Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Material Could Up Efficiency of Concentrated Solar Power (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

An anonymous reader shares new work that could allow us to generate electricity using supercritical carbon dioxide. Ars Technica reports: The researchers involved in the new work, a large U.S.-based collaboration, focus on a composite material: tungsten and zirconium carbide. These have extremely high melting points: 3,700K for both materials. Both of them conduct heat extremely well, and neither of them expands or softens much under these conditions, meaning they would hold up better to the mechanical stresses. While the stats are impressive, the amazing part of this is how the material is fabricated. The researchers started with tungsten carbide, a ceramic that can be formed into a porous material simply by pouring it as a powder into a mold and heating it. At this point, the ceramic can be further machined to produce a final shape. Once in its final form, the ceramic was placed in a bath of a molten mixture of copper and zirconium. The molten mixture filled the pores, and the zirconium reacted with the tungsten carbide, replacing the tungsten. The copper in the molten material formed a thin film on the surface of the solid.

The tungsten then filled the pores in the resulting material, allowing it to retain the same shape and size despite the chemical changes. The zircon carbide ends up providing the material with a stiffness even at high temperatures, while the tungsten is flexible enough to keep the whole thing from being brittle. And the whole thing conducted heat better than the metals currently in use. The remaining issue is that, at the conditions involved in solar thermal plants, the copper on the material would react with the carbon dioxide, forming a copper oxide and releasing carbon monoxide. But the researchers determined that adding a small amount of carbon monoxide to the supercritical CO2 would suppress this reaction, something that they confirmed experimentally. Because the material holds up to these conditions so much better than the metals currently in use, it's possible to use much less of it to build a heat exchanger. This is great economically (since you need fewer raw materials), and the small size increases the power density and efficiency of the heat exchanger.

80 comments

  1. Then what by rossdee · · Score: 1

    With this stuff you could make a really hot solar oven.

    But what are you going to cook in it?

    1. Re:Then what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of a few interesting applications for a material such as this. Especially in aerospace. Solar power would have been pretty far down the list. I imagine they are touting a potential solar power application just to gin up publicity and funding. Sounds pretty shady to me. (Pun intended)

    2. Re:Then what by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Solar-thermal is dying and this material is unlikely to revive it. Solar PV has dramatically declined in price, and is likely to continue to do so as manufacturing improves. Solar-thermal isn't cost competitive, and has far less room for improvement, since mirrors and pipes are mature tech. Solar-thermal requires more maintenance, and requires direct sun. Unlike PV, it will produce no power on overcast days.

      The only significant advantage of solar-thermal is that it can store heat and time-shift power generation. But that is not enough of an advantage to offset the higher costs.

    3. Re:Then what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what are you going to cook in it?

      Meth

    4. Re:Then what by blindseer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With this stuff you could make a really hot solar oven.

      But what are you going to cook in it?

      Carbon dioxide. It says so in the article.

      My guess though is that they'll "cook" salts, melt some salts to the point they flow like water and they make very nice heat transfer materials for running brayton cycle turbines. These turbines can react quickly to changing power output demands, are quite small for the power output compared to other heat engines, and the salt works well for thermal storage over many hours if kept in a proper storage tank. All good stuff for replacing natural gas and oil to make electricity.

      Another application I can think of is to make hydrogen from the water for synthesizing fuels and fertilizers, as well as make some desalinated water as a byproduct for use in municipal water supplies.

      Also in the article is the potential use in making better natural gas and nuclear power plants. This is good stuff for energy production, finding something to "cook" is the least of the problems.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:Then what by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 2, Informative

      > The only significant advantage of solar-thermal is that it can store heat and time-shift power generation

      That's a pretty useful "advantage".

    6. Re:Then what by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      This material's strength at high temperatures allow it to be used as the "boiler" for a solar steam turbine.

      For a boiler like this you want the material as thin as possible to allow heat to flow through it rapidly, but it also needs to withstand an internal pressure of many atmospheres*. You also don't want it to melt through and fail if there is an interruption of flow in the heat transfer liquid.

      *73 atmospheres for CO2, 225 atmospheres for water.

      As an aside, it could also be used for the hot end of a Stirling engine. That's been a difficult material science application for a while.

    7. Re:Then what by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      It won't necessarily be at many atmospheres in liquid form. Sure CO2/water would need to be at high pressure, but you would use other molten materials that would not be near their boiling point which flow to a separate heat exchanger to heat the working fluid (probably water/steam) like the hot side of the Stirling engine you mentioned. To control power level and heat storage you just bypass part of the flow around the heat exchanger to an insulated supply tank. The place where you would need this material would be in the collector itself and the immediate surrounding area where the temperature can get much hotter than the rest of the system.

    8. Re:Then what by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Solar-thermal is dying and this material is unlikely to revive it.
      No it is not.
      It is actually the future of solar power. They have reservoirs build in and work up to 4 days without sunlight, and they are dispatchable.

