this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
119 points (95.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43892 readers
941 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Couldn't we have a lead box lined with these radiation to electricity converters with a small amount of radioactive material in the center, and have an energy generating device that would last for thousands or even millions of years? Imagine putting the sun in a box lined with solar cells, but on a much smaller scale.

Is there a reason this wouldn't work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This article has a good breakdown. The biggest issue is efficiency. RTGs are around 5-9% efficient. Standard steam cycle generators are around 30% (see this article ) . You get much more usable energy from fuel used in a commercial reactor vice a RTG.

[โ€“] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From the article it looks like RTGs are just converting the heat energy into electricity. Seems like there's a lot unused potential being missed.

[โ€“] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 year ago

Yes, I don't think RTGs are really what you're asking about. It's just a solid state way of turning heat into energy instead of using steam.

[โ€“] RangerAndTheCat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Can you ELI5 why the efficiency is so low on the RTGs?

[โ€“] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

RTGs aren't radioactive-specific, they are just a solid state way of turning a temperature difference into electricity. The better way to do this (at scale) is e.g. a steam engine, which is what big power plants do.

Wow! I think is a subject that Iโ€™d going to occupy my downtime for awhile. Thanks for the in depth info, also relevant username?

[โ€“] RangerAndTheCat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you so much. I think Iโ€™m kind of getting but you have some to ing I can do some more research on.

[โ€“] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Very much so! Guess Iโ€™m going down this rabbit hole before bed tonight haha. Thanks for the extra info.

[โ€“] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

They take the waste heat from nuclear decay and convert it to electricity through the use of a peltier device. Those work off of differential temperature and are pretty inefficient to begin with. Unmderated Nuclear decay doesn't produce a lot of heat at one time, which is why reactors use a moderator to increase the power output.