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."

11 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. power cars? technically no by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:power cars? technically no by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My (admittedly pretty hazy at this point) memory of heat engines is that their theoretical peak efficiency depends on the thermal delta they manage to achieve. Exactly the same resource that thermoelectric materials scavenge (albeit at miserable efficiency) into electricity.

      Anybody who actually has some grasp of the matter want to chime in on where and why you would use thermoelectrics (and how efficient they would have to be) rather than simple insulation or one of the various waste-heat-recovery systems that transfer some amount of the heat remaing in outgoing exhaust gases into incoming working fluids?

      Is the thermoelectric advantage purely that, assuming material reliability is OK, they are a 100% solid state, trivial to scale from 'handle with tweezers and magnification' to 'pretty large', and their output is easy to transfer and useful for all kinds of things after just a little DC-DC cleanup, or are there actually situations where they might be absolutely more efficient than insulation and heat recovery, rather than just easier to tack in almost anywhere in a design that you have a few extra cubic centimeters and expect a temperature difference?

    2. Re:power cars? technically no by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the car is electric it could be powered by waste heat from industrial processes and primary power generation.

      TEs are bound by the same Carnot efficiency limitations as any other heat engine. If you use low grade "waste heat" then you are going to get very little power.

    3. Re:power cars? technically no by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The power plant -- just like in Diesel Electric trains; you have the electric engines that power the train and the power plant that powers the engines. Diesel fuel powers the power plant, and it in turn was powered by solar energy. The sun is powered by hydrogen fusion reactions; the hydrogen fuel was provided by gravitational attraction, which was powered by time and space.

      I'll leave it up to the reader to determine who/what powered time and space.

    4. Re:power cars? technically no by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. I realize that they're currently at 5%, the whole point of my scenario was examining what sort of changes a large increase in efficiency would produce... that's the whole point of the article, after all. Efficiency would need to be somewhere around 50% to justify replacing ICEs with thermoelectric engines. Is that possible? I've got no idea, TFA gives zero layman-friendly information about what sort of efficiency improvements are foreseen.

      2. Supply isn't as big a problem as the incredible safety issues. I acknowledge in my post that the idea is totally insane, which is why I doubt that, even with a big improvement in efficiency, you'd probably never see RTGs used outside of military applications.

      3. That's not necessarily a problem. They conveniently provide power that can be used for active cooling. Cooling them in a vacuum is an issue (hence the giant heat dissipation fins), cooling them in an atmosphere isn't as much of an issue.

      I suspect that sufficiently efficient thermoelectrics might find their way into military UAVs, which could remain airborn for extended periods of time, for example. Or as an alternative to shipping diesel to remote outposts (although they're currently looking into robotic trucks to solve that problem).

  2. Hotter Earth by neonv · · Score: 4, Funny

    We better speed up this global warming thing so we can power our thermo cars!

    1. Re:Hotter Earth by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      We better speed up this global warming thing so we can power our thermo cars!

      That doesn't work. TEs aren't powered by heat, but by heat gradients. So if everything is uniformly heated by the same amount, there is no benefit.

  3. New in the US, not elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Ah, the clickbait by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Illinois scientist uses this one weird trick to generate free electricity from waste heat; oil companies hate him"

    That's about what that sentence sounded like to me =/

  5. Not so fast, Thermodynamic laws are pesky things by bobbied · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  6. E = (T2-T1) / T1 by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.