DOCSLIB.ORG

Direct Conversion of Fusion Energy Master Project in Physicalelectrotechnology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

k-,, - - l 4- /- - - 9 - 4 4 Lor- - Zoo 3 - TRITA-ALF-2003-02 ISK Report CCH ISSN 1102-2051 ONSI ISRN KTH/ALF/--03/2--SE KTH a Now! "lo Ml Direct Conversion of Fusion Energy Master Project in PhysicalElectrotechnology Markus Johansson KFAWMMOUNIAM Research and Training programme on CONTROLLED THERMONUCLEAR FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS (Association EURATOMINFR) FUSION PLASM PHYSICS ALFVtN LABORATORY ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN Direct conversion of fusion energy Markus Johansson Department of Fusion Plasma Physics, Alfv6n Laboratory Royal Institute of Technology, SE - 00 44 STOCKHOLM, Sweden Master Project in Physical Electrotechnology Supervisor: Associate Professor Jan Scheffel March 3 2003 Printed v The Alfv6n aboratory Division of Fusion Plasma Phvslcs Royal nstitute of Technology SE-100 44 Stockholm Abstract Deuterium and tritium are expected to be used as fuel in the first fusion reactors. Energy is released as kinetic energy of ions and neutrons, when deuterium reacts with tritium. One way to convert the kinetic energy to electrical energy, is to let the ions and neutrons hit the reactor wall and convert the heat that is caused by the particle bombardment to electrical energy with ordinary thermal conversion. If the kinetic energy of the ions instead is converted directly to electrical energy, a higher efficiency of the energy conversion is possible. The ma- jority of the fusion energy is released as kinetic energy of neutrons, when deuterium reacts with tritium. Fusion reactions such as the D-D reactions, the D_3He reaction and the p-1113 reaction, where a larger part of the fu- sion energy becomes kinetic energy of charged particles, appears therefore more suitable for direct conversion. Since they have lower reactivity than the D-T reaction, they need a larger OBO2 t give sufficiently high fusion power density. Because of this, the fusion configurations spherical torus (ST) and field-reversed configuration (FRC), where high values are possible, appear interesting. Rosenbluth and Hinton come in 3 to the conclusion that efficient direct conversion isn't possible in closed field line systems and that open geometries, which facilitate direct conversion, provide inadequate confinement for D_3 He. It is confirmed in this study that it doesn't seem possible to achieve as high direct conversion efficiency in closed systems as in open systems. ST and FRC fusion power plants that utilize direct conversion seem however interesting. Calculations with the help of Maple indicate that the reactor parameters needed for a D-D ST and a D_3He ST hopefully are possible to achieve. The best energy conversion option for a D-D or D_3 He ST appears to be direct electrodynamic conversion (DEC) together with ordinary thermal conversion or liquid metal MHD conversion (LMMHD). For a D-T ST, LMMHD seems suitable. The FRC is suitable for application of direct energy converters, since an FC plasma is surrounded by open magnetic field lines. Venetian-blind (VB) collectors and traveling wave direct energy converters can give a high energy conversion efficiency. Reactor studies indicate that the COE may become lower for a D_3He FRC than for a D-T tokamak. CONTENTS 3 Contents 1 Introduction 5 2 Fusion fuels 5 2.1 Fusion reactions .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 2.2 Comparison between D-T and D_3 He . 7 2.2.1 Ignition . 8 2.2.2 Power density . 12 2.2.3 Can D_3 He compete with D-T? . 12 3 Energy conversion 14 3.1 D irect collection . 14 3.1.1 Venetian-blind collectors . 15 3.1.2 Ex collectors . 16 3.1.3 Cyclotron-resonance collectors . 16 3.2 Traveling wave direct energy converters . 17 3.3 MHD generators . 17 4 Application to fusion configurations 19 4.1 Closed system s . 19 4.2 Open system s . 20 4.2.1 Magnetic-mirrors . 20 4.2.2 Field-reversed configurations . 20 5 The spherical torus 22 5.1 D -T fuel . 24 5.2 D -D fuel . 30 5.3 D _3 H e fuel . 36 6 Discussion 39 7 Summary 40 A Maple program for D-T fuel 43 B Maple program for D-D fuel 52 C Maple program for D_3 He fuel 61 1. Introduction 5 1 Introduction The first fusion reactors are expected to use deuterium and tritium as fuel. When deuterium reacts with tritium, energy is released as kinetic energy of ions and neutrons. The walls of the reactors are then hit by ions and neutrons and are therefore heated. The heat energy can be taken up by the coolant that then produces steam that can drive generators. The efficiency of such a conversion of heat energy to electrical energy is limited to approximately 40%. If the kinetic energy of the ions is converted directly to electrical energy, a higher efficiency of the energy conversion is possible. Unfortunately the majority of the fusion energy is released as kinetic energy of neutrons, if the D-T reaction is used. Therefore other fusion reactions where a larger fraction of the fusion energy is released as kinetic energy of ions may be more suitable for direct conversion. Except the possibility of higher efficiency of the energy conversion, such reactions also have other advantages. The neutron wall load becomes lower and no tritium breeding blanket is needed. There are, however, also draw- backs. The reactivities are lower and the thermal wall load due to ion bom- bardment becomes higher. So the questions are: • Is it possible to build profitable fusion reactors that use direct conver- sion together with other fusion reactions than the D-T reaction? • Can direct conversion also become useful for D-T fusion reactors? 