[HN Gopher] Found: The 'holy grail of catalysis'- turning methan... ___________________________________________________________________ Found: The 'holy grail of catalysis'- turning methane into methanol Author : pseudolus Score : 295 points Date : 2022-07-01 10:29 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (phys.org) (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org) | aredox wrote: | Here's a BBC report from... 4 years ago. | | What has changed since then? | | https://youtu.be/MexeR2VozMA | distantsounds wrote: | defrost wrote: | Improvements in efficiency and a change of the MOF catalyst. | | Here's a better casual news link for the 2017 Lehigh University | | Cardiff University work: | https://thebrownandwhite.com/2017/10/11/lehigh-cardiff-unive... | johncearls wrote: | This is a pretty basic chemistry question, but I thought someone | her might be able to give a simple explanation why it seems most | of these amazing catalysts are always made from precious metals. | Why is it that super expensive things like gold and silver and | platinum are always the backbone of these catalysts? | Ekaros wrote: | Precious metal tend to not bond for very long time. Making them | rather useful as catalyst. On other had my guess is that this | tendency also leads them to be rare in uppermost crust of Earth | as they didn't bound with other materials, but mostly sink to | lower, them also being rather dense on virtue of being where | they are in periodic table. This rarity is what actually makes | them expensive. | anoxor wrote: | The orbitals of the lowest elements on the periodic table are | the largest in diameter and most flexible in bonding and | rebonding. | | Their ability to easily make relatively short lived bonds is | the key. | | These metals are often super poisonous for the same reason | (heavy metal poisoning). They enter a biological system and | effectively randomize a whole lot of bonds and molecules you | want to be stable over decades. | kurupt213 wrote: | Not really. It's because of the D- orbital configuration of | the coinage metal family. | canadaduane wrote: | By "lowest elements" do you mean elements with lowest atomic | number (Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, etc.), or closest to the | bottom of a chart hanging on a wall (Rubinium, Strontium, | Yttrium, etc.)? | selimthegrim wrote: | It would seem to be the latter, given the reference to | heavy metals (they probably mean noble metals more likely) | jacquesm wrote: | Because they are themselves less likely to react permanently | with any of the intermediary products or the feedstock. Think | of them as 'machinery that doesn't wear out quickly' which | would make them a consumable. | psychoslave wrote: | I guess if it was possible to make it with common dust, they | would have been discovered for long with random trial alchemist | experiments, and so wouldn't look so amazingly uncommon? | manmal wrote: | Those metals are very stable and usually don't take part in | reactions as reactants, and are usually catalysts, as you | already mentioned. Meaning, they let the reactants form | intermediates that wouldn't form without the catalyst. Eg by | donating an electron that is given back when the reaction is | complete. | | If the catalyst were not stable, it would become a reactant and | be consumed quickly. | Barrera wrote: | I'm wondering if the last sentence from the abstract is more of a | holy grail than the conversion of methane to methanol: | | > ... The confinement of mono-iron hydroxyl sites in a porous | matrix demonstrates a strategy for C-H bond activation in CH4 to | drive the direct photosynthesis of CH3OH. | | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-022-01279-1 | | Selective C-H bond activation (of which this paper is an example) | is extremely difficult. It has been the focus of intense research | for decades. Having a tunable catalysts system that performed | this transformation would be a game-changer for the production of | just of about every organic molecule. The authors just focused on | methane as the hydrocarbon feedstock, so it's hard to know how | general the process might be. | feet wrote: | That doesn't sound very selective to me, considering that the | CH bonds on methane are all theoretically equivalent. Could you | expand on this idea? | anoxor wrote: | Selective here means it adds a single OH (alcohol group) to | methane and not two, there, four. | | If you keep adding alcohols (otherwise known as oxidation), | you would end up with CO2 and waters - the same as burning | methane. | | There is a massive property boon going from methane (gas) to | methanol (liquid and easy to transport) and not further | feet wrote: | Is adding an OH to CH4 energetically equivalent for each | successive OH added? Or at least close enough for the | difference not to matter? | kurupt213 wrote: | No | adrian_b wrote: | The first oxidation step, from an alkane, like methane, | to an alcohol, like methanol, is always the most | difficult, i.e. the least likely to happen spontaneously. | | The next oxidation