BREAKTHROUGH Supercritical Turbine Breaks RECORDS
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- A new type of turbine utilizes high pressure C02, resulting in smaller yet more powerful designs!
Sources & Credits:
• How a Gas Turbine Work...
• #powerplant #Steamtu...
• How A Combined Cycle P...
• Hinkley Point C - GE's...
• Steam Turbine Advanced...
• Episode 22: The Power ... - Наука та технологія
I didn't realize there was so much still to learn/discover/engineer about turbines. Thanks.
As a maintenance worker for a spicy rock powered plant, leaks, leaks are going to be a nightmare on a grid size (Gigawatt +) scale.
with the temperature range involved in keeping co2 supercritical, a system like that, one which could hypothetically generate some level of power from almost any heat source, could change the way we generate power and operate our grids, because if it becomes possible to make small, self contained units, they could be installed in all manner of locations, allowing for the creation of things we can barely even begin to imagine, due to the fact that electricity availability is one of the limiting factors on almost anything we do, and untapped heat sources are abundant in human developments.
Ultra-supercritical technology is used at the RDK 8 coal-fired power plant in Karlsruhe, Germany. The plant achieves 47.5% net thermal efficiency while producing 912MW of electricity, making it one of the world’s most efficient hard coal-fired steam power plants.
As a note, I suspect that this efficiency number is based on the the Higher Heating Value of coal.
Another steam power plant utilizing double-reheat steam cycle and cold seawater for cooling, resulted in a net electrical efficiency of 47% (LHV basis).
Yes, coal is the best end user for CO2 turbines due to their lower Temps allowable compared to CO2.
@@w8stral
Expand upon what u said, I am unsure what u meant. All I was commenting upon was that the most efficient coal plants are better than what the video said. Oxygen combustion has some interesting applications where the working medium is CO2 with natural gas as the fuel.
Are you en engineer? If so you should have been able to decipher. If not, what limits Coal efficiency is its maximum temperature as it uses water and water is pressure limited not temperature limited. And no, Coal plants are no more efficient that what video originally said. mid 40% is max due to energy required to turn coal into dust , preheaters, sulphur scrubbers etc. But the biggest problem is Thot of Coal verses natural Gas. Efficiency is ~~~ Thot -Tcold. Changing from water to CO2 allows much higher Delta Thot-Tcold CO2 as a medium helps make smaller turbines due to allowable pressures at higher temps. Does have the big problem that when everything goes tits up, all that high pressure CO2 will kill anyone via asphixiation nearby and therefore will require a giant pressure vessel around the main turbines. CO2 + water can also create acid, but that can be dealt with. @@Mentaculus42
@@w8stral
Yes I am an ME and it seems like we are talking around “definitionial” issues and I specified ULTRA-SUPERCRITICAL steam plants with reheat and the information was from an authoritative source. One of the articles specified:
A USC plant operates with steam conditions above 3,500 psia and 1,100F (593C). For comparison, a conventional supercritical unit operates at steam temperatures of 1,000F to1,050F (538C to 566C) and pressure typically up to 3,500 psia!
So are you referencing USC with reheat? I have done test on regular steam turbines and am quite aware of the parameters. As I noted, the issue with using LHV vs HHV & REHEAT & the use of COLD WATER for the condenser. Unless u r directly involved with this industry, I will go with the authoritative sources that might have some marketing hype or leave out some peripheral loses but are consistent between different plants with different equipment.
You are talking tiny specifics which I find useless to talk about unless your fingers are actually in the engineering numbers and totally useless in a UA-cam comment; instead I am talking whole plant setup. @@Mentaculus42
thank you for being different to all the youtube channels that just sell fake stuff to you to entertain to for 10 minutes, when you actually care about the material you put out.
Co-generation(co-gen) plants have been around for a good while.In the late 90s I helped build and maintain one of these GE engineered projects.It was a natural gas fired turbine,exhausted into a boiler compartment containing a latticework of steam capillaries.They tied into a main steam line that then fed a steam turbine,producing additional power from the gas turbine’s exhaust.I believe its efficiency was just over 60%.I retired from there in 08,cleanest place I ever worked at.
Did you go to the school in Susanville ?
@@ricknoah9184 That would be a nice place to visit,but never been there.I have family in Ventura,tho.
Thanks, I have not looked into this type of turbine before.
this allows for decentralized power infrastructure. so instead of a few GW power plants then sub stations, you could have many more smaller plants within town or cities.