      But that is not enough of an advantage to offset the higher costs.
      Seems the power plant companies disagree.

      You forget that the typical mirror based plants are not the only ones, e.g. we have up wind plants, too. They are simple and cheap.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Then what by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Solar-thermal is dying and this material is unlikely to revive it.

      I think this will come in pretty handy for the molten salt solar.

      Solar PV has dramatically declined in price, and is likely to continue to do so as manufacturing improves.

      That doesn't mean that the two compete. PV appears to be in the peak power market during the day and molten solar at night when people are home.

      Solar-thermal requires more maintenance, and requires direct sun.

      Yes. It is solar power.

      Solar-thermal isn't cost competitive, and has far less room for improvement, since mirrors and pipes are mature tech.

      Isn't cost competitive with what?

      The plants produce four times the energy when you double their size there are plenty of place you could put these in deserts.

      Unlike PV, it will produce no power on overcast days.

      That's why we need to build huge amounts of them in different places. The sun is always shining somewhere. That's also why you build lot's of wind, geothermal and wave power.

      The only significant advantage of solar-thermal is that it can store heat and time-shift power generation.

      Which is exactly why you use it.

      I think all these new techniques for producing energy are really exciting developments. We are at the dawn of when power grids are getting more intelligence in them to move power around. Technologies like these are going to play a big part in that.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    10. Re:Then what by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Also in the article is the potential use in making better natural gas and nuclear power plants.

      Also, as more and more nuclear reactors are retired converting them to natural gas as their turbine and grid infrastructure is already built. That's a huge amount of embedded energy invested in concrete and construction logistics building that infrastructure. There is a huge opportunity for climate wins by re-using this infrastructure and converting it to natural gas.

      Plus operators or former nuclear plant can still generate profit on sites where they store nuclear material. You may even be in a position to preheat the water with waste heat from the spent fuel cooling ponds.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    11. Re:Then what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that solar thermal has a much higher efficiency than photovoltaic. Ultimately when real-estate becomes the limiting factor, solar thermal is the best choice.

    12. Re:Then what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also in the article is the potential use in making better natural gas and nuclear power plants.

      Also, as more and more nuclear reactors are retired converting them to natural gas as their turbine and grid infrastructure is already built. That's a huge amount of embedded energy invested in concrete and construction logistics building that infrastructure. There is a huge opportunity for climate wins by re-using this infrastructure and converting it to natural gas.

      Plus operators or former nuclear plant can still generate profit on sites where they store nuclear material. You may even be in a position to preheat the water with waste heat from the spent fuel cooling ponds.

      So global warming, created from burning carbon based fuels like natural gas, is going to kill us all. Nuclear power is the safest and lowest CO2 producing energy source we have. You call converting a nuclear power plant to natural gas a "climate win"? I guess it's better than converting the plant to coal.

      If you want a "climate win" then you want nuclear power. It sounds like you support nuclear power, but you aren't ready to admit it yet.

    13. Re:Then what by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is the safest and lowest CO2 producing energy source we have.

      Uh, no. Solar, Wind, Hydro and geothermal are all lower than Nuclear. You can check Low-carbon Power which does list Nuclear above solar, however it references the Vatenfall literature which has significant problems with its method.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    14. Re:Then what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power is the safest and lowest CO2 producing energy source we have.

      Uh, no. Solar, Wind, Hydro and geothermal are all lower than Nuclear. You can check Low-carbon Power which does list Nuclear above solar, however it references the Vatenfall literature which has significant problems with its method.

      Here's a more recent source showing nuclear power to be the lowest CO2 of them all:
      http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-i-favor-nuclear-power.html

      Vattenfall was from 1999, CMO cites a Lancet article from 2007. Also on CMO you will see nuclear is safer than solar, safer than everything really, and uses comparatively little material resources per energy produced.

      For someone that seems so concerned about CO2 emissions, to the point of seeing a need to "correct" a comment on if solar or nuclear produce less, it baffles me that you'd advocate conversion of nuclear power plants to natural gas. I'd think you'd rather see them convert to solar, or bio-fuel, or geothermal, anything but another fossil fuel. If natural gas is an acceptable energy source, with all the death and environmental destruction that comes with it, then why such hostility towards nuclear power? The teeny tiny chance of a nuclear power accident has to be far better than the near certain destruction from drilling for and burning of natural gas.

    15. Re:Then what by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Also on CMO you will see nuclear is safer than solar, safer than everything really, and uses comparatively little material resources per energy produced.

      You don't have all the facts and refuse any given to you. Therefore your statements don't have any credibility.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    16. Re:Then what by blindseer · · Score: 1

      From your source I find this:

      Under the current conditions the specific CO2 emission of nuclear power is roughly 80-130 gram CO2/kWh.

      https://www.stormsmith.nl/i05....

