• Meron35@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Low key this is a great way to convince people to switch away from fossil fuels.

    Most people seemingly don’t know that coal/gas stations work by essentially boiling water. Most are horrified at how trashy and underdeveloped the concept is compared to high tech alternatives like solar, wind, or hydro.

    • Geobloke@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well, hydro is just spinning water again, wind is spinning air. Solar is stealing electrons from the sun (i think?) So that’s cool

      • j5906@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Agree, the quantum-chem of it is amazing… Then again, solar has an efficiency of ~30% compared to the 90% for spinning steam

        • crater2150@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          I don’t think it makes sense to compare those efficiencies, as one is for converting heat to electricity, while the other is for converting sunlight. If you use sunlight to heat water and then use that for a steam turbine, the efficiency is similar to a photovoltaic panel. The efficiency numbers are still useful, but only when they refer to the same starting point for the conversion (e.g. only comparing things that turn heat into electricity).

          • j5906@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            You are right it doesnt really makes sense to compare them that way, it was just what the initial comment was doing. Nuclear fission is in itself only like 30% efficient. There are of course tons of metrics to compare these things, I personally like space-time efficiency or CO2/MWh.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, it’s comparing apples to crabs. It’s only looking at the very final stage and ignoring the efficiencies of the fuel, etc.

            If you wanted to make the comparison more fair (and also show how bad it is), a coal power plant maybe has an efficiency of 35%. You can calculate that by dividing the thermal energy in by the electric energy out. You feed in enough coal to generate 8MW of heat, which generates 2.8MW of electricity, so 2.8/8 = 0.35. By contrast, a photovoltaic power plant generates say 2kW of electricity with 0 fuel, so it has an efficiency of ∞%.

        • Geobloke@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          But it’s all profit baby! Let something else figure out cousin, put 0% effort in and collect the rewards!

          • j5906@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I am a big solar fan, but the moving part inertia thing is actually great for stabilizing the grid.

      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        They pump water through it. The water gives energy, all our energy is hydrogen baby

    • Cliff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can transfer gas to electricity without boiling water. But it is much more efficient to combine it with boiling water