MIT Unveils Sun-Free Photovoltaics 103
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at MIT just unveiled a new solar power generator that doesn't need sunlight to function. The button-sized power generator can tap energy from heat, the sun's rays, a hydrocarbon fuel, or a decaying radioisotope, and it can run three times longer than a lithium-ion battery of the same weight. It is hoped that the technology may one day be used to generate power for spacecraft on long-term missions where sunlight may not be available."
I've got an even better idea (Score:5, Funny)
We use this thing to run a space heater, which in turn heats up the generator and provides even more energy. Bingo, we've got an endless energy supply. String a bunch of these puppies together and goodbye fossil fuels!
You're welcome, world.
Re:I've got an even better idea (Score:4, Funny)
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Innovators don't answer to laws, man. We break them.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, you don't, any more than a turbocharger "runs" the engine it makes more efficient.
This thing can, however, help your space heater by scavenging heat that would otherwise be wasted by going through the walls instead of into you. But you can get almost the same effect by adding styrofoam insulation to the walls, which would be much cheaper and more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
But how about in a data center, where the heat is generated but not wanted...
Re: (Score:2)
Very large data centers already scavenge heat to improve their electrical efficiency.
But none of them is able to detach from The Grid and run in a regenerative loop.
This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work.
Re: (Score:2)
And miss.
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried that a few times. Every time I succeed the Earth gets upset and comes rushing at my head like an angry hippo.
Re: (Score:1)
you gotta be a computer simulation scientist
Re: (Score:2)
Two words: edible wrappers.
Oblig. Homer Simpson (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could just ask the SuperComputer to use the rats to determine the meaning of life, the universe and everything...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you lost me at Minecraft. /em is busy creating pixelated mice and a supercomputer using Minecraft blocks.
Re: (Score:2)
mice and a supercomputer
So, what is the ultimate question?
Wrong law (Score:2)
This machine transforms heat into work. It could be used to reverse entrophy! Take that, thermodynamics!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Put it where the sun shineth not.
Two words: fiber optics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But somebody just put out a paper saying that wasn't happening!
Re: (Score:2)
I think it needs a little more oil.
Laptops (Score:2)
I want one for my laptop. At last I'll be able to surf continuously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By capturing energy from the 'waste' heat, the heat produced by operating the computer would give it slightly longer battery life. Just like regenerative braking of hybrids charges a battery which then allows them to use the full weight of the vehicle for power generation while only carrying a small percentage of increased weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Air Conditioner (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not as much as it takes to cool it, down but it might reduce the bill at least.
Re: (Score:1)
From heat? (Score:3)
The button-sized power generator can tap energy from heat, the sun's rays, a hydrocarbon fuel, or a decaying radioisotope.
Looking at TFA, it looks like it takes heat, converts it to light in very specific frequencies, and then uses that to generate electricity. So, any source of heat whatsoever should theoretically be able to power these. We already possess thermoelectric generators, but they tend to be effective only at very specific and fairly low temperatures. Potentially, this kind of technology could replace conventional turbines in most power plants (nuclear, coal, et al. Basically, any that directly generate heat). Anyone know what kind of efficiencies these could operate at vs. steam turbines? I know turbines are fairly efficient (but large, hence this new tech), but it seems like these could (maybe) exceed those.
Also, if these things could be designed to require fairly low heat, then I imagine they could be used in basically any everyday device, generating low power from room-temperature heat. They don't seem to require the heat-differential of thermo-electric generators, so I wonder if they could supplement/ replace batteries in many daily electronic devices (pacemakers and hearing-aids come to mind, cell phones likely require way to much power). Anyone know if that kind of thing is at all practical?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't seem to require the heat-differential of thermo-electric generators
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! (sorry).
Steam turbines are pretty good efficiency-wise (as a fraction of the theoretically optimum Carnot efficiency), given the constraints on operating temperature that they operate under due to corrosion considerations and so forth. If something could work with a higher temperature heat source, it could get higher efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's neat tech alright, but I'm not sure converting the heat energy to light energy to electricity is going to be more efficient than converting heat energy to electricity. Since TFA doesn't seem to give us any efficiency stats, it's hard to tell.
Re: (Score:2)
The mechanical step is where the bulk of our efficiency problems come from
Not really, in fact the mechanics are pretty efficient. The problem is mostly thermodynamics. Heat is a poor place to start if you want to get usable energy - you can't do better than the Carnot efficiency by any means, as that would imply the universe spontaneously lowering its entropy.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't ever convert from heat energy to electricity in standard power production. It's always heat to mechanical energy to electrical energy.
Thermocouples do directly convert heat to electricity, but they're typically not for power generation (except in specialty scenarios like satellites), they're mostly for sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong units (Score:3)
How low are the power demands of a pacemaker in terms of the Library of Congress?
a friendly warning, friend... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article:
Is that black body radiation?
Radiating visib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just skip the energy conversion from heat to light that makes this new widget special, and just use the correct mix of fuel/air/catalyst/whatever to make coal/oil/gas burn -bright- (instead of merely hot), and use a photovoltaic without any new wizardry?
Of course, it'd be blindingly inefficient compared to running a steam turbine with the same fuel. But then, so is this other gadget...
I think there's a lot of new applications which open up with a contained method for converting heat into electricit
Perpetual? (Score:3)
So, Can I combine it with a battery and then use it as a heat sink for the CPU in my phone?
I only need juice until it gets hot, right?