This guy gets it
the government should absolutely focus on this aspect because it's dangerous and a huge vulnerability to have a few massive plants at risk instead of a highly connected but resilient grid with smaller units to pick up slack
If you think the government wants to decentralize power generation, you're not paying attention. They absolutely want to centralize it so the department of energy can easily control everything. They want to shut off entire cities if they want, at a moments notice, even if the people are rising up in civil war, especially if the people are rising up in civil war even. They can't do that if cities are generating all their power locally. This is also why they're banning fuel vehicles, because they can't just remotely shut off a switch on a gas tank. This is why they want everything run on batteries, because those can be shut off remotely, and to really have a battery bank system for the entire energy grid, the only thing that makes sense is a large centralized facility, rather than batteries scattered around all over.
They're already experimenting with ways to do this, for example, using coal beds in conjunction with hydrogen gas they can get it to absorb. They use this as a battery to store and pull energy. There are other simple ways that do this too, such as stacking concrete or large heavy objects. What they do is use energy to lift something heavy with a crane system, think like building a pyramid out of large blocks. Then when they want the energy back the crane just unstacks it and lowers it back down, regaining the energy through the crane because it acts like an energy generator when the objects weight provides torque to draw energy from, just like spinning a windmill. And this gives almost as much energy back as it took to stack the thing up. You would need a large dedicated facility to achieve this on any feasible scale.
So the government sure as heck wants everything centralized, because they're not getting excess power from local generators for their mega grid battery project. Local means nothing for them to really have absolute control over, and they need absolute control to sink energy into these mega battery systems, not to mention they need it to be local so that the transmission of the energy is localized, which loses less energy. So they literally can't rely on drawing energy for these mega batteries from anything but a centralized generation source. Or in other words, the fact that they want to build these mega batteries, tells you by proxy that they also want a centralized power generation system.
This turbine would work well with a closed-loop geothermal system, based on Eavor's design (see their UA-cam channel) but dug extremely deep using the particle beam drilling tech from Quaise (also see their UA-cam channel). The result would be a true-zero emissions powerplant safe for urban areas with a tiny footprint and a very long lifespan (100+ years). It would provide extremely low-cost electricity in large quantities.
Quaise provides only a very vague description of what they are developing. Are they working to provide geothermal energy or are they focused on the development of their gyrotron-powered drilling platform? The gyrotron-powered drilling platform has some unexplained details which cause doubt about the technology. What becomes of the vitrified rock within the borehole? They do not suggest that they expect to vaporize the rock ahead of the wave guide. SO, how is the rock, even if molten, removed from the path of the boring tool?
At the same time, Eavor refers tp their technology as "scalable". It is one thing for technology to be scalable in principal and another thing to achieve scaling in application.
A young research down here got grant money to build a very small power plant that was to use the techtonic pressures to super heat water being pumped deep underground. When he finally drilled the shaft he was hit by a jet of steam coming straight up. It seems his idea had legs but mother earth got there first, but he did get more interest as he had found water in the part of Australia were there is none (was).
That's my smart talk over for another year. Thanks.
I think that any kind of deep earth geothermal is dangerous because of the imbalances it would create. 100 years of running a city is going to put some strain on the underlying strata.
The idea of sCO2 power cycles is fairly ancient. The fact that the working 10MWe unit is finally being demonstrated is a great achievement and huge step forward for the technology development. I would just add couple more info. To achieve higher cycle efficiencies, the CO2 is compressed and heated usually up to 250bar and 550C at the turbine inlet. These conditions are also probably the reason why it took so long to develop, but nowadays nickel based alloys can handle that. Another fact is that even though the turbine itself is very compact in size the other components like the heaters and the coolers are standard size as for the steam cycle. So when scaling up, the footprint si rather same as the current power plants minus the turbine hall.
If it give you extra 10% efficiency with the same cost for building and maintaining it still make a lot of sense.
@@Ayvengo21 the cost of building would be much higher, since most of the equipment must be build from high grade stainless steel and nickel based alloys. So big power blocks will probably remain running on steam, but I see a big window of oportunity with smaller modular units coupled with thermal storage.
