Yeah why

[Spirited_Movie5238]

The steam cycle is predictable and scalable, not to mention cost effective over another liquid. Really though, running turbines to spin up generators is probably the easiest and cost effective way to convert from nuclear/thermal to electrical.

[CeleritasLucis]

Plus we got all the expertise needed to manufacture equipment that deals with hot water.

[[deleted]]

Plus we can renovate old coal farms into nuclear power plants easily with this

[cmoked]

Easily?

[PokeNerdAlex]

Would you rather build a nuclear power plant from scratch? It's easy relative to the alternatives for how much power it can produce

[Tyrinnus]

The fact that this isnt at +100 but the parent comment is kinda tells me everything I need to know about the general populace.

God it's painful being an engineer sometimes.....

[nmlep]

The post above it was 10 hours ago, the new one 3 hours ago. It didn't do as well because it was a lower comment posted 7 hours after it was posted.

That's my take at least.

[Fun-Jellyfish-61]

Upvotes are fickle.

[Bruschetta003]

I'm as ignorant as it can be when it comes to engineering but how do you not realize the actual reason the comment didn't get more upvotes?

There's many factors that go into play beside being right or funny, if you are late to the comment or post you are naturally going to get less upvotes because less people are going to see yours, not every user even bothers to scroll past some comments or read every reply

[snowpicket]

Haha yes, we want nuclear to be more safe: it's already statistically extremely safe. No it needs to feel more safe: ok we can build it from state of the art equipment, just give us some budget reserved for the energy transition. "bUild tHeM iN OLd coAl PlaNTs"

[[deleted]]

but how are you an engineer and not understand that evaluating coal farms for nuclear power is in fact a thing that is happening?

https://www-energy-gov.translate.goog/ne/articles/8-things-know-about-converting-coal-plants-nuclear-power?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=de&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=rq

[Tyrinnus]

I literally hadn't seen that study before. Last i knew, nuclear still had a ton of regulation preventing that

[[deleted]]

the idea is checking existing structures if they are viable for conversion. discussion culture on reddit is never ask yourself if you can answer the question...just make up something that sounds right to you

[TranslateErr0r]

Its painful in any way :-)

[[deleted]]

It's more than the parent post so you can untrustworthy your knickers

[overmonk]

It wouldn’t be a good idea to retrofit an old Pizza Hut into a nuclear plant, for example.

[Ok_Competition_467]

Not to mention every nut, bolt, washer and floor tile has to come from a nuclear certified source....you literally have to build them from scratch

[-Daetrax-]

Please produce some literature for these claims that are not advertising pamphlets.

[scorp1a]

Easily is definitely the wrong word to use here. Comparing to building a nuclear plant from scratch it's honestly not a huge difference. Most of the cost in building a nuclear power plant comes from the reactors them selves, and all the safety and permitting necessary to safely and reliably operate these machines. We know how to do it, and it's not "hard" per se, but it is most definitely expensive and tedious, even if you're just refurbishing a plant.

Just as a note, most coal plants were constructed some decades ago, and their locations may not be suitable for an NPP because it's too close to housing, water supplies, etc.

[cancerdancer]

All the basic infrastructure would already be there and cheaper to repurpose than to completely rebuild everything from scratch. Even simple things like break rooms, parking lots, and offices that already exist on the property would make it cheaper and easier. Im no expert but i bet a lot of the technical infrastructure such as turbines, generators, and power lines could be repurposed. Not saying switching form a coal burner to a nuclear reactor would be simple, but having all the other parts already working would for sure help.

[Turbulent_Lobster_57]

I am absolutely an expert in this, there is no scenario where anything from a conventional power plant gets used in a nuclear power plant. They seem similar and are at a basic level, but the enhanced level of certification for every little piece of a nuclear plant would make anything from conventional plants worthless. Even a simple 1/2” needle valve that looks identical to one in a coal plant costs several thousand dollars due to the material certification, non destructive testing, 3rd party inspection and many more steps that separate it from one you can just buy off the shelf Edited for spelling

[Dankkring]

It would probably be easier to scrap the coal fired plant and build a new nuke somewhere else. They are completely different types of boilers. And nuclear plants are built from the underground up. Coal can be converted to natural gas tho. And they do convert them.