steps, from an alcohol to an aldehyde | (formaldehyde in this case), then to a carboxylic acid | (formic acid in this case), then to carbon dioxide, are | much easier to initiate. | | So doing the oxidation only up to methanol, without | losses into more oxidized compounds, is not likely to | happen in the absence of a very selective catalyst, like | in this case. | feet wrote: | This makes sense, thank you for the in-depth answer! | moomin wrote: | I mean, if the claims hold up and _only_ work for this | particular interaction, it will still be workd-changing. | Methanol production underpins an embarrassingly large chunk of | the modern world. | abirch wrote: | This would be useful for dairy farmers. Addition revenue for cow | farts and greenhouse gas reduction. | ekianjo wrote: | How do you collect the methane though ? | abirch wrote: | I was wrong, the methane capture that exists is methane from | the manure. | | https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1077235578 | abirch wrote: | Found this for cows' burps | | https://www.zelp.co/ | bertil wrote: | Most of the current collection is from manure. | | Methane is lighter than oxygen and azote, so you should be | able to collect some at the highest point of an air-tight | roof of a cow shed. Not sure how much that would represent | compared to manure. | Sporktacular wrote: | Methane is supposed to be abundant on some planets and moons. | Would there be enough light available to turn it into rocket fuel | for trips back? | ekianjo wrote: | Not sure . the amount of sunlight you get decreases with | radius^3 and already at mars it gets quite low. Any planet | beyond is probably not going to cut it. | zbrozek wrote: | r^2, right? It'd be ~r^3 if vacuum represented significant | path loss to light at the kinds of ranges we're talking | about. | MobiusHorizons wrote: | Methane is already a viable rocket fuel. I don't think it would | make sense to convert to methanol first. | perihelions wrote: | Methanol is actually one of the oldest liquid rocket fuels, | dating to WW2. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Stoff | | I don't think it's a very good rocket fuel (it's already | partly oxidized, for a start). Clark's _Ignition_ says Nazi | wartime shortages were the reason for its addition to C-Stoff | -- I 'll quote page 13: | | - _" But peroxide is not only a monopropellant, it's also a | pretty good oxidizer. And Walter worked out a fuel for it | that he called "C-Stoff." (The peroxide itself was called | "T-Stoff.") Hydrazine hydrate, N2H4-H2O ignited spontaneously | when it came in contact with peroxide (Walter was probably | the first propellant man to discover such a phenomenon) and | C-Stoff consisted of 30 percent hydrazine hydrate, 57 of | methanol, and 13 of water, plus thirty milligrams per liter | of copper as potassium cuprocyanide, to act as an ignition | and combustion catalyst. The reason for the methanol and the | water was the fact that hydrazine hydrate was hard to come by | -- so hard, in fact, that by the end of the war its | percentage in C-Stoff was down to fifteen."_ | pseudolus wrote: | A brief description of some of the applications of methanol from | the Methanol Institute: | | https://www.methanol.org/applications/ | DennisP wrote: | Things I'm wondering: | | At scale, could it be cheaper to convert methane to methanol for | export, compared to exporting LNG? | | Would it be difficult to convert chemical plants using methane | feedstock to use methanol instead? | | I'm assuming natural gas power plants wouldn't be convertible, | but coal plants maybe would. What would that cost? | thinkcontext wrote: | This has happened in WEst Virginia. They have stranded natural | gas, that is no easy pipeline access, so it is available at a | discount. China uses enormous amounts of methanol, so they | funded a plant to convert the methane to methanol for export to | China. | jabl wrote: | > I'm assuming natural gas power plants wouldn't be convertible | | Nah, gas turbines are relatively flexible wrt fuel. Might need | different injector nozzles. | credit_guy wrote: | Methanol has a surprisingly low energy density. Here's a | comparison with other fuels: - methanol: 20 | MJ/kg - ethanol: 30 MJ/kg - crude oil: 42 MJ/kg | - gasoline: 46 MJ/kg - methane: 54 MJ/kg | | Currently the world ships about 400 million tons of LNG per | year. To get the same quantity of energy, you'd need to ship 1 | billion tons of methanol. | | It does not automatically follow that methanol would be a bad | alternative to LNG. Even if you need 2.5 methanol tankers for | each LNG carrier, overall their cost could be lower, because | they are simpler machines. The transportation cost would be | probably higher, but transportation is not a huge component of | the price of energy (it's just maybe 2%). The storage at the | receiving site would be much simplified. Maybe the loading and | unloading would be faster, even with the 2.5x multiplicative | disadvantage. | | But overall this 2.5 lower energy density is still a very | unpleasant aspect of the methanol as an alternative