      Compare that to the CO2 emissions from here: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...
      While the source you gave shows more CO2 from nuclear then from Dr. Malhotra it still shows nuclear power having lower CO2 emissions than hydro and solar, about on par with biomass, and less than double that of the very low CO2 from wind. Dr. Malhotra shows data with nuclear lower than all the above but your source doesn't change the primary point I make, that nuclear power is a very low CO2 emitter and therefore it would be wise to make it part of the solution to lowering our carbon footprint.

      I accept the facts you provided on CO2 emissions, despite your claim otherwise. I accept them wholeheartedly because they prove the very point I was making.

      I'd address your sources' claims on the safety of nuclear power if they made any. All I got from them is that nuclear power has not been proven safe, which is very different than proving nuclear power unsafe. This is an obvious lie because safety studies have been done and Dr. Malhotra had cited them on his website, which is shown on the link I provided. Given that nuclear power has been shown to be quite safe, and again a very low CO2 emitter, then it would be wise to use as much of it as we can while continuing to develop solar, wind, nuclear, or whatever else shows to be promising.

      To claim I refuse any facts given me first requires that someone provide facts. I cannot refuse what was not offered. I accept your data on CO2 because it shows nothing I didn't already know, that nuclear power has CO2 that is as low as any other energy source that has been called "zero carbon". Of course nuclear power is not truly zero carbon but then neither is solar or wind, I only claim that if "zero carbon" applies to solar then it also applies to nuclear.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  2. Sounds like the mother of all microfractures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got one brittle material and one soft one. Both expanding differently under heat.
    Sure, the tungsten is gonna hold it together like a windshield. But the zirconium carbide is still going to get a shitton of microfractures every time it actually has to be flexible. And of course the it will also massage the tungsten every time it is heated up and cooled down, weakening it too, while it still can.

    So beware of its lifetime. It might become shitty quicker than you'd think.

    1. Re: Sounds like the mother of all microfractures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, so you've just wrapped up your 1st quarter of materials science in school. Good for you. Maybe, just maybe, the experts working on this stuff know a thing or two about what they are doing.

      Nice arm chair quarterbacking though. Check back in when you're done with your degree and have at least 5 solid years of experience in the field.

  3. Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Yet another miracle "breakthrough" that won't amount to anything practical. It's just PR to generate research grants and feed the pig. It's the stuff that Popular Mechanics and Popular Science have been good at for decades---peddling snake oil and pipe dreams.

    1. Re:Yawn. by DigressivePoser · · Score: 1

      Yet another miracle "breakthrough" that won't amount to anything practical.

      So what? At some point, researchers somewhere are going to hit the jackpot and we'll wind up with solar power so cheap to generate and store that energy markets will finally move away from oil & gas.

    2. Re:Yawn. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      You could be right. IIRC Tungsten is relatively expensive and quite difficult to work (though they aren't dealing with metallic Tungsten).

      But you could also be quite wrong.

      OTOH, do note that the proposed application is heat exchangers. These aren't only used in solar power plants, and aren't used at all in photo-voltaic systems. So the title is misleading, and the application is as likely to be nuclear plants as solar plants.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article stated this material had applications in nuclear and natural gas. If this makes natural gas more efficient then it's not going to move anyone away from it.

    4. Re:Yawn. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      the application is as likely to be nuclear plants as solar plants.

      You would have to account for what neutron bombardment in nuclear plants would do to this material before it could be used there.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Yawn. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. The heat exchangers aren't usually near the core of the reactor, so only get relatively low levels of radiation.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:Yawn. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      No. The heat exchangers aren't usually near the core of the reactor, so only get relatively low levels of radiation.

      Indeed. I was considering it from the perspective of the cladding around the fuel rods. I'm uncertain if it would have much of an impact between the primary and secondary cooling loops in a PWR as you have mentioned.

      As for a molten salt reactor, the salt would carry the isotope around so in that situation the heat exchanger would be exposed. I should have mentioned those scenarios when I posted - thanks for the opportunity to clear that up.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  4. Much wider applications!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This has much more applications than simply solar: Jet turbine blades, valves, piston and cylinder head coating for internal combustion engines. If this has the same tensile strength as Inconel at 3 times the temperature we can have 64% efficient engines.

  5. anti-american by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This kind of bullshit "technology" WILL cost thousands of american jobs.

  6. This is a problem? by blindseer · · Score: 1

    One problem here is that both natural gas and nuclear plants also rely on heat exchangers, and there's no reason this material can't be used to boost their efficiency, too.

    I don't see a problem here.

    In fact such materials with such varied uses should be seen as a very good thing. Right now solar is the new pink... or something. Solar is fashionable. Solar power is getting a lot of backing right now from government funding, private funding, and just general popularity. With that there is leverage to divert some of that funding to this materials research. If they can get the people in natural gas and nuclear convinced it will help them too then they can secure more funding.