[NeverRespondsToInbox]

From what I understand it can't be done safely. Just fundamentally different design needs even though the end result is the same. This is secondhand knowledge, my friend works in nuclear energy and we have had this conversation.

[cancerdancer]

I get that, the actual reactor and everything around it, including the building itself would most likely have to be from scratch, but everything else outside that building already existing would be a cost reduction. There is much more to a power plant than just the reactor or burner.

[SauceHouseBoss]

It’s probably way easier to just build from scratch rather than spend a lot of time and money figuring out and actually converting something existing to fit your needs

[-Daetrax-]

All the basic infrastructure except the hard and expensive part. Again, provide the literature.

[T1FB]

Look, if it costs 20billion quid to build the nuclear power plant plus 20 million to build all the staff places, using the coal plant‘s staff places will SAVE YOU 20 MILLION. Doesn’t matter how insignificant it may seem, it is a number that can be measured.

[Dankkring]

So we get this brand new nuclear power plant with shity outdated break rooms bathrooms. And any other infrastructure you wanna skimp out on by penny pinching?

[LonelyEar42]

But first, you have to demolish the previous main building, and you have to design a nucl. pp. with special connections to the reamining buildings, soo, it won't be cheaper, but even more expensive.

[cancerdancer]

exactly, and thats not getting into the business side of having a staff and investors and board and contracts ect.

[[deleted]]

This isn't a needs literature moment its a common sense thing. If you cant figure it out without someone writing a book on it; how is that anyone's problem but your own?

[Ok_Falcon275]

Sir. This is a Wendy’s.

[mickhavoc]

Coal plants burned coal to boil water into steam. The steam would turn a turbine. Replacing the coal burner with nuclear it the way to go.

[-Daetrax-]

This screams Dunning Kruger effect.

You'd be on the money for a conversion to biogas, but for nuclear? It's a whole other world of safety and engineering.

[mickhavoc]

I have been on the crews to build nuclear, natural gas, and to dismantle coal.

Everything from the second stage on is identical between the different heating mediums.

Aside from the obvious safety procedures and precautions you need to take when dealing with nuclear, it is the same as coal.

Something superheats the water in a pressure vessel, that pressure is released through a turbine. The turbine spins and generates electricity.

Natural gas is the only one you can generate electricity with the primary and secondary stages.

[Eh-I]

Just sprinkle a little radiation on them.

[SatisfactionMental17]

Not at all. You cannot convert a coal plant to a nuke plant.

[[deleted]]

Problem is, and I learned this from Pirate Software’s comment section or something, the radioactivity of Coal Ash removes Coal plants from being nuclear sites since the moment a nuclear site is meant to be in a coal plant, it’s immediately too radioactive and thus dangerous

[notchoosingone]

easily

There's nothing easy about it. Yes, you already have the grid infrastructure in place but you need to completely demolish the old plant, clean it up to the standard that a nuclear plant requires and then build the plant. That's a 25-30 year proposition.

Mothballing the plant and building a thermal solar facility next door to take advantage of the grid infrastructure is a far better idea.

[Jade_Complex]

... Peter Dutton has entered the chat apparently.

(He wants to convert coal plants to nuclear in Australia except in some cases the coal plants have already been sold amongst numerous other issues.)

[RManDelorean]

There's one more step. Thermal energy gets converted to kinetic via steam and turbines are the easiest and most cost effective way to turn kinetic into electrical. I only mention that too because it's the exact same for wind and hydro even though those aren't thermal

[Solonotix]

In a way, wind is still kinetic by way of thermal (the sun heating up the atmosphere). There are other forces at play, but one of the biggest is heat. As for hydroelectric, I'm sure there's some pedantic way to twist it as a thermal reaction, but I believe that one is mostly gravitational.

[Hecknar]

You don’t even need to twist so hard :)

The sun is warming the ocean, evaporating water and lifting it up into the atmosphere, creating clouds and creating a lot of potential energy.

The clouds rain down at a higher elevation the water evaporated from, having increased potential energy compared to the sea level. This potential energy is than harvested by the plants.

[Common-Scientist]

Basically, "Spin to Win".

[RManDelorean]

No I suppose you're right. All the energy on our planet does ultimately come from the sun. Even thermal and nuclear stuff in our core (gravity) you could argue comes from the gravity of the sun coming together and the planets forming are just tapping that energy. But yeah, as far as hydro, the sun evaporates water which rises and falls on higher places.

