▲ 940 ▼ Turbine go brrrr (lemmy.world) submitted 7 months ago by Agent641@lemmy.world to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 19 points 7 months ago (7 children) Solar cells, technically. boiling water systems have a thermal efficiency of ~40% Solar cells are closer to 45% efficient permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] spazzman6156@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (2 children) So line a nuclear fusion containment chamber with photovoltaic cells? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 7 months ago That's called a "Dyson sphere". permalink fedilink source parent [–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago They would melt, but we do also have gamma voltaics which can use the gamma radiation from fission and fusion to generate electricity they just have an atrocious efficiency permalink fedilink source parent [+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -6 points 7 months ago (3 children) Doesn't seem particularly efficient to me... The sun burns hundreds of millions of tons of hydrogen every second. The amount of released energy we actually put to use is indistinguishable from zero, not 45%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago I mean, that's like pointing out that a coal plant isn't very efficient because it doesn't burn all the coal on Earth at once. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) If we put it like that, every other energy source on earth begins that way and adds at least one conversion step. ... except for fusion of course. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 point 7 months ago Exactly. Nuclear plants are probably the least efficient, because they required all that fusion energy inside earlier stars to build hydrogen into uranium, and we can only extract a tiny portion of that trapped fusion energy through fission. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spazzman6156@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (2 children) So line a nuclear fusion containment chamber with photovoltaic cells? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 7 months ago That's called a "Dyson sphere". permalink fedilink source parent [–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago They would melt, but we do also have gamma voltaics which can use the gamma radiation from fission and fusion to generate electricity they just have an atrocious efficiency permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 3 points 7 months ago That's called a "Dyson sphere". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago They would melt, but we do also have gamma voltaics which can use the gamma radiation from fission and fusion to generate electricity they just have an atrocious efficiency permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today -6 points 7 months ago (3 children) Doesn't seem particularly efficient to me... The sun burns hundreds of millions of tons of hydrogen every second. The amount of released energy we actually put to use is indistinguishable from zero, not 45%. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago I mean, that's like pointing out that a coal plant isn't very efficient because it doesn't burn all the coal on Earth at once. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) If we put it like that, every other energy source on earth begins that way and adds at least one conversion step. ... except for fusion of course. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 point 7 months ago Exactly. Nuclear plants are probably the least efficient, because they required all that fusion energy inside earlier stars to build hydrogen into uranium, and we can only extract a tiny portion of that trapped fusion energy through fission. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago I mean, that's like pointing out that a coal plant isn't very efficient because it doesn't burn all the coal on Earth at once. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 11 points 7 months ago (1 child) If we put it like that, every other energy source on earth begins that way and adds at least one conversion step. ... except for fusion of course. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 point 7 months ago Exactly. Nuclear plants are probably the least efficient, because they required all that fusion energy inside earlier stars to build hydrogen into uranium, and we can only extract a tiny portion of that trapped fusion energy through fission. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 point 7 months ago Exactly. Nuclear plants are probably the least efficient, because they required all that fusion energy inside earlier stars to build hydrogen into uranium, and we can only extract a tiny portion of that trapped fusion energy through fission. permalink fedilink source parent