Amazing vid
Keep it up
It's interesting to see the effort put into something to get it to work. Applying efficiency to all aspects of the system would make more sense before scaling up. There are several components that have been overlooked. Thanks for the vid
I thought this was going to be about the Netpower test plant that runs a supercritical CO2 turbine. But nice to know that there are more players trying this idea. :-)
What an amazingly beautiful monster of a machine. Hope they someday scale it up to and beyond a gigawatt.
Great video! These are the kinds of energy projects that need to get funded and used. Thanks!
Why? Wind and solar are far cheaper to operate.
I loved it, I think, I will tell you after I watch it five more times....
The largest issue with sCO2 is the amount of volume required. The time it takes to heat the sCO2 from liquid to gas then get that gas from the heated surface to the turbine blades causes a loss of pressure along the way. This means that some form of (highly controlled) pulsating injection may be the best method to further improve the efficiency. This of course increases the pump pressure injecting the liquid onto the heated plate and in a closed system this requires increased cooling. It is "tricky" to get sCO2 to perform at peak all the time with varying ambient temps effecting the materials involved.
"sCO2 from liquid to gas" what do you mean? The fluid is supercritical. There is no gas or steam phase. That's one of the main benefits of this cycle because the compression power is much lower compared to steam.
Clearly, you missed that part of the video..
Also, sCO2 allows you to go from wet cooling to dry cooling. At the same ambient temperature, sCO2 brayton is more efficient than steam rankine. Therefore, it's equally tricky (if not less) to maintain peak efficiency.
The largest issue comes from the heat exchangers in the cycle. The boiler needs to be able to be able to withstand 250 bar and temperatures higher than 800 C.
The Co2 needs to be in a closed system. Once the high pressure is ran through the turbine it is then cooled currently by means of hitting a "plate" cooled by a nearby water source which returns it to it's liquid state. It can then be pumped/spray injected into a heated chamber and turned into a supercritical state. To maintain a more uniform and higher supercritical pressure pulsating injection would be a better method then just spraying it on the heated coils and having that pressure injected immediately against the turbine blades unrestricted. The difficult issue here is finding and maintaining a high pressure pump capable of injecting the liquid into the higher pressure heated chamber and lessening losses up to that pulsating injector. The higher pressure differential before the turbine to after the turbine the higher output is possible. Using gear reduction is another means to lessen these losses having a turbine running at higher rpm. But that also presents problems.
Very important development work, hope for success, in many Industries.
Good. Thanks.
Excellent, clear graphics. You should consider a longer, more detailed explanation of the technical points raised. We'll done on this v important subject.
They should apply the newly discovered tubercle technology to turbines !👍
Interesting , Thank You . I Really Hope it works and can Scale
My teachers were critical, my parents are supercritical.
Quantum superposition tech would make this unimaginably more efficient
Would love to have 10 of them. :)
I think we're close to cracking it
I can see an instant application of this technology in marine propulsion. Maybe the days of the gigantic Diesel are over?
So how efficient is using a closed loop system using water split and recombining and using that energy along with using magnet motors along with magnet generators configured to work with the magnetic fields to spin the generator? Now we just need to find a good set of magnetic berings to float the spinning generator. Or how about using the tesla turbine? Or using frequency waves from everything in in the air already and utilize that for power?
The largest issue with technology id that the boiler needs to be able to be able to withstand 250 bar and temperatures higher than 800 C. It requires the use of high-nickle allows that are expensive and hard to manufacture.
I’m afraid I’m too stupid to intelligently comment
Finally, an honest person. Thank you. Now if 99% of commentors were just as honest...
Knowing and admitting your "level" is the that step to improving ...
And honesty is pretty intelligent
Actually your comment is the most intelligent so go figure.
Very astute. It's one of the most thoughtful comments I have read yet. Most of the good ones are emotional.
Thank you. Me too. 😊
Does it help in any way with the efficiency of the of a heat engine over a traditional gas or mostly a savings in size?
Pretty sure there would be losses in the heat transfer to the closed loop, so it's probably only a good idea when your system requires a closed loop. Something like solar thermal, geothermal or coal/oil fired.
That’s a combustion turbine sometimes called a gas turbine, not a steam turbine. Those 16 holes around the circumference of the turbine stage is where the fuel nozzles go. (The compressor is in the foreground) 0:15
Seriously, the first two images shown are the GE combustion turbines?
Why didn’t you show Toshiba steam turbines?
There is a question a bit idiotic that I have. Since turbines are more efficient with incompressible fluids and on the other hand you get more expansion and thus motion from expanding gas, why do we not expand a gas above a huge pool of a liquid phase of the same element that will push a reduced colomn of the liquid?