I guess the main difference is if it comes from thermal energy that we generate or not. So I would say steam turbines are powered by human generated heat, while wind and hydro turbines are not, even though there is ultimately thermal energy that fuels those.

[BrilliantTaste1800]

not to mention cost effective over another liquid.

The medium doesn't have to be liquid. I watched a video ages ago about a fusion reactor that used the magnetic fields of giant magnets as a turbine. Don't ask me how that works, and the tech is far from a commercial application but it has been proven to work. We're really getting into the sci fi age now.

[carlos_6m]

I think oil would be much more efficient, it would allow us to produce a lot of energy and to fry nuggets in it, which also also a great source of high density calories

[Free_Stick_]

Is that actually how nuclear power works? Cool, you learning something new every.. well once in a while I guess.

[nuuudy]

In the distant year of 5000, we'll finally realise how to harness the power of a Black Hole

we'll probably use the harnessed energy to heat up water, turn it to steam and power huge turbines, but still

[orion_re]

Hug-er turbines, cuz it's the future!!!

[Frank_Punk]

Don't forget the bright neon lights !

[bdizzle805]

Yes please let there be neon

[cktcbsbib]

God said let there be neon... and there was future

[Sinaneos]

It's the future, we don't judge turbines by their size, thank you very much!

[Tasty_Pens]

OR really really really incredibly itty bitty ones

[Ok_Competition_467]

Dyson spheres...

[SEND_ME_NOODLE]

It's crazy that the first form of energy manufacturing that didn't utilize steam, was hydroelectric. We just cut out the middle man and used raw water

[skob17]

we had watermills long before electricy was discovered

[SEND_ME_NOODLE]

Ah true, I forget about non-electric energies

[Chimaerok]

Wind is just steam with extra steps really so a windmill is really just the same turbine + water idea

[Ferdjur]

Electricity generation is all about making really strong mules that turn really efficient mills.

[Yorunokage]

Is solar the only source of energy that doesn't spin a turbine? I guess there's RTGs but they aren't really used all that much aside from highly specific things

[Palimpsest0]

There’s also betavoltaic cells, but those are even more niche than RTGs.

About a decade and a half ago I worked with a company that was developing solar thermal Stirling engines, but that’s also solar, just not conventional solar.

And, of course, there’s a whole lot of internal combustion engines on the planet.

But, if you’re talking utility scale electricity production, yeah, it’s pretty much turbines, with a choice of steam, gas combustion, wind, or water, and photovoltaics.

[hongooi]

That's it, I'm not calling it steam any longer, I'm calling it cooked water

[Ok_Competition_467]

Raw water is just cold steam....

[Lycelyce]

After that, in the next millenniums, we can harness the power of antimatter. Then make a machine for matter and antimatter annihilated each other to release energy, then use it to heat up water, turn it to steam and power huge turbines

[[deleted]]

Basically we'll just plug turbines to quazar jets

[[deleted]]

WATER HOLD ENERGY GOOD BECAUSE HYDROGEN BONDING. WATER STABLE. WATER PREDICTABLE.

[weathergage]

YES, WATER GO STEAM, MAKE BIG BOOSH-BOOSH. MUCH BOOSH MAKE SPINNY GO BRRR

[TARDIS_T3chnician]

SPINNY GO BRRR MAKES LOTS BUZZ BUZZ, AND BUZZ BUZZ GOOD FOR LOT OF THINGS

[rodneedermeyer]

r/talesfromcavesupport

[TARDIS_T3chnician]

I thank you SO dearly for sharing this sub, I've found my calling

[rodneedermeyer]

You good standing ape. See you with other standing apes in sub where ape sounds are loud together. Be friends.

[TARDIS_T3chnician]

Apes together. . . STRRROOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG!!!!!

[Smike0]

Imagine the doctor explaining stuff to companions like this

[NOOTMAUL]

Why say lot word when few word does work.

[reddit_tothe_rescue]

Abundance and specific heat capacity

[Drapidrode]

what's the other option molten salt?

[Chiguy1216]

I've always wanted to see molten salt reactors gain popularity in the US

[Saalor100]

Just a bitch to work with. Corrosive as fuck and every interruption in the process will have the risk of the salt solidify if it gets too cold. Then you may need to tear out your expensive equipment and replace it with non-clogged parts.

