more qualifications than "only place you can live". Any NEET could tell you that going outside is entirely optional, and Mars just requires you to suit up before going outside. Everything else is an infrastructure problem.

[Anonymous No.10959384]

>>10959254
>A traditional coal-fired power plant does not have any reason to store electricity.

This is not true, electricity produced in coal plants over night is stored in pumped hydroelectric energy storage and put back in the grid for peak demand at daytime.

[Anonymous No.10959390]

>>10959384
why not just keep running the plant at night time..........

[Anonymous No.10959398]

>>10959317
>almost certainly false, the current consensus is that earth may not even be particularly suited to life compared to certain warm ocean super earths

Pure fiction, we have not fund such a mythical place. Even if we find another Eath like planet it would be so far away we could never get there.

and Mars is just a stupid meme, maybe we could build a small science outpost and spend some days there but that's it, we could never live there

[Anonymous No.10959410]

>>10959390
... just to burn coal and money? you can not sell electricity if there is no demand, you can not put more energy in the grid if demand is low, transformers would start to burn and your entire grid goes dark, really not a good idea.

[Anonymous No.10959419]

>>10959398
Why do you insist humans could never live on Mars? You didn't address what I said, "stupid meme" is not an argument. Mars is purely an infrastructure problem.

[Anonymous No.10959426]

>>10958840
>the only place in the universe
>even if you live outside earth you rely on solar
based brainrot

[Anonymous No.10959430]

Watermills haven't been discovered yet, so no