Why do power plants use steam turbines like we're at the start of the indistrial revolution?

Why do power plants use steam turbines like we're at the start of the indistrial revolution?
Isn't there a way to aborb the energy from reactions directly into electrical current like solar panels do?
Even plasma generators sometimes use turbines
is it just more efficient?
Do we not have the technology to absorb those levels of energy without a middle man?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No we don't. There's a lot of thermodynamics involved in power generation, but the short answer is that we don't have anything more efficient.
There are ways to extract electricity from heat more directly- by using a heat engine to run a turbine, but it's just not as efficient.

With the exception of solar, literally all power sources come down to spinning the rotor of an electric generator.

dams, nuclear, natural gas, and coal plants all do the same fundamental thing we've just gotten better at it.

Well one no, not really, in most circumstances. Most of the energy sources we have produce that energy as heat, and a steam turbine is the most efficient way to turn that into electricity. You can do it directly with a peltier, space probes do it if they're being sent far enough out that they can't use solar panels, but it has pretty miserable efficiency. It's doomed to, actually, unless we find a thermoelectric material that isn't killed by higher temperatures - the efficiency you can get increases with the temperature differential. That's true of any mechanism for extracting work from heat, by the way.

For a power plant a steam turbine also has the nice property that it decouples the thing producing the power from the grid. Say there's a sudden spike in electricity demand. You can spin the turbine faster almost immediately, using the steam thats already in the system at a faster rate, so it doesn't matter if it takes a few minutes for you to adjust the control rods or dump more coal into the burners.

>Isn't there a way to aborb the energy from reactions directly into electrical current like solar panels do?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator

A properly functioning co-gen turbine can easily hit 70% thermal efficiency. There is a reason why we use it

Is there a lot of energy lost letting it get absorbed into the water and run off to be cooled down and recycled?

That's pretty interesting, but like the other guy said, low efficiency. 10%
Wonder what's holding that back so much

>Why do we still use ancient wheel technology to move goods? Isn't there a better way to do it?

Unless we can find a better powerplant which has cheaper energy per cost and better output than a steam powerplant, we will be stuck with a steam powerplant, even nuclear powerplant currently still uses rankine cycle as the way to produce electricity.

t. mechanical engineer

scientists are going at this all wrong my engineering teacher said the human body is the most efficient producer of energy. We need to get some mental scientists to make some weird gm human without a brain which can produce electricity from food

Hydroelectric is still best generating system

>human body is the most efficient producer of energy
That would be a plant with its photosynthesis though.

Maybe there is, won't ever think of it if you think like closeted in faggot

Matrix huh
I'm so sure that's had to do have been debunked as effective

hmm i dont know too much about the subject that just what he said like the amount of energy we get from food is insane. I guess plants are also really effective at producing energy though

it would probably work with more technological advancements so it could be an option in the future

It's called aerofoils faggot

If the math right, If all of the current human race could used to generate power at 100% efficiency it'd be about .06 TW

so 6 megawatts desu how much is that in usage what would that power?

Oh whoops I meant .6TW lol
One fifth the energy output of all the nuclear generators on the planet would be about .4TW

Yea, just learn to do artificial photosynthesis

Modern solar panels are about five times more efficient than the theoretical maximum for photosynthesis, and much, much more efficient than plants.

>what is internal combustion engine

Inefficient.

Thermodynamics sets an absolute upper bound for converting heat into work, and modern turbines come very close to it. Nothing you can replace them with will be significantly more efficient, so there's no major reason to make a switch since turbines are also quite practical.

The only reason to change would be if you produced energy in a form that isn't heat, and for those cases turbines are already quite rare.

Something is telling me that just using plant's to create biomatter with which you power an engine is more efficient or just replacing the plants with solar panels.

Steam is just the easiest method to harvest electrical energy from heat. I mean yeah, it's an additional energy transfer, so there's loss involved, but there isn't much of a better option currently.

This. Reducing heat losses is the only thing that we can improve to make significant gains.

Solar efficiency is shit, that needs some work lol.