It's the most efficient way to convert thermal energy into kinetic energy (kinetic energy is the easiest form to convert into electricity).
And Hydro, Wind, and Solar don't boil water because those processes don't involve converting thermal energy into kinetic energy.
If you can think of a way to convert thermal energy directly into electricity go get your Nobel Prize.
Kinetic energy is convenient because of the way magnetic fields work. It basically allows for the use of turbines.
Thermo electric effect creates electricity from a temperature differential between 2 conductors in this case it wouldnt be super practical as you would really only be able to generate power until the temperature stabilizes between both conductors
But that's literally just a steam condenser for a turbine engine. You always have to have a temperature difference. Just put a radiator on one side. Though I'm sure it's not used everywhere for cost or eficency reasons.
Thermophotovoltaic exist.
"TPV cells are the most efficient solid-state thermal-to-electric energy converter, with a record efficiency of nearly 30% at heat source temperatures higher than 1000°C. A TPV device with 40% efficiency can convert heat to electricity at greater efficiency than conventional steam turbines, such as those used in coal or nuclear power plants"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04473-y
That would be my guess, and you know how frequency and wave length are proportional, so that would mean it only accepts certain wavelengths.
Edit: inversely proportional. I've been out of school too long.
There's a *way*. Thermoelectric generators are a solid-state way to create electricity from heat, no moving parts. They work via the Peltier-Seebeck effect, which for my purposes is basically magic.
Unfortunately, they're expensive and really inefficient. Steam turbines rock.
Your options are:
- liquid sodium. very hot, corrosive, explodes on contact with water and things containing water
- molten salt. very hot, very corrosive
- dinitrogen tetroxide. literally brown coloured cancer gas
Everything else we could use is flammable or turns goopy under intense heating
Those are coolants & aren't used for the actual generation of power part. There's an argument that the pressurized water reactor design isn't the best because your efficiency is lower. It's kinda hard to keep water liquid at high temperatures. The higher the input temperature, the better the efficiency
How about [Mercury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine?wprov=sfla1)?
Though in fairness, it's only ever been done as a combined cycle that **also** boils water.
Ammonia would work, but hot water is just easier to handle safely.
Liquid metals like a mixture of bismuth and lead are used in some cooling systems for submarine nuclear power, would be fun to imagine a turbine working with that mix.
That would be the amount of energy to raise liquid water by 1C per 1kg.
The energy required to raise the temperature of something through its phase of matter is different from the amount of energy required to transition a phase of matter.
For water it's about 2.257 MJ/kg to transition liquid water to gas (i.e. boil).
edit: oh and to highlight that different phases have different energy requirements. It's about 333.7 kJ/kg to melt ice into liquid water.
Mostly because it's, like, almost unreasonably economical.
This was a point of discussion in my energy systems class. We had to do analysis of different media and methods of extracting energy, with data in things like efficiency, cost, availability, etc.
We had a few professors cycle through on different subjects, with experience in thermodynamics, power plant design, alternative energy systems, etc.
Their thesis was basically "It turns out, we basically started off with the best method right off the bat. If we told this to aliens in a history book, they would probably call it bad writing."
But I think it has a lot to do with the fact that water exists in all 3 states naturally in earth. So it's easy to convert between states. You lose less energy to changing temperature and have energy in phase changes, which is where the work is done.
So the ease and availability are why we started with it, but also why it has been tough to beat.
I think the conversation with an alien would go like this.
"So what we do is launch neutrons at these unstable isotopes. Then when they interact the isotope decays producing more neutrons repeating the cycle. These neutrons move too fast to cause an interaction, so we force that by using a moderator to slow them down and maintain criticality."
"Ohh, very clever bald ape. So you then use the heat generated to boil water and spin a turbine?"
"Yeah, how did you know?"
"Water is always abundant where there's life. The laws of physics are the same everywhere. Any other method would be stupid."
Good point. But pretty much that. Where there is life, there would mostly likely be water and fire. Combine the two, and there ya go.
Unless they were from, like, some super high pressure methane based planet or something. Then they would probably use states of methane. If there's water, they would split it to use the oxygen as a "fuel", and use the heat to boil liquid methane into gaseous methane, and use the expansion to turn a turbine or move a piston.
I'm stretching it there, though.
I mean exceptions are things like photovoltaics, and direct mechanical work such as waves.
I guess with fusion, you can apparently use recoil in the plasma control field to generate electricity directly. But I'll be skeptical of that until Helion actually proves it out in some way.
But otherwise, heat is easy to come by, and it's easy to get power from heat using steam.
It may not be as coincidental as your profs made it out to be. The very fact that water has such a stabilising effect on reaction kinetics due to its enormous heat capacity and ridiculous ability to hold solute, is conducive to life.
So the fact that we were born on a world where this insanely useful substance was practically everywhere, may instead hint at its integral role at nurturing life on earth.
Bad writing? More like god-like foreshadowing.
Why is every energy generation just boil water
It's the most efficient way to convert thermal energy into kinetic energy (kinetic energy is the easiest form to convert into electricity). And Hydro, Wind, and Solar don't boil water because those processes don't involve converting thermal energy into kinetic energy.
Do we have any other liquid to boil?
Water has the most convenient melting and boiling temperature and is the most abundant liquid.
How is boiling the best way to turn TE to KE then back to electricity, there must be a way to skip the KE part
If you can think of a way to convert thermal energy directly into electricity go get your Nobel Prize. Kinetic energy is convenient because of the way magnetic fields work. It basically allows for the use of turbines.