fuel. | jacquesm wrote: | But it's safer to transport and does not require | pressurization and it boils off much less. | 323 wrote: | I think the majority of gas, at least in EU, is burned in | residential heating units. Even assuming new burners that would | work with methanol, I don't think you could send that through | the existing gas pipes. | andreareina wrote: | Is methanol even safe to burn? | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | What do you mean "safe"? | | methanol + oxygen = water + CO2 + energy | | This is high school chemistry... | p_l wrote: | The exact physics of the reaction impact burner design | and how much work is needed to adapt a burner designed | for one fuel to another (sometimes impossible even if | you're replacing gas with gas). | Jabbles wrote: | Methanol is highly toxic; it is important to consider how | we can make pumping it into people's homes as safe as | possible. | [deleted] | worik wrote: | Is methanol more toxic than gasoline? | throwaway821909 wrote: | Not sure if you meant something else but just in case, | "the majority of gas, at least in EU, is burned in | residential heating units" means natural gas i.e. | methane, not petrol/gasoline | pfdietz wrote: | Interesting. I've got a background mental process looking for | results on large volume industrial applications of | photochemistry. The reason is that these could provide a market | for power beaming from space via lasers (and use of lasers might | make power beaming practical on a much smaller scale than with | microwaves, due to the much shorter wavelength). The laser light | could be used directly in the photochemical process without | having to convert it back to electricity. | 323 wrote: | Now we need another step to efficiently convert methanol to | ethanol. | | That would truly be a "holy grail" - from methane gas to alchool | :) | WJW wrote: | Here you go: | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245192941... | phendrenad2 wrote: | Can't wait to sell flatulence vodka to hipsters | HillBates wrote: | 0x69420 wrote: | so if we fly crop dusters full of catalyst over ranches, can we | turn cow farts into disinfectant? | worik wrote: | Pedantically: The methane from cattle comes in burps | dotancohen wrote: | Apparently the technique works at close to standard temperature | and pressure. Considering that the Sabatier process can be run | off water and electricity, and desalination can be done with | sunlight, we have all the puzzle pieces for converting seawater | to methanol via solar power. The chemical byproduct is oxygen, | itself very a very useful element though difficult to compress | and store. Even if the byproduct O2 is released to the atmosphere | this looks very promising. | thaumasiotes wrote: | I have a tangential question: | | > "The process is 100% selective--meaning there is no | undesirable by-product--comparable with methane monooxygenase, | which is the enzyme in nature for this process." | | It seems like it should be pretty easy to get any given enzyme | mass-produced. What is the reason we're not just growing a | bunch of methane monooxygenase and using it to convert methane? | less_less wrote: | Even if you can mass-produce an enzyme and its necessary | cofactors, it might not be easy to use it in an industrial | setting. Some enzymes need a very particular environment to | be stable (pH, temperature, salinity etc) or can be destroyed | by side-reactions with other things in your tank. Some work | only when bound to particular cellular components (e.g. the | cell membrane). If they need energy to work then it's | probably as ATP or NADPH, so you'd have to somehow supply | that in your bioreactor. And of course you have to keep the | whole tank sterile without damaging the enzyme. | | These problems notably plague attempts to use the even-holier | grail of nitrogenases, basically enzymes for synthesizing | ammonia using N2 and water. The current standard process for | industrially fixing nitrogen (the Haber-Bosch process) is | energy-inefficient and uses about 1-2% of the world's total | energy supply, mostly in the form of natural gas. So | significantly reducing its energy usage would be a huge deal, | but we haven't been able to do it, nor do we fully understand | how nitrogenases even work. | | You could also try to culture bacteria that do the whole | process and maintain the enzymes for you. In the case of | methanol synthesis though, even if you could do this you'd | have to keep tes culture alive and working 24/7 at a remote | industrial site. A flare stack is a lot simpler. | Gordonjcp wrote: | > What is the reason we're not just growing a bunch of | methane monooxygenase and using it to convert methane? | | Probably the same as every other eco-friendly "get rich | quick" scheme - the precursors are relentlessly unpleasant. | | "So all you need to do is take your water and yeast and | cellulose and put it into a container, then slowly add the | uranobenzene and methylated lead, bubble some nickel carbonyl | through it, and gently warm it up to 900degC..." | MarcoZavala wrote: | thaumasiotes wrote: | > "So all you need to do is take your water and yeast and | cellulose and put it into a container, then slowly add the | uranobenzene and methylated lead, bubble some nickel | carbonyl through it, and gently warm it up to 900degC..." | | It seems like a safe bet that production and use of an | organic protein are best accomplished at temperature ranges | normally maintained by whatever life forms naturally | produce it. | Gordonjcp wrote: | Yeah, but this is what the workup always seems to read | like :-) | bongobingo1 wrote: | Are we likely to discover in (* x 10) years that an over | saturation of O2 in the atmosphere is damaging in some kind of | way, on a global scale? AFAIK breathing pure O (or O2? Not a | chemist) isn't great for your health? | abirch wrote: | Medical oxygen tanks are over 85%. | | That said everything would be more flammable. | dudeinjapan wrote: | Earth atmosphere is 21% O2 vs. 0.04% CO2 (up from ~0.03% CO2 | prior to the human era.) Had all the gigatons of CO2 pumped | into the atmosphere by human activities instead been O2, the | effect would be negligible. | beefield wrote: | I would assume all the methanol produced this way is burned, | taking the generated O2 from atmosphere to CO2. | rileyphone wrote: | Such a high level makes the terrifyingly large insects of the | dinosaur era possible again | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Here's a funny posting by the Terminix (bug spray) folks: | https://www.terminix.com/blog/bug-facts/giant-prehistoric- | bu... | | It was actually before dinosaurs (Devonian and Cambrian | Periods). | dtech wrote: | Atmospheric O2 is about 21%. CO2 is about 0.042% currently. | It's 2 orders of magnitude difference, which is also why | human activity can have a relatively large impact on CO2 | concentration. | selimthegrim wrote: | It's certainly not good for newborn babies - look up | retinopathy of prematurity. | FeepingCreature wrote: | It is famously damaging, so much so that the event that led | to the current high concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere | is called the | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe | | Luckily, all the damage is already done, and our ecosystem is | now well adapted to living in a bath of toxic gas. | cipheredStones wrote: | I've always found it funny that oxygen, commonly pictured | as the benevolent stuff of life, is actually such so | dangerous biologically. It's really a change in perspective | when you realize that the reason we can't survive for five | minutes without it is that we're running countless tiny | power plants that use volatile chemicals and constantly | struggle to dispose of the toxic byproducts. | abirch wrote: | If you happen to have an article of converting sea water to | methane, please post. My searches bring back methane dissolved | in sea water and I'm curious where the carbon originates. | gpcr1949 wrote: | i think parent refers to the sabatier process, so the source | of carbon is concentrated CO2 externally provided, not from | seawater | hannob wrote: | You're converting Sea water to water (desalination) and then | do electrolysis to get H2. You need to get CO2 from | somewhere, you can use Direct Air Capture technology to get | it from the air. Then you do this: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction | | This is all known technology, the problem is it's not very | efficient. Ultimately the discussion in climate tech circles | these days is usually that most people think you'll rarely | ever do this. Whenever you can you'll use something more | direct, like using Hydrogen directly as an energy carrier. | dr_dshiv wrote: | I love promoting the fact that RF (13.56 MHz) can directly | electrolyze saltwater without electrodes (and without | desalination). The process was discovered by an amateur | radio technician and it was treated like pseudoscience | because of breathless local news coverage that made it | sound like it was a fuel source. | | The YouTube video ("burning saltwater") is a classic--but | there still isn't a proper study on the efficiency of the | process. (The radio technician, John Kanzius, died of | cancer). | | https://youtu.be/Tf4gOS8aoFk | | Edit: here is a scientific paper characterizing the | process, which is pretty interesting. No calculation of | efficiency, however. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. | 1088/0963-0252/22/1/01... | techdragon wrote: | While he may not have gotten it more widely studied to | evaluate the efficiency... did he publish more | information about his process? Or did his methodology die | with him? | dr_dshiv wrote: | Well, the method is shown in the video. Put a test tube | of saltwater in front of an 13.56 MHz RF generator (radio | antenna) and light 'er up. | | The paper I posted uses a focused beam of RF and more | deliberate lab methodology. But with just 5 citations, I | feel like there might be a missed opportunity. | techdragon wrote: | Thanks for posting the paper! With anything RF related it | can be a complete shot in the dark for anyone trying to | reproduce the work without things like the frequency | involved. I mean sure you could do some physics, pick a | range of likely frequencies and scan around but then your | at the mercy of how much power you can generate at | tuneable frequencies and still relying on a bit of | guesswork. | | Even if it's not efficient this is a great RF science | demo so it's good to spread the knowledge around. Thanks | again for posting it. | adrian_b wrote: | It is unlikely that the exact value of the frequency has | any importance. | | They have used 13.56 MHz just because it is one of the | frequencies for which it is easy to find high power | industrial generators, which are used e.g. for induction | heating. | dr_dshiv wrote: | Here's a mildly optimistic future vision for large-scale | hydrogen production: | | * We build arrays of underwater resonating tubes (~ 17 m | for 13.58 MHz) that optimize the RF process efficiency | for generating hydrogen. | | * Out in the open ocean, it's powered by floating | gigawatt solarpads. | | * "Blossoms" of enormous mylar cells are continuously | filled up with hydrogen. | | * The mylar hydrogen cells are plucked and transported | for further processing via _drone zeppelins._ | twic wrote: | That is a fun discovery. But if it's producing the | hydrogen and oxygen as a mixture, rather than two | separate streams, as conventional electrolysis does, i'm | not sure it's very useful. | dr_dshiv wrote: | It's a good point. Electrolysis produces hydrogen at the | cathode and oxygen at the anode, making separation easy. | But columnar separation may also be efficient, as the | hydrogen will easily float on the heavier oxygen. Not an | expert, though. | samatman wrote: | Stoichiometric mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen are | terrifying to work with. No thanks. | photochemsyn wrote: | Traditional methane-to-methanol with carbon monoxide | intermediate (based on steam reforming of natural gas): | | CH4 + H2O - CO + H2 | | CO + 2 H2 - CH3OH | | Direct reduction of CO2 to methanol without going through the | methane, an already established technology (Fischer-Tropsch | type chemistry): | | CO2 + 3H2 - CH3OH + H2O | | Methanol is a common feedstock for further chemical synthesis | (such as making high-octane gasoline), so this is an option for | fuels from direct air capture of carbon dioxide & electrolysis | of water for hydrogen. Two methanol molecules are dehydrated to | form dimethyl ether (CH3-O-CH3) as the initial step: | | > "Methanol can be used to make a gasoline product. The process | uses a special zeolite catalyst with pore size such that | molecules up to C10 can get out of the catalyst. Larger | molecules cannot be made with this process; therefore, a | product is made with no carbon molecules greater than C10, | which boils in the gasoline range. In this process, aromatics | and branched-chain alkanes are made, which means the MTG | process produces very high octane gasoline. Gasoline is the | only product." | | https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee439/node/679 | adrian_b wrote: | Besides being relatively easy to convert into a gasoline | product, methanol is also a convenient fuel for fuel cells, | for direct conversion with high efficiency into electrical | energy. | | When used for fuel cells, methanol does not have the storage | problems of hydrogen, even if any equipment using methanol | must be designed carefully, to avoid any leaks, which are | dangerous because methanol is toxic and may cause blindness | when ingested or absorbed through the skin. | hannob wrote: | We already have all the ingredients to turn CO2+H2 into | Methanol without an intermediate step turning it into Methane. | There are already a few production plants, e.g. one by Carbon | Recycling International. | | It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going | to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. | ascar wrote: | > It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not | going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. | | What's the foundation of that argument? An intermediate step | that's achieved more efficiently and allows for a more | efficient follow-up certainly can improve the efficiency of | the overall process compared to one with less steps? | ABCLAW wrote: | Most chemical synthesis steps produce side products. More | steps means more %yield loss. | | If it's possible you go from A->B at 80% efficiency. If we | compare this with A->C then C->B need to be nearly twice as | efficient to provide a better yield. | | Remember these steps include losses due to non chemical | reasons. You might have issues with your reactors or | transferring the solution to a new reaction chamber might | incur losses, etc. | | In most complex organic synth situations, the full | synthesis will be 8-20 steps or so, so we're talking about | yields of %efficiency^x. Lowering X helps a ton. | | In short, the alternate route needs to be really good to | justify additional steps. | criddell wrote: | > I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by | introducing an intermediate step | | Isn't that the entire reasons catalysts are so valuable? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not | going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. | | Perhaps we could so with a llittle self-awareness? | | To come here and simply state that all these PHDs develop a | new process while you here rest in certainty that it is | doomed to failure. | | Without demonstrating any understanding of catalysts or | anything beyong highschool chemistry. Without presenting any | evidence or agument except 'extra step is bad' | jeltz wrote: | I agree with your main point. But there are plenty of PHDs | out there working on projects doomed for failure. That is | actually one of the main reasons why my brother left | organic chemistry research to become a software engineer | (the cutthroat abuse of peer review was another). He was | tired of all the people getting grants for projects doomed | to fail. Sure some of them might accidentally stumbling | onto something useful but he became tired of all research | in this field into known dead ends. | selimthegrim wrote: | God help anyone still getting grants for molecular | electronics. | AnthonBerg wrote: | Paper: _Direct photo-oxidation of methane to methanol over a | mono-iron hydroxyl site_ by An, B., Li, Z., Wang, Z. et al. | Published in Nature Materials in June 2022. | | Publication page: | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-022-01279-1 | | Digital Object Identifier: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41563-022-01279-1 | HillBates wrote: | jmyeet wrote: | Many don't know this but the most important thing to know about | solar is that it is _so far_ the only method of _direct_ power | generation that exists. Nuclear and various fossil fuels create | heat that boils water to generate steam that turns a turbine to | generate power. This adds cost and complexity that you can never | get away from. | | But solar by virtue of being direct avoids all of this so has a | lower bound in cost that other methods of power generation will | find it hard to compete with. Solar cells can be small so solar | power is highly flexible. Plus it has no moving parts (other than | sometimes solar cells are moved slowly to face the Sun as it | moves through the sky) so it's upper bound for reliability is | hard to beat. | | I actually think solar is and will be the most important method | of power generation in the coming centuries that will culminate | in space-based solar power collectors. | | So solar has the potential to be extraordinarily cheap, reliable | and require no expensive infrastructure like power lines. | Creating methanol is essentially a way of storing excess energy | so this could be a real game-changer for developing nations that | lack such infrastructure. | jdironman wrote: | And even more so if the plants which produce solar products use | solar power to offset. I wonder if they do that or not. I'm | guessing it's not quiet that simple and distributors of the | individual components vary in their methods. | itsthecourier wrote: | Dyson sphere style | elzbardico wrote: | Solar power is intermittent. This make it far more expensive | for practical, real world applications in large scale. Nuclear | is the only thing that can realistically substitute fossil | fuels. Solar is at best a niche due to the storage needs. | Gravityloss wrote: | Well, hydro or wind power don't have their own heat engine (the | planet of course does stuff with sunlight that ultimately moves | the turbine blades, yes) | credit_guy wrote: | > Nuclear and various fossil fuels create heat that boils water | to generate steam that turns a turbine to generate power. This | adds cost and complexity that you can never get away from. | | That part is almost negligible. A General Electric LM6000 | turbine costs about $20 million and generates about 50 MW of | electricity. That translates into $400 MM per GW. | | Solar comes to about the same price, but it has a capacity | factor of only 30%, vs 98% for the GE LM6000 turbine. | michaelcampbell wrote: | > Nuclear ... create heat that boils water to generate steam | that turns a turbine to generate power. | | One of my greatest disappointments as a kid was learning this. | I'd thought nuclear power somehow got the power of the atom | directly to a wire/grid. | Voloskaya wrote: | Maybe RTGs [1] that are used on some spacecraft will | reappoint you. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectri | c_ge... | throwoutway wrote: | Love the comment and the use of the word "reappoint". Never | thought of the root of the word "disappoint" prior | perihelions wrote: | These would also count as "direct" power generation, I think | (how should it be defined?). None of them work at scale, yet. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betavoltaic_device | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermophotovoltaic | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_energy_conversion ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-03 23:00 UTC)