Re: (Score:3)
In order for the device to extract energy from heat, it needs to be cold itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't it work the other way? The device is hot and the surroundings are cold?
Re: (Score:2)
TFA indicates that the heat from any source is converted to specific light frequencies, then to electricity.
As far as I understand the process (from TFA), heat is required but not cold.
Both linked articles are short, you should read them.
Battery Comparison (Score:2)
How much more power does it produce than a solar panel of the same weight?
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, 1000%. Happy???
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Battery Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Good point... The summary left off an important bit of information from TFA:
"Based on that technology, MIT researchers have made a button-sized power generator fueled by butane that can run three times longer than a lithium-ion battery of the same weight; the device can then be recharged instantly, just by snapping in a tiny cartridge of fresh fuel"
So... using this to convert butane to electrical energy it lasts three times longer than a lithium-ion battery of the same weight.
But if you look at energy density of the two fuel sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density [wikipedia.org]
You find that butane/propane/gas/diesel is about 45 megajoules / kg and Li-ion batteries store about 0.75 megajoule / kg. Converted energy 2.25 megajoules (3x Li-Ion) out of stored energy 45 megajoules = 5% efficiency rate converting butane heat to electrical energy using this device.
--David
Re: (Score:2)
You find that butane/propane/gas/diesel is about 45 megajoules / kg and Li-ion batteries store about 0.75 megajoule / kg. Converted energy 2.25 megajoules (3x Li-Ion) out of stored energy 45 megajoules = 5% efficiency rate converting butane heat to electrical energy using this device.
You neglected to include the mass of the oxygen consumed in that butane reaction. Don't worry, everyone does. At 13 oxygen atoms per butane molecule, and ~16 grams per mole that's 208 grams of oxygen per 58 grams of butane for a stoichiometric reaction.
Forgive me, my thermochemistry is rusty.
Re: (Score:2)
You neglected to include the mass of the oxygen consumed in that butane reaction. Don't worry, everyone does. At 13 oxygen atoms per butane molecule, and ~16 grams per mole that's 208 grams of oxygen per 58 grams of butane for a stoichiometric reaction.
Sorry, my point is that the lithium ion battery is heavier, in part, due to its need to carry both reactants with it. Butane can react with the oxygen in the atmosphere. However, if you didn't have the convenience of abundant oxygen, like in space, you would have to carry the oxygen with you making the whole thing 4.5 times heavier.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm pretty sure he got it right. The 45MJ number is based on a stoichiometric reaction of 1kg of butane with the necessary additional mass of oxygen for complete combustion. You should be getting about 60x the life of a Li-Ion cell, but you're only getting 3x, so you're operating at 5% "efficiency". The battery doesn't store the O2, nor in the O2 included in the 45MJ/kg, so it's straight algebra.
Re: (Score:3)
And you've neglected to account for the actual mass of the butane/Li-Ion reactants vs the mass of the reaction chamber and TPV. The Li-ion battery needs only a casing, all the other mass is the anode and cathode. The TPV needs a container for the butane, a reaction chamber, ducting for air to enter the reaction chamber, and the separate TPV cell.
Then, we need to look at volumetric energy density comparisons too, as devising a container strong enough to hold a mass of butane with comparable energy in a simil
Re: (Score:2)
Stated like that, it sounds almost as useless as the fluff about small-scale butane-powered fuel cells and tiny little gas turbines that I saw on these very pages a decade or so ago, none of which seem to have actually materialized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
BODY HEAT! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem there is biological organisms are very efficient. Off the top of my head, 500 calories will get a biker 5+ miles down the road, whereas 500 calories might get a car ~300 feet down the road. (Obviously wrong statistic, but you get the idea.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it might be that the generator itself burned out once it had produced 3 times as much energy as the lithium battery could hold.
Anyone see any numbers? (Score:2)
I've clicked on everything I can see, and I don't see the actual efficiency rating they keep alluding to.
Re:Anyone see any numbers? (Score:5, Funny)
did you punch the monkey? I think you need to punch the monkey to see the specs.
already done (Score:1)
Those clever Germans have already mastered solar power without the sun.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/13/its-true.html [squarespace.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Those clever Spaniards have already mastered solar power without the sun.
ftfy, the German mentioned in the blog was the language of the Swiss news report about an article in the Spanish paper El Mundo.
If you are unhappy about all the nations mentioned just read this [theecologist.org]
Re: (Score:1)
That's hilarious, thanks for the correction.
How many buttons (Score:2)
Oh, whatever, (Score:2)
I had this idea like 5 years ago. But, being a mathematician, I merely discovered the existence of the idea. These engineers have only supplied an example implementation of the idea.
Trivial, trivial.
(sarcasm)
Electricity from heat is trivial and old (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point of this thing is that it's a major improvement in conversion efficiency over thermocouples. One of the target applications is RTGs on spacecraft. So maybe you can get 3x the electricity out of the same chunk of plutonium. That's a major improvement. However, using it as a replacement for laptop batteries probably isn't going to fly.
Sigh (Score:1)
Supplemental technology (Score:2)
It's unlikely to replace current electricity generators but it could be a good supplement. Something that converts ambient heat to electricity could be used to...
- extract that bit more electricity from the exhaust of steam turbines and engines (ex. electric hybrid cars).
- extend battery life of devices that get hot (ex. laptops (though good laptops run fairly cool anyway)).
- be used to cool things down for "free" (if we can make them efficient enough). Uses: fridge walls, aircons, solar panel coolers, et
Spacecraft? (Score:2)