    Solar power is expensive, they admit this in the article. Solar power is intermittent, again they admit this in the article. Solar power takes a lot of land and other resources. Solar also requires a favorable geography and climate to compete. These do not apply to nuclear and natural gas. I thought the goal was to find viable alternatives to coal power to improve air quality, provide reliable energy, and reduce CO2. The goal should not be making solar power viable, since there are other means to replace coal.

    They've taken their eyes off the prize. This should not be about making solar power the winner, it should be about making coal the loser. The fashion might be solar right now but I'm guessing that the future of solar won't be so bright as technology advances. This is one example of a technology that might actually kill solar competitiveness. Should this technology prove workable then it will be applied everywhere it can, and that might not help solar power in the long run.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:This is a problem? by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      One problem here is that both natural gas and nuclear plants also rely on heat exchangers, and there's no reason this material can't be used to boost their efficiency, too.

      I don't see a problem here.

      In fact such materials with such varied uses should be seen as a very good thing. Right now solar is the new pink... or something. Solar is fashionable. Solar power is getting a lot of backing right now from government funding, private funding, and just general popularity. With that there is leverage to divert some of that funding to this materials research. If they can get the people in natural gas and nuclear convinced it will help them too then they can secure more funding.

      Solar is in the news a lot because it's easy to implement on a personal scale. I think that you'll see a lot more articles over the next 5 to 10 years concerning the development of tidal and wave powered generators. These would be particularly beneficial in North-East US/Canada where NIMBY is stalling the installation/expansion of offshore wind farms.

    2. Re:This is a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare the R&D that went into nuclear with the R&D that went into solar. There is no comparison. Solar is expensive... compared to what?? There has never been nor will there ever be a more expensive way to generate electricity than nuclear. The cost of R&D alone for nuclear power development would have made its development entirely impossible except for a couple 1st World and 2nd World nations. It took a massive economy like the United States in the 1940's and 1950's to develop nuclear energy. Meanwhile, solar was more or less ignored until the 1980's. Had one hundreth the resources that were sunk into nuclear power been diverted to invest into R&D of solar power in the 1980's, no form of power generation today would be able to compete with solar. Let's allow solar to develop naturally, through capitalism, and in only two short decades, no one will be pro-nuke anymore. Nuclear power is expensive. And it is quite dangerous and complex, and it creates problems that will continue to cost long after the last nuclear power plant is decomissioned... and we are talking about hundreds of years of cost, mostly for security and protecting local environment from the insanely toxic shit that nuclear plants create with no solution other than to store it, on human time-scales, indefinitely. Get over your love of nuclear power. It is a shit bird. Leave solar be, it will save us.

    3. Re:This is a problem? by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Solar is in the news a lot because it's easy to implement on a personal scale.

      Maybe I'm nit picking here but this is not the kind of solar that can be implemented on a personal scale. This new material is only helpful on solar thermal systems, and not the kind used for household water heaters either.

      I think that you'll see a lot more articles over the next 5 to 10 years concerning the development of tidal and wave powered generators. These would be particularly beneficial in North-East US/Canada where NIMBY is stalling the installation/expansion of offshore wind farms.

      Tidal and wave power have problems with silt in the water causing incredible wear on systems. If it's not the technical problems that sink tidal and wave power then it will be a different kind of NIMBY that don't want to see fish habitats getting disturbed or something.

      Another thing is that if global warming is a problem that needs a solution RIGHT NOW then we need nuclear power. Tidal, wave, solar, and whatever else they are working on, won't come to market for at least a decade. If we start building nuclear power plants today then they can come online before they finish any tidal power project. There are are at least a dozen nuclear power license applications the NRC is sitting on right now, if they pulled their thumbs from their asses and issued the permits then we'd see nuclear power come online faster than any tidal project could.

      If we can wait for this new solar power technology to save us all then global warming must not be all that pressing of a problem. If it is a problem that needs to be solved RIGHT NOW then build some nuclear power plants already.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:This is a problem? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      Tidal and wave power have problems with silt in the water causing incredible wear on systems.
      Strange that neither the power plants nor the power plant operators know that.

      Tidal, wave, solar, and whatever else they are working on, won't come to market for at least a decade.
      Well, if you start building a nuclear power plant now, I guess it will be online in 20 years.

      Wave power plants work like wind plants. You can put one online every few days ...

      And I don't get what you mean with "market" ... you can buy them right now, all three: tidal, wave, solar ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:This is a problem? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      One problem here is that both natural gas and nuclear plants also rely on heat exchangers, and there's no reason this material can't be used to boost their efficiency, too.

      I don't see a problem here.