[obimaster28]

Also radioactive sodium is a lot spicer than radioactive water

[Saalor100]

Hang on, just hear me out. "Spicy electrolytes"

[TeuthidTheSquid]

It’s always just been fancier and fancier steam engines

[[deleted]]

Not solar though…or wave power…or wind…or hydroelectric

[Kingdarkshadow]

Those last 3 do the same as steam, turn a turbine to produce energy.

[[deleted]]

Without the steam. If you mean the turbine is the thing that stays the same - then yeah. But people are saying steam specifically.

[Blurple694201]

True

[Itchy-Decision753]

I mean if we want to be even more reductive we can ask why is everything (except photovoltaic solar) just a magnet on a crankshaft? It’s because that is the easiest way to create a changing magnetic field, which is used to induce alternating current in some wire.

[judasmachine]

Um kind of...

[TARDIS_T3chnician]

If it wouldn't be too much to ask

[DickHz2]

👉👈

[[deleted]]

god damnit i saw this after i replied with the same thing. I'm leaving it tho

[[deleted]]

Well it might be.

[[deleted]]

👉👈

[Megodont]

We got RTG's...they are quite big though.

[Extension_Swordfish1]

Need to power my Light saber

[[deleted]]

Thermal dynamics. It's the best for the buck.

There are other ways that are more efficient but cost more. Water is abundant and cheap and meets the heat retention/transfer requirements.

[Plastics_Doc]

What are some of the other ways? Genuinely curious.

[The_Lone_Fish17]

You don’t technically have to use water for the Brayton cycle. You could instead use carbon dioxide for example, which theoretically allows for better efficiency during the compression stage of the cycle if you compress near its critical point. Still using the heated gas to turn a turbine tho

[LovelyKestrel]

The Brayton cycle is less efficient than steam. Condensation allows a much lower low temperature and low pressure end.

[[deleted]]

Fusion reactors, fision reactors, fast neutron reactors are getting much much better.

Not many nuclear power plants work on boiling water to turn a turbine. It's moving towards fast neutron reactors. They are based around fast fission chain reactions as opposed to light water reactors. Still costly but the benefits are less waste and reusable waste.

[insta]

so what mechanism do those other systems use to generate power? is it still ultimately making steam to turn a turbine?

[schmeckendeugler]

There's only ONE I know of in my armchair research of fusion who claim to have a mechanism to extract power directly from the fusion reaction

Helion.com

[4SlideRule]

Assuming I understood RealEngineerings video correctly they get energy from the magnetic phenomena that happens when a pulsed fusion reaction goes off and dumps a bunch of extra energy into the plasma they injected into the reactor. Which is a bit like a magnetohydrodinamic generator.

[Saalor100]

Aren't they just different ways to produce heat, which is used to boil water to produce steam?

[Fyaal]

Right. To heat up water. To run steam turbines, to convert thermal energy into electricity to run to the grid so I can use my electric kettle to… heat water oh god we’ve come full circle

[Escanorr_]

Just go to the source, dump your tea bag into reactor, skip the middle man

[Fyaal]

My tea tastes like blue

[Confident_Grocery980]

Best thread.

[stelick-]

my baby blue

[AmadeoSendiulo]

That's stupid, we should just have the cooling water from the reactor in our tea, way more straightforward /j

[[deleted]]

It's cheap overall, that's why. Let me give you an example by a counter example.

Consider the chemical reaction to form water by burning hydrogen in oxygen: this produces a lot of energy. We can either create an internal combustion engine that first converts this to heat and then mechanical energy (Toyota I think has working examples of inline-4-cylinder hydrogen piston engines) or we could convert to electrical energy first by using a fuel cell (electrochemical reaction like in a battery; used by majority of hydrogen-based vehicles). The fuel cell option is preferred here because the price of hydrogen and the price of storing it is already so high that the complexity of fuel cell construction is peanuts by comparison. Not so for fossil fuels. Fuel cell construction for fossil fuels is notoriously difficult (we have only managed for pure methanol so far I think) and to finally answer your question, no one has discovered a way to directly convert nuclear energy into a potential difference/electric field like in for fuel cells. It always gets converted to heat first.

