you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 26 points 9 months ago (12 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (11 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months 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.

  • source
  • parent