      The material would have to be tested for how it behaves under Neutron bombardment.. That's the thing that limits the life of all nuclear reactors to a few decades. The older they get the more brittle the reactor vessel becomes and the more likely they will have a Loss Of Cooling Accident or LOCA. That the reason a lot of utilities opt to shut them down early.

      Solar is fashionable.

      The sun is always stylish, I've noticed it's always so radiant.

      Solar power is getting a lot of backing right now from government funding, private funding, and just general popularity.

      Not according to the 2005 US Energy Act. Solar can't access any funding through it the way Oil, coal and Nuclear does.

      Solar has to get its funding through small business funding. You can check the Act yourself to verify those facts. Sec 600-635 and 946, IIRC.

      If they can get the people in natural gas and nuclear convinced it will help them too then they can secure more funding.

      Well the great thing about gas is that you can convert Nuclear power plants to Gas and use the existing infrastructure (turbines and grid attachments). This material is more than likely for that purpose than it is for solar power, even though it will find a good application there.

      Solar power is expensive, they admit this in the article. Solar power is intermittent, again they admit this in the article. Solar power takes a lot of land and other resources. Solar also requires a favorable geography and climate to compete.

      Nuclear power is expensive. Nuclear power is intermittent. Nuclear power takes a lot of land and other resources. Nuclear also requires a favorable geography and climate to compete.

      Also Nuclear need special liability clauses in law to exist, it requires huge amounts of subsides to deliver incentives for utilities to build them. Nuclear produces huge amount of radio-effluents, Nuclear produces low energy return, Nuclear produces huge amounts of mine tailings.

      Worst of all, Nuclear power hurts puppies.

      These do not apply to nuclear and natural gas. I thought the goal was to find viable alternatives to coal power to improve air quality, provide reliable energy, and reduce CO2. The goal should not be making solar power viable, since there are other means to replace coal.

      Solar is a good investment. It is low risk and less capital intensive than many other power investments. So despite all of the downsides and lack of subsidies it is still attracting investors, which is all a good sign. More than likely it is a much simpler investment than Nuclear power.

      However it is wind power that is really starting to hammer Nuclear because it is a much more scalable technology.

      They've taken their eyes off the prize. This should not be about making solar power the winner, it should be about making coal the loser.

      One clear application is converting the heat exchangers in Nuclear Power plants to natural gas. This is not necessarily an anti-nuclear thing, as I know you like to frame it, but an answer to what to do with a lot of secondary nuclear infrastructure that is still serviceable as the reactors themselves are retired.

      No one really loses. In a way it is a win for Nuclear because at least utilities will have a way to keep those facilities profitable and maintain the containment of the spent fuel as it takes at least a decade to cool. It's simply the way I suggest you see how easy it is to replace nuclear power with natural gas because it is a good sense option that is easy to implement. We need simple climat

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:This is a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With solar advocates like this, who needs enemies?

      All you got are a bunch of lies and speculation. Don't tell me what solar will do in the future, because predictions are hard, especially of the future. Tell me what solar can do now. Right now solar isn't all that great. Right now nuclear provides 20% of the electricity in the USA. If we take what we have today and just build more of the same then we will know that nuclear will continue to be safe, low CO2, and reliable. If we take the solar we have today and build more then we know we will have solar that is expensive and unreliable.

      If nuclear power concerns you so much that you don't want it in your back yard then there's plenty of remote barren places to put them. It seems you agree that we have plenty of excellent locations for nuclear power plants. Thanks for agreeing that nuclear power is the future of our energy solutions.

    7. Re:This is a problem? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Another thing is that if global warming is a problem that needs a solution RIGHT NOW then we need nuclear power.

      I think the main problem with your argument is that you don't have all the facts and refuse any given to you. Therefore your statements don't have any credibility.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    8. Re:This is a problem? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      If we take what we have today and just build more of the same then we will know that nuclear will continue to be safe, low CO2, and reliable.

      As you are not in possession of all of the facts it is clear that your statements have no credibility.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:This is a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we take what we have today and just build more of the same then we will know that nuclear will continue to be safe, low CO2, and reliable.

      As you are not in possession of all of the facts it is clear that your statements have no credibility.

      What facts am I missing? I can find plenty of sources that show nuclear power to be safe, low CO2, reliable, and have a generally low impact on the environment. Here's one such source: (Provided to me by another Slashdot poster.)
      http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-i-favor-nuclear-power.html

      If you want to show yourself to be credible then it might help to at least give some lies that are not so easily proven false. If nuclear power is such a terrible technology then why are so many being built all over the world today?

    10. Re:This is a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another thing is that if global warming is a problem that needs a solution RIGHT NOW then we need nuclear power.

      I think the main problem with your argument is that you don't have all the facts and refuse any given to you. Therefore your statements don't have any credibility.