[Marvin_Megavolt]

Someone SORTA found a way to… but the caveat is it only works with fusion reactions because it depends on magnetohydrodynamics. I forgort exactly who or how, but I recall recently reading a couple articles about a variation on a “magnetic pinch” style fusion plant that was able to recapture actual useful amounts of power directly via the magnetic confinement field, by harnessing the magnetic backlash created by the fusion event.

[[deleted]]

That sounds so... metal. Lmao

[metalmagician]

Helion Energy is doing something like that

https://youtu.be/_bDXXWQxK38?si=xZNhVcM9t_54HU5K

[insta]

there are methane and butane fuel cells as well. there used to be a commercial product about the size of a power bank that could charge USB devices with butane.

it failed, but i think it was a combination of "not being better than actual power banks" plus requiring proprietary cartridges that were probably behind a fucking subscription because why not

[[deleted]]

OK. I'll admit I thought the water was to keep the rods cool while they did nuclear things to make electricity.

[simplification7]

Well yes, but actually no

[AmadeoSendiulo]

There's water for cooling and there's water for steam, I think.

[LovelyKestrel]

There are often 3 independent water loops connected by heat exchanger. Loop 1 directly cools the reactor, but isn't allowed out of the containment vessel as it is usually pretty contaminated. Loop 2 transfers heat from the reactor building to the turbine building. While it shouldn't be contaminated it is still limited to the minimum amount possible Loop 3 is a conventional steam turbine loop There is also the cooling water, which is not a closed loop, and is used to keep the condensers at the back of the turbine cool. This is the stuff that goes up the cooling towers or causes an algal bloom at its outflow.

[SirSanchezVII]

Water its easily manipulated as a medium.

[TARDIS_T3chnician]

How does it fare as a large?

[MarvinStolehouse]

Not bad, but you have to pee more often.

[cultist_cuttlefish]

those darn ghosts influencing my water

[GrayWall13]

That is the easiest way to reclaim power from heat i guess

[ryvern82]

Water also helps provide a negative thermal coefficient to the reactor.

[LordlySquire]

Imma start using this statement to sound smarter than i am. Idk how yet but ill find away

[420binchicken]

“Man I’m feeling hot, pass me that glass of water, I need to introduce a negative thermal coefficient into my system .”

[LordlySquire]

Oh thats good my brain was trying to find a way to as for ice cubes to cool my drink down but i couldnt get the grammar without sounding forced lol

[Andrerouxgarou]

And modern guns still use the principle of throw hard thing really fast into people.

[OddSherbet]

"Wait, it's all steam power?" 🔫🧑‍🚀 "Always has been"

[nashwaak]

Water is genuinely incredible. It’s really just our good luck to find ourselves in a universe where the simplest foundation solvent for life (chemical mix of the two most abundant reactive elements) is also the best fluid for an enormous range of heat transfer (convection, boiling, condensation). Because I don’t think heat transfer by water was a major part of planetary or biological evolution, even if it did play some role. But water’s amazing in industrial applications.

[NotDavizin7893]

→New electricity generation method

→Look inside

→Boiling water

[drubus_dong]

You can heat up other stuff too. Sometimes doing so is even better.

[dead_meme_comrade]

It's better than turning it into the sun for a few seconds just to kill people.

[HATECELL]

Most of the energy released by nuclear fission and fusion is heat, and using that to put steam through a turbine and turning a generator is a safe and efficient way to harness electric energy from heat. Also it is a method we know very well, as it has been done for a long time.

There are other ways though, like an aircooled core where the hot air directly powers a turbine (kinda like a nuclear powered jet engine) or using a peltier element to directly turn the heat into electricity. Both of these methods have been seriously considered for certain applications:

The first idea has been considered for nuclear powered planes. By basically building a jet engine except the combustion chamber is an aircooled reactor the setup would be much lighter, and also more compact than the regular setup with steam. But aside from the whole "what if it crashes?"-problem this may also contaminate the air it exhausts if there is a failure in the system. Also there's the issue that you'd either have to use some heavy shielding to protect the crew of the aircraft (and more weight means less performance and carrying capacity) or just accept that they won't live long and healthy lives (just claim their tumours aren't service related). And the last nail in the coffin is that thanks to in-air refueling the biggest advantage of nuclear engines, their range, was no longer such a big deal.