This is very cool, has me wondering about the use of CMCs with molten salts or other possibilities. I mean using the salt as a driving fluid and not just a thermal storage medium. Also wondering about the possibility of hydrogen. Apparently it becomes supercritical around 180 psi, but is there an upper limit to density?
The fun parts about water / steam are...
Density, water and steam are heavy, giving higher kinetic energy transport at lower flow rates (bigger pipes can make up for that though..)
Specific heat capacity and latent heat of evaporation. Water shifts heat energy very very well.
ah, need to discuss the clean carbon fuel possibilities here. If we run a close loop supercritical co2 gas cycle we can extract co2, and store it and bury it. There are lots of companies trying to do just that.
nope,CO2 is just a medium like the gas in refrigerator, CO2 wos the first refrigerant but it needs a high pressure and a very expensive pipes.
Thanks
Interesting!
So how efficient is the co2 generator?
The one which got maximum compression ratio at low pressure is the Supercritical Turbine.
I can see this being used in the Co2 battery (Energy Storage) system that they are putting up here and there.
Would it be suitable for geothermal energy extraction?
Think the project managers need to consult with me around the Co2 system, Co2 refrigeration is one of my specialist fields
After watching this, I feel both smarter and dumber at the same time.
Nothing is free. What is the required energy input per usable mass unit of super C CO2 compared to steam?
I think you meant a liquid. Gases are fluids, as well.
How about supercritical sf6 for small generators? Could these ever be used for transportation, say in a semi truck? Maybe pneumatic engine or tesla turbine based generator would be better for such small applications.
not sure if the complexity of the build and additional cost and maintenance would offset the 10% gain in efficiency.
Combine the closed loop CO2 Turbine with Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.
How does this compare to Netpower’s Super Critical CO2 turbine?
I just have to wonder if the CO2 gives 10% more efficiency at the much higher RPM, will the reduction gear necessary to generate line voltage power at standard frequencies take that 10% back?
Так. Високочастотний генератор має набагато менші розміри. Краще конвертувати високочастотний струм ніж механічну енергію. Це надійніше і ефективніше.
Nikola Tesla already fixed some of the issues stated in the video
Why can the s.c. CO2 design only be scaled up to 450MW? What are the limiting factors beyond that?
Gas turbine.
The combustion does *not* increase the pressure.
You can take it from me or you can get your head royally chewed off by AgentJayZ UA-cam channel.
Combustion increases volume and temperature, speeding up the flow.
As AgentJayZ points out, there's a bloody great big hole in the rear of the combustor. Ain't nuffin increasing the pressure there.
You forgot to mention that supercritical CO ² fits well with high tempature nuclear reactors. Also, because of small size, naval propulsion.
High RPM will be to noisy for submarines.
@@princeofkernow9875 I was referring to cargo ships. Sterling engines would be better for subs. A small fast reactor could melt a storage of aluminum using heat pipes which in turn give such a sub high power burst potential. The Sterling engine would enable ultra quiet operation.
It would seem that small units meant to power only 5 to 10 homes, would be the route to follow. Think how much power loss is involved in current electrical grids during transmission.
A companion to the A/C heat pump could be another module for a mini turbine to power the home. There are many parts of the world, even in developed nations, that are off grid, and a multi fuel turbine system would be the answer in many varied environments.
Whoa did you say a co2 gas turbine could use waste co2 from a coal plant with a natural gas burner/catalyst to get water vapor? I think you just invented an additional way to make more power and make coal green?
Interesting, but you negated to discuss the more traditional Rakine turbines that this essentially is .. The new development is the use of super critical CO2 instead of NH3 or other refrigerant type carbon (fluorine) compounds in heat recovery. I assume that these types of electrical generators are for use in high electrical demand periods of the longer duration.. supplementing the use of NG turbines or on ships that use large multi cylinder diesel type engines (now using more ethanol in their mix) as the secondary power source.. Ideally no reduction would be used, instead separation of the pulsed output directly into the power line as pulsed DC or inverted AC (again taking the heat generated in the coil capacitance to be recycled).. High speed usually means short life..
Niobium alloys for your materials thermal management of the compressor blades should help you get your temperatures up.