      I believe the main problem with your argument is that you are a poopy-head. If you just want to bring the level of your debate to name calling then I'll reciprocate. Just because you are using multisyllabic verbiage to make your ad hominem doesn't mean it's any more valid as an argument.

    11. Re:This is a problem? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      What facts am I missing?

      Use your pseudonym if you want to discuss it.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    12. Re:This is a problem? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I believe the main problem with your argument is that you are a poopy-head. If you just want to bring the level of your debate to name calling then I'll reciprocate. Just because you are using multisyllabic verbiage to make your ad hominem doesn't mean it's any more valid as an argument.

      You don't have all the facts and refuse any given to you. Therefore your statements don't have any credibility.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    13. Re:This is a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still not an argument.

    14. Re:This is a problem? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Still not an argument.

      Use a pseudonym if you want to have an argument.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  7. Summary line is unbelievable clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, "allow us to generate electricity using supercritical carbon dioxide"? That's the most ridiculous clickbait I've seen recently. Makes it sound like some kind of free energy scam. The CO2 is just part of the process of making an advanced alloy that might be useful in a heat exchanger. Come on slashdot, this is way over the top.

    1. Re:Summary line is unbelievable clickbait by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Come on, "allow us to generate electricity using supercritical carbon dioxide"? That's the most ridiculous clickbait I've seen recently. Makes it sound like some kind of free energy scam. The CO2 is just part of the process of making an advanced alloy that might be useful in a heat exchanger. Come on slashdot, this is way over the top.

      Wrong. TFA says that the higher operating temperature enables them to use supercritical CO2 instead of steam as the working gas for power generation.

  8. Anything at all to do with fusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone with more knowledge than I have should comment on whether this article has anything to do directly or indirectly with fusion research. That hasn't been mentioned so far in the discussion.

  9. It would be funny ... by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... if the best source for supercritical carbon dioxide turns out to be burning coal.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:It would be funny ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      supercritical co2 just means normal co2 under very high pressures. It is the best way known to move heat from one place to another for a long list of reasons including: it absorbs heat very quickly, it has high heat capacity, it moves like a liquid, it can be easily pumped, and can be forced to quickly give up/release heat (by lowering pressure), it has a relatively low operating pressure/temp compared to other gas supercritical points, and finally it is just harmless, abundant, non-corrosive, non-toxic co2 (as compared to other "refrigerants")

    2. Re:It would be funny ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best source for carbon monoxide - what they need to prevent the carbon dioxide from reacting with the composite material itself - would be coal.

  10. up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is up a verb now? how about raise, increase, bolster, augment, etc etc

    1. Re:up by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      They’ve upped the ante; deal with it.

  11. you made the argument by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Solar thermal it works in the DARK! (Efficiency isn't always about $.)
    baseline power.

    I don't think battery + PV costs + land have costs have caught up. I would think thermal gets more power for the land area. Why can't they generate power during overcast days? Concentrating thermal towers should still have some output...not parabolic troughs. I would think that improvements on IR light are still possible since a lot of that goes thru clouds.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    1. Re:you made the argument by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Solar thermal it works in the DARK! (Efficiency isn't always about $.)

      Power prices are higher during the day than at night. So cutting back on valuable power to make more cheap power isn't a good business strategy.

      Also, building a storage tank that can hold billions of watt-hours of superheated steam isn't free.

      Why can't they generate power during overcast days?

      Because mirrors can't concentrate diffuse light.

      I would think that improvements on IR light are still possible since a lot of that goes thru clouds.

      IR does not go through clouds.

    2. Re:you made the argument by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Also, building a storage tank that can hold billions of watt-hours of superheated steam isn't free.
      That is exactly why you don't store steam, but molten salts ...

      IR does not go through clouds.
      It does. But it has the same problem with "diffuse light" :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:you made the argument by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      You can use thermal storage for PV generated electricity, the round trip efficiency is pretty dire but if the electricity cost is low enough it doesn't really matter.

    4. Re:you made the argument by examresultsind1 · · Score: 1

      thanks for sharing useful post and Get in detail about Canada universities, study program for Indian students in Canada cost, eligibility and visa requirements for Indian to study in the Canada read more https://www.meetuniversity.com...

  12. How much less in December? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you model the Winter Sunlight?

    And does your model work?

  13. Problem solved!! by blindseer · · Score: 0

    Get over your love of nuclear power. It is a shit bird. Leave solar be, it will save us.

    That's good to hear. So, now everyone will shut up about global warming then? If solar will save us then the problem is solved. Yep, all problems on global warming are solved. The debate is over. No need to bring up global warming again. I will never ever have to hear about global warming again, because solar power has solved the problem.

    Everyone hear that? We've solved the global warming problem. So, don't bring it up ever again.

    If someone does bring it up again then I will bring up nuclear power again, because that must mean the problem has not in fact been solved and therefore we should consider solutions other than solar power.