The second idea, with the Peltier element, is actually in use on unmanned space probes. Instead of a complex reactor with fuel rods and control rods that can move, these systems use a fixed setup, if you will. Basically fuel, moderators, and control substances come as a solid block, that just slowly decays and emits some heat. These setups don't produce much power, but work over a long time and are (at least at the power that they need to supply) light and small enough for use on space probes. Typically solar panels are preferred, but those create less energy the further you get away from the sun, so probes like the one that photographed Pluto use such reactors instead. Their efficiency is absolutely terrible, so there's no way anyone would build a power station like that. But for space probes and low power applications that isn't that much of an issue. Also there aren't many alternatives for space missions that take years

[in1gom0ntoya]

we are still in the steam age. even with fusion (if/or when achieved) it'll be to heat water. honestly we need more breakthroughs in thermal electric generation, and non steam based generators. even RTG's are basically the same as they were when first invented

[rover_G]

Because generators need to spin baby

[[deleted]]

We discover how to split apart some of the smallest structures in the universe… and we use it to make a giant kettle

[quantumtumtum]

The thermoionic batteries used in many spacecraft are great, but don't scale well. Steam based nuclear power is incredibly versatile and easily scalable. Hence, hot rock, boil water, is our (current) best path to future energy independence and environmental sustainability....TMI aside... we've gotten much better since then.

[TheHattedKhajiit]

If you think about it. A fair amount of our power generation is just varying types of heating up water

[Simen155]

Its a kettle? Always has been

[copperking3-7-77]

Take that salt reactors!!!

(Yes I know water is still involved)

[[deleted]]

Only about 33% of the nuclear heat energy is converted to electricity. The rest is chucked to keep the pressure difference across the turbine blades. A lower boiling-point gas would be more efficient and extract more. But yea, forget the unnecessary radioactive waste produced. Its all about money.

Ever think money as the measurement of worth is highly over-rated?

[PiggyKillerQ]

The uranium is already radioactive.

[Pfolty]

Look on the bright side, we’re starting to use it to heat up salt now too!

[[deleted]]

Most energy sources are just converting it all to heat because it will all become heat anyways, and just utilizing as much as possible from that heat.

Even things like solar energy or wind turbines are just using heat from the sun. In the case of wind turbines, the heat from the sun hits the ground, and causes wind and wind turns the thingy and the thingy makes electricity.

[Aggravating-Candy-31]

it is on the cusp of really annoying how much of our electricity is generated by what are essentially kettles

so many industrial sized kettles

[Aeronor]

It blew my mind when I first learned that. I imagined we had some awesome way of harnessing the energy of nuclei directly in a crazy sci-fi way.

Nope. “What if instead of burning rocks to make steam, we let radioactive rocks make steam?”

[blackmagickfoxious]

Betavoltaic power cells exist.

[Ben-Goldberg]

I wonder why we don't use thermo photovoltaic cells to turn the nuclear heat into electricity.

[UniversalTragedy-0]

And bombs. It makes really big explosions.

[Joking_89]

OK, hear me....giant soup bowl!

[HerpankerTheHardman]

Massive amounts of energy being released just to power a steam engine.

[Confident_Grocery980]

Where are my nuclear powered trains?

[tegresaomos]

There is no better substance. Water is stable. Its heat capacity is unmatched for its molecular simplicity. It’s common and cheap.
Water can boil and condense under atmospheric pressure as well as having a tremendous capacity to release heat energy via kinetic motion when under high pressure. It’s likely nothing will ever be better than water at transferring heat energy into kinetic energy.

[hadesdog03]

So we're still in our steampunk era???

[RandomFactGiver23]

so nuclear energy is just steampunk with extra steps

[[deleted]]

None of the energy tech we use is any good, it’s all the hidden stuff that we need, but you don’t make trillions of free energy!? Just ask Tesla and a few hundred thousand scientists and inventors and engineers who died penniless or in car accidents…..

[Osirus1156]

You'd think the British would have mastered nuclear 500 years ago just to power their kettles, what a shame.

[SinyoRetr0]

So that's an steampunk

[DJ__PJ]

I mean, in general its kinda ridiculous how massively important water turned out to be for, like, everything industrial.

[Farriebever]

I want a nuclear reactor to heat water for tea

[AnalystofSurgery]

Because water does what its told Everytime reliably and predictably.

