Does steam and diesel have a future?

I understand that some solar powered turbines use a working fluid that isnt water, and for those that like to boat dangerously

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtha_launch

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/petrol/petrol.htm

 

You do realise the reason Turboether™ was set up to use diethylether as its working fluid was because our initial design based on iso-pentane might have infringed a nineteenth century patent ... It also has the advantage that in the event of a leak of the working fluid, anyone nearby will be put to sleep before being killed in the resulting fireball, which is considered more humane by our company's ethics advisory board.

(Still time to invest, BTW ... )

Tom

 

I’ll have som shares. How much will you pay me to have them?

 

A mars bar is your usual currency, isn’t it?

We may in any case need a rethink: turns out the diethylether engine has been done already: http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/ether/ether.htm

Why is it that when you try to make a cheap thermodynamic joke by picking a clearly bonkers idea, some Victorian has beaten you to the punch line by a hundred and fifty years …

Tom

 

We'll be onto some madcap idea with a plasma generator that somehow has water as both its fuel and working fluid soon if we're not careful...

 

Some people get excited about supercritical carbon dioxide as a working fluid, which would have a smaller turbine and condenser compared with steam (for the same output).
It would require extremely high pressures if the top temperatures typical of normal power plant are used though.

 

Back to the geothermal plant; can someone explain what "binary" means in this context? The website statement "A ‘Binary’ power plant will be used. This means that there are no ‘plumes’ of vapour and very little to see on the surface when the plant is finished" tells me very little.

 

My interpretation of this is that there are two circuits of circulating fluids.
The primary circuit transfers heat from below the ground to a heat exchanger, and the water is likely to become contaminated with all sorts of minerals.
The secondary circuit (probably water/steam) circulates heat from the heat exchanger to the turbine to generate power. There are problems if this becomes contaminated, so it is kept separate from the primary circuit by the heat exchanger.

 

Check the wiki entry. I am too lazy to explain

Sent from my M2011K2G using Tapatalk

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_cycle

 

Easy peasy ..... they're just as valid as any 'non-binary power plant'. Strweth man, don't they have Google round your way?

Seriously though: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/yan2/

 

Was it one of these? It would seem that they now run on solid fuel rather than the old meths!!
https://www.mamodonline.co.uk/index.php?_route_=1313-traction-green

https://www.mamod.co.uk/shop-categories/solid-fuel

 

Not nearly as much fun as meths. I have a home built meths fired loco. If I forget to turn the blower on the flames come out of the fire hole and strip the paint on the cab roof.

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

When he was in reception class first born born took my meths fired Mamod traction engine into school for show & tell

When I explained the hazards to Teacher who was in her last year before retirement her response was 'that sounds fun'

 

Thanks for the several explanations of "binary". I think that the only geothermal plant that I have ever visited (in Italy) used water/steam as the working fluid but in a closed cycle, not venting anything to atmosphere, hence my not understanding the implication that the absence of "plumes" would be a particular feature of the binary system. Given the abundance and safety of water, the use of a fluid "such as isopentane, or a refrigerant" seems something of a measure of desperation to get adquate efficiency from a low source temperature, and even then the Carnot efficiency can only make economic sense with abundant heat from the source.

 

I spotted the latter BTL on a YT video about converting classic cars to electric propulsion here:



How much of that is cobblers?

 

So electricity generated from wind and solar, for example, is more expensive to generate than that from a coal-powered power station? The current price increases are driven by the cost of fossil fuels, not those of green electricity. By 2025, the cost of green electricity will be half that generated from gas:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper-than-thought-admits-uk-government/

About 99% of climate scientists believe that there is problem with the climate. But you know better? Is that a view based on experience or hope?

 

Ye gods!

 

I won't get involved in discussions about the new religion any more

 

Stuff treating science like a religion. I've even less patience with groundless complacency.

If there's one surefire way to bring our movement crashing down, it's wilful blindness to what's going on around us all, day in and day out.