    But I won't have to bring up nuclear power ever again because we've solved the problem. Yep, PROBLEM SOLVED!!

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Problem solved!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to retire this troll account, blindseer. We know you're a shill for the nuclear industry.

    2. Re:Problem solved!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to retire this troll account, blindseer. We know you're a shill for the nuclear industry.

      There seems to be plenty of shills for solar power around here. How many solar shills compared to nuclear shills? How much money is "big solar" handing out for all these anonymous cowards to post here in favor of solar power? You think only "big nuke" would be so underhanded to buy up some astroturf?

      Nuclear power produces 20% of the electricity in the USA, and is as "zero carbon" as solar. How much electricity does solar produce right now? A rounding error by comparison. How about we drop all the funding for shills, stop all the government subsidies, and let the open market pick a winner?

    3. Re:Problem solved!! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      How about we drop all the funding for shills, stop all the government subsidies, and let the open market pick a winner?

      As Nuclear power is the only thing benefiting from this, it sounds like a great idea. Solar and Wind will continue to improve and investments in Nuclear power will seem like the insanity that they are.

      Humanity made a big mistake choosing Uranium over Thorium and now we can't go back because of the spent fuel we have lying around.

      Future investments in Nuclear will come in the form of solar and wind powered accelerators that destroy the spent fuel. It's a shame all of the nuclear advocates here couldn't get over their collective ideology and see through the inherent problems nuclear power has so that they could be fixed.

      They were too busy blaming all of the people opposing coal and oil while the coal and oil lobby turned nuclear power into on gigantic tax break for their utility companies.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:Problem solved!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because nuclear power plants don't use any concrete, right? Nuclear power has never been carbon-free, unless it never needed or used concrete. It is another one of the lies industry shills peddle. But there's more. Any steel in nuclear power plants? That certainly isn't carbon-free to produce. You think storing nuclear waste is carbon-free? Think again. Unless the security personel and scientists testing containment live onsite and never leave. Lots and lots of carbon pollution from nuclear power.

    5. Re:Problem solved!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because nuclear power plants don't use any concrete, right? Nuclear power has never been carbon-free, unless it never needed or used concrete. It is another one of the lies industry shills peddle. But there's more. Any steel in nuclear power plants? That certainly isn't carbon-free to produce. You think storing nuclear waste is carbon-free? Think again. Unless the security personel and scientists testing containment live onsite and never leave. Lots and lots of carbon pollution from nuclear power.

      Nuclear power is as "carbon free" as wind and solar because with all that steel and concrete comes an incredible amount of energy. Take a look:
      http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-i-favor-nuclear-power.html

      I do mean "incredible" quite literally, as in it is difficult to comprehend that nuclear power can produce so much energy with such little environmental impact, but it does.

      Have you thought of what holds up a windmill? Under each windmill is a very large counterweight made of concrete and steel to hold it up against the wind. Even solar power uses an incredible (there's that word again) amount of concrete and steel per energy produced. This is because those solar panels aren't just lying on the ground, they are held up on steel posts that are sticking up from concrete anchors in the ground.

      Nuclear is as "carbon free" as wind or solar. It's true that nuclear power produces CO2 but then so does wind and solar. When compared to the energy produced for the CO2 emitted nuclear power beats everything, with perhaps an exception for hydroelectric according to some sources. The difference is that we can put nuclear power nearly anywhere, but hydro power cannot. Wind and solar also have restrictions on location. We've pretty much run out of good places to put a dam, but there's lots of good places for a nuclear power plant.

    6. Re:Problem solved!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Future investments in Nuclear will come in the form of solar and wind powered accelerators that destroy the spent fuel.

      Again with talking big about what solar will supposedly do instead of what it does now. Since we are talking about what will come then I propose a different solution to disposing of nuclear waste. One that produces energy rather than consume it like you propose.

      https://articles.thmsr.nl/the-flibe-energy-lftr49-the-triple-ace-in-nuclear-gen-iv-design-ea9bffcd71dd

      Why would anyone invest in such a complex process to destroy nuclear waste like particle accelerators powered by wind and solar when it's so easy to just bury the waste? If there is even the possibility to derive power from the waste, and it seems that there is, then why not invest in that? Nuclear power opponents constantly point out there is a lot of radioactive waste, it would seem wise to investigate methods of destroying this waste that does not involve such enormous amounts of power. I've seen the math on how much power it takes to transmute matter in a particle accelerator, I suggest you investigate the power needs yourself before repeating what you propose.

      Even if there is no power produced from one of these LFTR-49 reactors they still produce a lot of heat that can be used for things like desalinating water, and there are very valuable medical isotopes produced as byproducts. Even if not a single watt-hour was produced from another nuclear reactor we will still see them in use for industrial heat and medical isotopes, while they destroy the radioactive waste we've accumulated.