Your math has got an instability with separation spreads it's like with you using 5 * 5 like = 25 but the direction of 25 roach way it's going to pull inside of whether it's going to pull inside is it going to turn your water's liquid to counterbalance your inner directions it's far in which ratio of a decimal fraction
What you can't use just like regular fractions like 1/3 can either be 33 or it can be 66 but there's a whole spacing spread that plays with all that and most people just think you can turn it in one direction and it's not true it means you could have the offset counterbalance start to be like counter direction against you percent value could start off spreading your hot and cold and wrong directions with some can sometimes take years and balance or certain gravity turns before it starts causing actions against you
Bravo.......need to make micro unites .......multi systems .....Sterling .....cryogenic tube......cheers
I am curious why we don’t utilize air bearings more in rotating equipment.
I’m still waiting for the Echogen super critical CO2 power gen system that was supposed to start up on a gas turbine at Trans Alta Utilities in 2019. If it’s so great why is sCO2 taking so long to get commercial?
I'm wondering how much co2 this will take out of the atmosphere?
1:02 You might want to work on that graphic a bit more as the RED GAS FLOW has significant issues❗️Unless you are NOT using a cross section but some type of 3D flow which seems to be a bit nonstandard.
Politicians think they control the rights and organization of people think they can block their stuff and then take actions into their stuff
Are we there yet?
Cool , thanks, as usually lots of precious info. I`m wandering why they`ve not tried GRCop-24. It was conceived for high thermal tollerance. the great advantage is that can be 3-D printed.
Now we can build the silos (I'm referencing the Apple TV show called 'Silo')
Supercritical steam turbines have been in commercial operation since the late 50’s. Ultra supercritical plants just push further into the supercritical region due to the advances in materials science. The CO2 turbine generator utilizing a gearbox wouldn’t make any sense at larger scales. Maintaining a gearbox transferring 100’s of MWs would be cost prohibitive.
I would like to know more about how this turban would work, would it cycle between supercritical a normal state gas, or remain supercritical though the entire cycle?
Well, a turban at supercritical temp would probably burn up..... ;P But I wouldnt know, I dont wear turbans!
@@shaylethorne2387 Funny. I am going to blame spell check, though I can make mistakes.
Good question, it appears to remain supercritical during the entire cycle. C02 is pretty corrosive in normal liquid/gas state.
if it was supercritical through the whole process there would be no pressure differential and there would be no flow. its like asking "is the water always liquid in a steam engine?"
the co2 is merely used as it has far less latent heat during its phase change. water takes 6 times the energy to evaporate as it does to bring to the boil. and that energy is lost again when its recondensed.
you need the condensor to drop the exhaust to as close to a vacuum as possible.
how can co2 be supercritical when it also has to reach near vacuum at the exhaust stage? otherwise it simply wouldnt flow through teh turbine at all. the closer you can get to a vacuum, the better a turbine works. the most energy in the steam is in the portion when its BELOW atmospheric pressure! thats why pistons are so lousy, they have to dump all that steam well before using all its energy... they just cant expand enough and keep producing force, torque, whilst a turbine CAN.
they might not push co2 turbines so low, but it makes sense to, as the lower the pressure, and the lower the temperature on teh cold side, the higher the differential and the more energy there is to be extracted, and the more that one can extract.
a condensor still has pumps... air and water pumps. has to force this now cooled steam, water, back into the boiler to repeat the cycle. the latent heat to boil the water, its lost, gone forever,unrecoverable, and so is the energy to drive the pumps.
without the heat being applied, it would soon grind to a halt as the pressure in the entire system does reach equilibrium. supercritical or not!
as co2 is far easier to recompress to a liquid and push out what little latent heat it has, you lose far less energy through the unavoidable phase change from gas back to liquid before "boiling" it again. it loses out on the energy it can "hold", so the system needs to be very well insulated and laid out for there to be a benefit. water has a high specific heat, it holds a a lot of energy for its mass/volume. iirc, only helium is better...
the co2 is merely a conveyor belt for the energy, the flow of heat... it has to keep circulating... and the only way for it to circulate is a pressure differential. and its the temperature differential that creates the pressure differential to drive the whole system in the first place. the heat wants to flow form hot to cold, the subsequent pressure then wants to flow from high to low... and we extract some of the energy, "push it off the belt", as it passes on its way form hot to cold by restricting the flow in the turbine...
they trialed mercury boilers in the early days, they were successful too... mercury can do the high temperature part in the boiler, has a low latent heat, easy phase change, and what heat is dumped in its condensor boils water in a secondary low pressure/low temperature system.
sodium or other low melting metals work just as well but mercury is already liquid, makes it easier. and its DENSE! that makes the system small for a given power output, mass flow through the turbine.
