So damn simple, yet it's so far one of the most efficient

>>8922013
I'm not sure if I follow, are you dissatisfied or something?

>>8922035
This person is probably on amphetamines which induce a kind of discontentment with systems perceived to be "un-optimal" in comparison to, I don't know, directly converting the nuclear energy of fission into electricity.

Its a form of delusion of grandeur and is very common when people take these drugs. It is easily resolved by realizing that a steam turbine is the most efficient way to generate electrical power from nuclear fission.

Bump.

I had the same thoughts about this while growing up. Can we find a better way other than boiling water? It seems so primitive.

>>8922013
>one kilogram of the stuff can provide for one modern-urban household for decades

Thats not true at all

>>8922013
Boiling water is, unfortunately, just the best way to turn heat into electricity.

It's damn good at it as well, usually heat-to-electricity is the lossiest process you can get.

File: Heat_Content_of_Zn(c,l,g).png (13KB, 498x301px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 498x301px

what if we used zinc instead of water

Maybe if governments weren't so scared to use the stuff we'd see more advancements

>>8922190
>Boiling water is, unfortunately, just the best way to turn heat into electricity.
Curious, what other fluids have been tried?

File: 1491872312713.gif (3MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x300px

>>8922389

Direct combustion engines are the best. Hydraulic turbines are of similar operation. Steam is just the most effective system for thermal energy.

From work experience, theres a 60MW steam turbine that runs off recycled steam from a pulp mill. Free energy 24/7. Sold to the power grid ar .12 kwh, that's ~173000 a day and ~64000000

>>8922013

Water is abundant and low maintence, therefore reactor designs incorporate that as a means to get maintenance costs down. Economic decisions drive design decisions.

>>8922013
>>8922350

Better idea: why even have solid fuel when it could be liquid fuel. In such a case, supercritcality accidents become impossible as the hotter the reaction gets, the slower it becomes. Meltdowns become less of a problem too, because as the reaction slows it'll either stop fissioning entirely (thus stop heating up), or it'll melt a pipe and spray radioactive liquid everywhere which will immediately stop fissioning as it is no longer able to be hit by neutrons.

However, liquid reactors have high maintence costs (radioactive metal liquids tend to be very effective at corroding pipe) therefore they are not built.

>>8922354

It'll get better in 3-4 decades once modular systems come online meaning much faster licensing (as a broken reactor can just be moved offsite and buried). Although by then they will all be Bechtel branded since Westinghouse Nuclear is more or less dead.

Its not efficient at all. Most of the fuel is not consumed in the rods so it has to be stored for many life times as toxic garbage. Is profitable to be the garbage man.

>>8922532

That's not a problem if you shove it down a hole.

>>8922483
direct combustion engines are shit, i think they have max 20-30% mechanical efficiency. Steam turbines have like a high of about 38%