    7. Re:Problem solved!! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      https://articles.thmsr.nl/the-flibe-energy-lftr49-the-triple-ace-in-nuclear-gen-iv-design-ea9bffcd71dd

      I've read this before. You don't have all the facts and refuse any given to you. Therefore your statements don't have any credibility.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    8. Re:Problem solved!! by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Yep, PROBLEM SOLVED! Therefore I should never have to hear of global warming ever again. We solved all our global warming problems with natural gas and solar power.

      PROBLEM SOLVED!

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  14. Sounds like the mother of all papers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.x-mol.com/paper/857...

    1. Re:Sounds like the mother of all papers. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      So what is this stuff? Is it an alloy, a ceramic or some sort of composite?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  15. hypersonic applications? by special_agent · · Score: 1

    I'm sure someone already thought of this but (3700K 273.15) × 9/5 + 32 = 6200.33F --> maybe this stuff could be used on hypersonic aircraft or spacecraft heat shields.

    --
    "I now inform you that you are too far from reality."
    1. Re:hypersonic applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure someone already thought of this but (3700K 273.15) × 9/5 + 32 = 6200.33F --> maybe this stuff could be used on hypersonic aircraft or spacecraft heat shields.

      If they do that then they lose out on all the global warming money. When that money dries up then they can point out how useful it would be in making "rods from gods" orbital launched projectiles and cash in on military spending. Or, they can point out how it can hold up to the molten salts used in small modular nuclear reactors, once people figure out that nuclear power isn't going to kill us all.

      If they are selling this as a material for a heat exchanger then it's probably not suited for a heat shield. A heat shield is supposed to keep structural integrity under high temperatures but it should also have some heat insulating qualities, not conductive. That is unless I missed something on what a heat shield for a spacecraft is supposed to do.

    2. Re:hypersonic applications? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      maybe this stuff could be used on hypersonic aircraft or spacecraft heat shields.The material is a mix of tungsten metal, tungsten and zirconium carbides and zirconium metal, with minor copper. Densities of 19.3 - 17.6 (g/cc ~= Mg/m^3, room temperature to melting point, W), 15.6 to 6.7 (WC to ZrC, proportions unclear) and 6.5 - 5.8 (Zr). Those densities are not good for flying anything. Indeed, if possible, for moving at all.

      Back in the early 1980s, I had an exam exercise to work out whether aluminium or copper would be better for making power line cables, and present reasons. I spotted the trap, did the appropriate calculations on the data provided, and showed that aluminium would weigh about half what a copper cable would do, saving considerably in the cost of the support structures as well as the raw metal cost. You need to do equivalent calculations for these materials. At 1023K and 20MPa (200 atmospheres, modest pressure), you might get better weight/ performance ratio from tough steel ("HSS", or equivalent) with a platinum interior lining.

      They're interesting materials though.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  16. Fun fact by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Fun fact: if you look at the last 10 years of slashdot stories about miracle efficiency improvements, they're now around 570% efficient.

  17. the last promise : Amorphous silicon solar panels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still waiting for that revolution.... about 20 years now ....
    Things that work in the lab, are usually not easy to mass produce.

  18. It would be funny ...R-744. by Ostracus · · Score: 2

    Sounds like a replacement for Freon.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:It would be funny ...R-744. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and indeed it is. The reason I suspect it isn't more popular is that 1500+ psi valves/etc. tend to cost about 10x as much as their 200-300psi counterparts.

  19. Lazy authors by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Here we've got this new composite material that's a superb thermal conductor at high temperatures. No, we can't be bothered to tell you what the thermal conductivity is.

    Read the Nature article and the best they can do is say it's 2 to 3 times better than existing materials, iron and nickel. That means its thermal conductivity is somewhere near 220 (metric units). Copper is about 400, so we're not going to be using this stuff in computer heat sinks.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  20. Perhaps good for 3D printing? by technosaurus · · Score: 1

    Most of the 3d printed "metals" these days are a matrix that requires further processing. Something like this could enable _real_ 3D metal printing.

  21. Think about it - it is NOT as bas as you think by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Correction: prices TODAY are higher during the day. With increased solar driving down daytime demand those prices will drop and with enough solar the sunny daytime prices will become the lowest price; while the night and overcast days will raise prices. DEMAND is not the only factor setting rates and nothing says in the future it has to be as much of a factor or at all. Think ahead.

    Massive energy storage is horrible for electricity. For heat, is very efficient. They don't store heat as steam, duh!! Heat transfer and conversion is simple and efficient; heat to electricity conversion is best done using steam.

    Mirrors can't concentrate AS MUCH light when it's diffused; they do not turn black when it's overcast. A tower concentrator has enough mirrors why can't they still have enough to boil a little steam? A low temperature mode. When I asked, I was hoping for somebody with more knowledge than I speak up.

    IR DOES go through clouds.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news