[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 99 KB, 800x550, GE_SteamTurbine_For-Web.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6962182 No.6962182 [Reply] [Original]

Why isn't wood power a thing?

Steam can be created by burning wood, which can power steam turbines.

What's the problem?

>> No.6962187

Coal and oil are cheaper. Uranium is even cheaper.

>> No.6962188

>>6962182
Doesn't burn like coal does.

>> No.6962191

>>6962182
It's not energy dense.

>> No.6962226

>>6962182

It is.

https://www.mottmac.com/article/2282/stevens-croft-biomass-power-station-uk

>> No.6962244

>>6962182
Steam engines aren't efficient, meaning you have to deal with plenty of waste and often times you don't get as much as energy as you should.

>> No.6962258

>>6962188
Isn't coal something that has already been burnt, like charcoal?

>> No.6962268

>>6962258
Yes, and all coaches are things that they used for transportation in the old west.

>> No.6962273

>>6962244
Steam ENGINES aren't efficient because they usually exhaust directly to the atmosphere.

Steam turbine plants with superheaters, reheaters, multi-stage turbines, and condensers are the most efficient way to convert thermal energy into electrical.

>> No.6962342

>>6962273
Internal Combustion is still more efficient.

>> No.6962367

>>6962182
Look up biomass pyrolysis and integrated gasification combustion cycles.

>> No.6962369

>>6962258
Charcoal is burnt wood. Coal is decomposed plant matter.

>> No.6962375

>>6962367
>>6962226
These. It's becoming more of a thing now that our forestry abilities are getting decently run. Though it takes like 100 years for the entire thing to be fully carbon neutral.

>> No.6962474

>>6962182

Coal is compressed wood (or other biomass) and is denser and therefore more energy efficient.

>> No.6962495

>>6962182
Burning wood emits greenhouse gasses.

And its not economically viable to use thousands of acres of arable farm land to grow trees.

>> No.6962497

>>6962187
>Uranium is even cheaper

Cheap to buy, but not cheap to use as an energy source.

>> No.6962498

>>6962182
Because the wood has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere costs a lot of money so it's not really worth it as long as we have so much coal, oil and uranium left for energy production.

>> No.6962606

>>6962258
>>6962369

Charcoal is not burnt wood, charcoal is baked wood. You get charcoal in a campfire because a lot of the wood bakes instead of burning; heck, even as the outside of a log burns it bakes the inside.

I'm a sc/out/.

>> No.6963480

>>6962342
what the fuck good steam turbines have an efficiency of over 60% wich is (if i remeber correctly) higher than the theoretical maximum efficiency of an internal combustion engine

>> No.6963487

>>6962244
>steam engines aren't efficient
Almost every power plant uses steam to generate power

Modern steam engines are extremely efficient

>> No.6963492

Wood fire release a lot particulates into the air than oil or coal. These particulates are very bad for air pollution.

>> No.6963507

>>6963487
>Modern steam engines are extremely efficient
I wouldn't say that, the efficiency of steam engines is close to 50%, which is not what I would call extremely efficient. Granted that they are a more efficient than older engines and thermal engines.

Also, I don't know of any other system that would convert mechanical energy into electricity better than a steam engine.

>> No.6963516

>>6962182

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass

>> No.6963527

>>6963507
Entropy is a bitch, it is very good for this sort of thing when other technologies vary from like 5 to 30%

>> No.6963569

>>6962182
Lack of wood. US harvests around 270 million tons (Mt) of wood total, this is energy equivalent of 135 Mt of coal give or take. Coal production is around 1000 Mt.

>> No.6964458

Red necks run their trucks on wood.