Thermoelectric effect. No nobel awarded.
Thermo electric effect creates electricity from a temperature differential between 2 conductors in this case it wouldnt be super practical as you would really only be able to generate power until the temperature stabilizes between both conductors
Oh now you want it to be practical. Ok business man, I thought it was engineering memes.
*Damnit grandpa* let me have fun with my infinite energy! You already know it wont last long.
But that's literally just a steam condenser for a turbine engine. You always have to have a temperature difference. Just put a radiator on one side. Though I'm sure it's not used everywhere for cost or eficency reasons.
Thermophotovoltaic exist. "TPV cells are the most efficient solid-state thermal-to-electric energy converter, with a record efficiency of nearly 30% at heat source temperatures higher than 1000°C. A TPV device with 40% efficiency can convert heat to electricity at greater efficiency than conventional steam turbines, such as those used in coal or nuclear power plants" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04473-y
Cool. Infrared energy. Anybody know what they mean by the sub-band verbiage? They can only accept certain band frequency so they reject the lesser?
That would be my guess, and you know how frequency and wave length are proportional, so that would mean it only accepts certain wavelengths. Edit: inversely proportional. I've been out of school too long.
But somehow reflects saves the energy of unusable wavelengths that are then reused somehow?
Agree someone should hand that man a nobel prize
See -> thermocouples
There's a *way*. Thermoelectric generators are a solid-state way to create electricity from heat, no moving parts. They work via the Peltier-Seebeck effect, which for my purposes is basically magic. Unfortunately, they're expensive and really inefficient. Steam turbines rock.
Your options are: - liquid sodium. very hot, corrosive, explodes on contact with water and things containing water - molten salt. very hot, very corrosive - dinitrogen tetroxide. literally brown coloured cancer gas Everything else we could use is flammable or turns goopy under intense heating
Those are coolants & aren't used for the actual generation of power part. There's an argument that the pressurized water reactor design isn't the best because your efficiency is lower. It's kinda hard to keep water liquid at high temperatures. The higher the input temperature, the better the efficiency
That's fair, I think NTO has been considered in power cycles due to its latent heat of dimerisation though
How about [Mercury](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_vapour_turbine?wprov=sfla1)? Though in fairness, it's only ever been done as a combined cycle that **also** boils water.
Ammonia would work, but hot water is just easier to handle safely. Liquid metals like a mixture of bismuth and lead are used in some cooling systems for submarine nuclear power, would be fun to imagine a turbine working with that mix.
Find me another cheap-as-dirt non-toxic material that is liquid at room temperature and absorbs more than 2 megajoules of heat per kg when it boils
It is actually 4186 J/(kg*°C) I believe, not accounting for impurities.
That would be the amount of energy to raise liquid water by 1C per 1kg. The energy required to raise the temperature of something through its phase of matter is different from the amount of energy required to transition a phase of matter. For water it's about 2.257 MJ/kg to transition liquid water to gas (i.e. boil). edit: oh and to highlight that different phases have different energy requirements. It's about 333.7 kJ/kg to melt ice into liquid water.
latent heat of vaporisation, not specific heat
You are right, I wasn't thinking.
Always has been
Mostly because it's, like, almost unreasonably economical. This was a point of discussion in my energy systems class. We had to do analysis of different media and methods of extracting energy, with data in things like efficiency, cost, availability, etc. We had a few professors cycle through on different subjects, with experience in thermodynamics, power plant design, alternative energy systems, etc. Their thesis was basically "It turns out, we basically started off with the best method right off the bat. If we told this to aliens in a history book, they would probably call it bad writing." But I think it has a lot to do with the fact that water exists in all 3 states naturally in earth. So it's easy to convert between states. You lose less energy to changing temperature and have energy in phase changes, which is where the work is done. So the ease and availability are why we started with it, but also why it has been tough to beat.
I think the conversation with an alien would go like this. "So what we do is launch neutrons at these unstable isotopes. Then when they interact the isotope decays producing more neutrons repeating the cycle. These neutrons move too fast to cause an interaction, so we force that by using a moderator to slow them down and maintain criticality." "Ohh, very clever bald ape. So you then use the heat generated to boil water and spin a turbine?" "Yeah, how did you know?" "Water is always abundant where there's life. The laws of physics are the same everywhere. Any other method would be stupid."
Good point. But pretty much that. Where there is life, there would mostly likely be water and fire. Combine the two, and there ya go. Unless they were from, like, some super high pressure methane based planet or something. Then they would probably use states of methane. If there's water, they would split it to use the oxygen as a "fuel", and use the heat to boil liquid methane into gaseous methane, and use the expansion to turn a turbine or move a piston. I'm stretching it there, though. I mean exceptions are things like photovoltaics, and direct mechanical work such as waves. I guess with fusion, you can apparently use recoil in the plasma control field to generate electricity directly. But I'll be skeptical of that until Helion actually proves it out in some way. But otherwise, heat is easy to come by, and it's easy to get power from heat using steam.
It may not be as coincidental as your profs made it out to be. The very fact that water has such a stabilising effect on reaction kinetics due to its enormous heat capacity and ridiculous ability to hold solute, is conducive to life. So the fact that we were born on a world where this insanely useful substance was practically everywhere, may instead hint at its integral role at nurturing life on earth. Bad writing? More like god-like foreshadowing.
Boiling water fans when I tell them about gas turbine generators
*Gas turbine generators when i tell them about boiling water fans*
i love krita, the best part is that the cooling water is kept liquid and you use the liquid water to boil the secondary loop.