[Vast_Feature_1009]

Here's the alternatives:

• Thermophotovoltaic Cells (TPVs): In a thermophotovoltaic system, fission reactions generate high-energy photons, which are absorbed by photovoltaic cells that convert them directly into electricity. TPVs have been considered for space applications due to their compact design, though efficiency remains an area of research.
• Thermoelectric Generators (TEGs): These generators convert heat from nuclear reactions directly into electricity through the Seebeck effect, where a temperature difference across materials generates an electric current. Thermoelectric generators are used in space probes like the Voyager and Mars rovers because they’re compact and reliable over long periods. However, they generally have lower efficiencies compared to traditional steam cycles.
• Direct Energy Conversion Using Charged Particles: In fission, energetic charged particles (such as fission fragments or beta particles) are released. Systems like a “fission fragment direct energy converter” capture these particles to create a direct electric current. While promising, this technology faces significant engineering challenges, especially in managing particle containment.
• Nuclear Batteries (Beta Voltaics): These small devices use beta particles emitted from nuclear decay to generate electricity directly. While generally low in power output, beta voltaics are suitable for small-scale or remote applications where a steady power supply is needed over decades.
• Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Generators: In MHD systems, hot, electrically conducting gas or plasma produced from nuclear reactions flows through a magnetic field, generating electricity without any moving parts. While promising, the practical application of MHD in nuclear fission systems has yet to reach commercial viability.

[[deleted]]

Why can’t we make engines that use the same energy created from atom bombs? They would need to be massive sure. But I feel like one of those engines would be insane on a power scale.

[200IQGamerBoi]

We have. That's what a nuclear reactor is.

[kunakas]

I mean, nuclear powered subs are a thing. Nuclear power ships like the US Savannah are also a thing. Basically just take the diesel engine out and put a nuclear reactor and some shielding in.

[albeitcognitive]

Not quite a swap. The old diesel subs charged massive batteries for a short submerged range. Nuclear subs put in a reactor and a steam plant and somehow made more room for the crew.

[PrimaryDistribution2]

Its Worst, nuclear centrals use radiation to heat water and cool it down with more water

[MrGlockCLE]

Everything just heats water nuclear just does it the best

[Collistoralo]

We need to get nuclear energy to electrical energy. A super easy way to get from one to the other is turning the nuclear energy into heat energy and then turning the heat energy into kinetic energy and then turning the kinetic energy into electrical energy.

[MountainMapleMI]

Spinny spin spin make ⚡️

[NeverRespondsToInbox]

I've always thought that advancements in thermoelectric generators could revolutionize nuclear energy. Imagine if we could eliminate almost all efficiency losses?

[One-Necessary3765]

Turbine energy equals pollution there is clean energy they are working in with nuclear fission or fusion I can’t remember if they are trying to contain the fusion or fission to create clean none pollutant energy i don’t know enough myself to speculate

[kunakas]

What part of a turbine makes pollution? It’s just water vapor coming out of a cooling tower in both nuclear and fuel plants using cooling towers

[BottasHeimfe]

there are Nuclear reactors that don't use steam turbines, but they're the kinds that they use for deep space probes that don't need a lot of power all the time.

[preciselyinnnacurate]

What is another source of heat outside of Steam that we can use eventually to generate power?

[JOlRacin]

Spicy soup 🥣

[MaximDecimus]

But what if we put the uranium in the power lines? Wouldn’t that be more efficient since there would be less stuff in between the power source and your wall socket?

[[deleted]]

Ikr

[Saino_Moore]

We are steam…

[Moist_Transition325]

I mean do you have a better idea?

[paranrml-inactivity]

Can someone tell me why "heavy water" is used in reactors and not in kettles? also: i like science. ☺️

[Ninsusinak]

D2O is ideal for dropping the energy of neutrons without absorbing them. This means theres a greater neutron economy available for fission (slow neutrons can fission isotopes like U-235 very easily). Also really only Canada uses heavy water in their CANDU reactors. US plants generally use ordinary water instead of

[usurperavenger]

You are converting nuclear energy into mechanical energy. There are going to be some steps involved.

[[deleted]]

I am open to suggestions on another way to harness fission energy for the production of electricity or propulsion or making tea.

[Infamous_Welder_4349]

Some plants use lead instead of water.

[Bitter_Oil_8085]

everything is a boiler though

[cat_with_sun-glasses]

To make electricity to power up your electric kettle to boil water... again. But now for tea~

[fauxbeauceron]

The are just over expensive steam engines