@@retiredbore378 the beauty of refrigerant gases in a close cicle the sistem can be balance so it never wet in the expansion only in the cooling, because of the size the blades are much less prom to damage.
Bigger turbine have the advantage to be stabalazing for the electrical grid the big rotational mass and therefor big inertia helps to mantain grid stability
10 megawatts!??? That is quite a lot for something so tiny.
I love how words are used in engineering at times. when nasa and spaceX are most happy with a launch everything is nominal.
Making turbines out of unobtanium and super tolerance and pressure is clever until contamination of gas due to the corrosion especially If any neutron exposure is planned. When things go wrong they get really bad really quickly. The maintenance and down time has to be considered in the operating costs.
I kind of wonder how a Tesla turbine handles a super criticle state.
What temp range is needed for optimized power?
he doesn't say,but CO2 can achieve a decent differential pressure at under boiling water temperature
100c ,,the turbine doesn't need to be especial,is the case,is just like a AC
in reverse,dead steam can power this,is just that The investment is higher.
c
@@yvanpimentel9950 Higher investment? That doesn't bode well.
I guess I don't understand how the efficiency can be higher unless the temperature is higher. That is basic thermo
@@harryniedecken5321It is a more efficient working fluid. It is twice as dense as steam so you have better power density, there is no required phase change, and it's easier to compress.
@@christophorus9235 So it breaks the Tmax-Tmin of heat engines, or just reduces the losses?
Needs to be paired with a high voltage, high frequency generator to eliminate the gears.
I fail to understand how this is a breakthrough when this is all old known stuff. This GE turbine exists since 2016. So this is 7 years old at least.
To probably look at the ratio of your heating and cooling in your material
I would point out all the problems and pitfalls but I don't want to be super critical. Lol
I wonder if heavy water could be used
But can you use it to power a dreadnought?
The script does not always match the visuals and a gas is a fluid, what you meant to say is 'liquid'.
Imagine confusing requiring high rpm with how much resistance can be applied to generate energy at low rpm
My ex girlfriend was super-critical. Now i see i never had a shot
Stupid here (me) but are/can we use electro magnets to seperate moving parts (less friction/higher speed)? Heat problems? Can pulsed electricity with magnets be used to push the opposing force? Coupling the 2 drivers together to get greater pwr/efficency (fuel or steam assisted by El/Mag).
Magnetic bearing has been known for a long time.
You'd have to be supercritical to downvote this video 👍
Why not use the high RPM directly instead of lossy gear boxes to drive generators? Drive a high frequency alternator and then reduce the frequency electronically to 50Hz or 60Hz or even DC for high voltage transmission
Supercritical turbines have definite advantages over purely expansive turbines. Supercritical turbines have been around for decades, but operated with water steam. If supercritical CO₂ turbines operate over a lower temperature range than do steam turbines, then there may be some logistical advantages over the steam turbines.
With either steam turbines or CO₂ turbines, you will be adding heat to a medium, then allowing that heat energy to be converted to rotational mechanical energy. I do not see enough in this presentation for me to decide that supercritical CO₂ turbines have an inherent advantage over supercritical steam turbines. Steam turbines are a well known technology, so it will take some very convincing demonstrations b to get the turbine market to make the switch.
WHEN THE HELL WILL THIS JUST GET DONE ???? TIME FOR A CHANGE !!!!!!
Meh. I'm about to release the Ultra Super Duper Critical Turbine into production. It has over 87,000 stages and generates black holes.
Have they tried burning hydrogen. Have they tried counter-rotating turbines.
You mean low tolerance
Problem: Leakage
Will require frequent and expensive replenishment. I will be nearly impossible to contain the CO2 100%.
Personally I think steam turbine tech days are numbered if high temperature Thermophotovoltaics tech pans out of the lab. With 40% efficiency at around 2000C, and unharvested radiation reflected back into the heat source. The benefits of of a solid state thermal power harvesting mechanism are just too obvious. Finally getting steam out of the equation will certainly be the end of an era.
just put a hand cranked generator on a step up transformer
what about making the fans solid but holed like a cheese grader
Lavatory vs La- bo- ra-to-ry.