Slashdot Mirror
'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars
sciencehabit writes: "Fossil fuels power modern society by generating heat, but much of that heat is wasted. Researchers have tried to reclaim some of it with semiconductor devices called thermoelectrics, which convert the heat into power. But they remain too inefficient and expensive to be useful beyond a handful of niche applications. Now, scientists in Illinois report that they have used a cheap, well-known material to create the most heat-hungry thermoelectric so far (abstract). In the process, the researchers say, they learned valuable lessons that could push the materials to the efficiencies needed for widespread applications. If that happens, thermoelectrics could one day power cars and scavenge energy from myriad engines, boilers, and electrical plants."
technically, you would still need an energy source (gasoline, natural gas, batteries) to power the cars. thermo electrics could make it more efficient by recycling waste heat. but the thermoelectrics themselves would not power the cars.
We better speed up this global warming thing so we can power our thermo cars!
Several vehicle manufacturers have been experimenting with supplemental power generation systems in their cars. BMW for instance has a steam turbine. Honda's doing thermal recovery more efficient than regenerative braking.
Now, scientists in Illinois report that they have used a cheap, well-known material to create the most heat-hungry thermoelectric so far
Because it's soooooo hard to actually state what the well-known material is
Ultralow thermal conductivity and high thermoelectric figure of merit in SnSe crystals
Oh, I guess it's not hard at all. A salt made of Selenium and Tin.
I debunked this LAST time it was posted..
Look, these things are NOT going to get you thermodynamic efficiency gains on anything of value. Any system which is designed to be efficient now, will not benefit from this kind of heat to electricity device. Thermodynamic rules demand a maximum efficiency that is as good as you can do. Most industrial scale energy production is pretty darned good compared to the maximum possible. So you are NOT going to be able to just hook up these things and get electrical energy for *free* (even without the device costs). Any energy you manage to get, will be lost someplace else because you put these devices in the heat flow. Don't even bother trying this, it simply won't work. Don't let them fool you with all this "waste heat" garbage, at least until you understand the Thermodynamic laws that govern all this and can explain what a heat engine is.
As I concluded before, in situations where you have less than ideal conditions, like in cars with internal combustion engines, you MIGHT get a little bit of energy, but I ask you is it going to be worth it? Are you sure you are going get enough gain to make it worth the weight, cost and complexity? Where I'm not so sure that answer is a good one, I'm willing to entertain that it *might* be possible for internal combustion engines. Go ahead and work on that idea, but I'm fairly sure it's not going to work very well.
I'd also suggest that there are more efficient heat engines you might consider. These heat flow direct to electricity devices are horribly inefficient compared to the ideal.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
E = (T2-T1) / T1
Everyone with an engineering degree knows this. Trying to extract much energy from low-grade heat at the output end of an engine is inefficient. This was figured out a long time ago. Here it is in The Manual of the Steam Engine. It's possible to increase steam engine efficiency by compounding, where the exhaust from each cylinder feeds a larger, lower pressure cylinder. This is cost-effective up to about 3 cylinders ("triple expansion"). Engines up to quintuple-expansion have been built, but the additional power from the last two cylinders in the chain isn't worth the trouble.
You sir, are ignorant . It's a sad comment on the state of affairs that a clueless bullshit comment like your could be moderated informative.
We've been extracting energy from waste heat, without incurring extra losses, for over a century now - i
Calm down and think about what I said. Your average power plant is pretty darn good efficiency wise (which is what I said if you don't mind reading), which is exactly what you are saying too. Yea, we've come a long way from just dumping waste steam, we have optimized things very well actually. I'm saying that there is very little room for improvement left at this point and there is NO FREE LUNCH here. These devices that convert heat flow directly to electric power are NOT going to increase the efficiency of industrial scale power plants. These devices are simply NOT EFFICIENT enough and will disrupt the current efficiency we've already designed in, they will only disrupt the heat flow, raise entropy and result in less power output for the same input. They don't help.
Before cautioning others to educate themselves, first pull your head out of your own ass and educate yourself.
What on earth did I say that was incorrect? I admit to having struggled with thermodynamics class, but I believe I captured the essence of heat engines and efficiency. So you want to step down off the pedestal and discuss exactly what you think I have wrong in my understanding of thermodynamics? Or are you going to stay up there and keep yelling about how stupid everybody else is?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The maximum limit on an an arbitrary heat-conversion system is that doesn't break accepted theory is the Carnot-cycle heat engine, where eff 1 - T_cold / T_hot (as measured from absolute 0). But it's a rare real-world engine that gets anywhere near the Carnot efficiency limit - a car engine might run at 1100K for an ideal efficiency of around 73%, but the reality in most cars is closer to 25%. Being solid-state a thermoelectric device could potentially operate at very near the ideal (no mechanical losses), roughly tripling the efficiency. Assuming 90% efficient electric wheel motors the total system efficiency could be nearly as high.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Before you make a bigger ass of yourself, please look up what "waste heat" actually is and familiarize yourself with the "Thermo" in thermodynamics.
Engines run HOT. Every bit of heat that travels into the metal and outside the engine is lost energy. Capturing bits of that lost energy and putting it to good use is the concept here. This is waste heat, so it is free, just as eating food out of the garbage bin is "free food" -- someone else paid for it, but they threw it out so it is "free" for you. It's not disobeying thermodynamics any more than burning a gallon of gasoline to make a car move 30 miles is disobeying the laws of thermodynamics.
For other automotive-related things that defy your idiotic concept of physics, please see turbochargers and hybrid cars.
If you read my post.... (and apparently you didn't) ... I specifically stipulate that automotive applications *might* be successful and worth of investigation. The reason I say this is because of the huge amounts of heat transferred out the tail pipe and radiator in a modern internal combustion engine at sometimes very high temperature differentials leaves something to recover. This is totally unlike a modern power plant, where heat transfer has been carefully engineered to be as efficient as possible, thus leaving little room for thermodynamic improvement. However, my doubts about automotive application are over costs, weight and complexity not about the Thermodynamics of the application.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The maximum limit on an an arbitrary heat-conversion system is that doesn't break accepted theory is the Carnot-cycle heat engine, where eff 1 - T_cold / T_hot (as measured from absolute 0). But it's a rare real-world engine that gets anywhere near the Carnot efficiency limit - a car engine might run at 1100K for an ideal efficiency of around 73%, but the reality in most cars is closer to 25%. Being solid-state a thermoelectric device could potentially operate at very near the ideal (no mechanical losses), roughly tripling the efficiency. Assuming 90% efficient electric wheel motors the total system efficiency could be nearly as high.
Don't be fooled that "hey they are solid state and convert directly to electricity". Deep down, it's still a physical process that produces electricity, even if the moving parts are not something you can see. In actual practice, what happens with these things produces horrible efficiency.
These electronic devices are semiconductor junctions that you get heat to flow through in hopes the electrons will bounce their way across the junction into the cooler side and get stuck... They are not efficient from a thermodynamic perspective, and unless my physical understanding of how they work is totally wrong, they are never going to approach the efficiency of even an internal combustion engine, from a thermodynamic perspective anyway.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101