2 Fusion fuels There are some different fusion reactions, that may be used in a fusion reac- tor. In this section some reactions are discussed and then the D-T and the D_3He reaction are compared. 2.1 Fusion reactions Let us first discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different fusion reactions. In Table some reactions are listed. The D-T reaction requires the lowest temperature and has the largest fusion reactivity, of all the fusion reactions. Unfortunately only 20% of the fusion energy is released as kinetic energy of charged particles. The rest is released as 14.1 MeV neutrons. Part of the energy of the charged particles is also lost as radiation, so only a small fraction of the fusion energy is available for direct energy conversion. There are three major reaction schemes that use deuterium as the pri- mary fuel 1]. 6 2. Pusion fuels Name Fusion reaction and energy release (MeV) Yield (MeV) D-T D + T 4He(3.52) + n(14.07) 17.59 D-D-n D + D 3 He(O.82) + n(2.45) 3.27 D-D-p D + D T(1-01) + p(3.02) 4.03 D_3He D + 3 He , 4 He(3.66) + p(14.6) 18.30 P_6Li P 6Li 4He(l.72) + 3 He(2.29) 4.02 P_1113 p + B 34He 8.66 3He_3 He 3He + 3 He - 2p 4 He 12.86 Table 1: Fusion reactions. 1. The uncatalyzed DD reaction. Only the D-D-n and the D-D-p reaction are used. Deuterons react with each other and the probabilities for the reactions D-D-n and D-D-p are approximately equal for all energies likely to be of interest in fusion applications. The 3He and T that are produced are removed before they can react with the deuterium and can be used to fuel other reactors. Of the total energy release 66.4 is available as kinetic energy of charged particles and 33.6% appears as 2.45 MeV neutrons. 2. The semi-catalyzed DD reaction. The three reactions D-D-n, D-D-p and D_3He are used. The D_3He reaction occurs between the 3He produced in the D-D-n reaction and the primary deuterium fuel. The 3He that escapes from confinement are reinjected into the plasma. The tritium produced is stored until it beta decays into 3He. The resulting 3He can be used as fuel in other fusion reactors. 90.4% of the fusion energy is released in the form of kinetic energy of charged particles and the rest as 245 MeV neutrons. 3. The catalyzed DD reaction. The four reactions D-D-n, D-D-p, D_3 He and D-T are used. The 3 He and produced by the primary DD reactions are reinjected into the plasma until they react with the deu- terium. Approximately 61.8% of the fusion energy becomes charged particle energy, the rest becomes neutron energy. The neutron energy appears in the form of 245 MeV and 14.1 MeV neutrons. They cause radiological, shielding and material problems almost as severe as they would be in a D-T reactor. An important environmental advantage of using the catalyzed DD reaction instead of the D-T reaction is however the lower concentration of tritium. The DD reaction schemes have some advantages. Deuterium occurs naturally in very large quantities. No tritium breeding blanket is needed. In all the three DD reaction schemes a large fraction of the fusion energy is released as charged particle energy. The DD reaction schemes are therefore suitable 2. Fusion fuels 7 for direct energy conversion. The D-3He reaction releases all of its energy as charged particle energy and is because of that very suitable for direct energy conversion. Because of the deuterium, some D-D and D-T reactions also occur in a D_3He plasma, so a little neutrons are produced in such a plasma as well. The D_3He reaction has the second largest fusion reactivity of all the fusion reactions in Table .
Recommended publications
  • Aspects of Advanced Fuel FRC Fusion Reactors

    Aspects of Advanced Fuel FRC Fusion Reactors

    Aspects of Advanced Fuel FRC Fusion Reactors John F Santarius and Gerald L Kulcinski Fusion Technology Institute Engineering Physics Department CT2016 Irvine, California August 22-24, 2016 [email protected]; 608-692-4128 Laundry List of Fusion Reactor Development Issues • Plasma physics of fusion fuel cycles • Engineering issues unique or more ! Cross sections and Maxwellian reactivity important for DT fuel ! Beta and B-field utilization ! Tritium-breeding blanket design ! Plasma fusion power density ! Neutron damage to materials ! Plasma energy and particle confinement ! Radiological hazard (afterheat and waste disposal) ! Neutron production vs Ti for various fuel ion ratios • Safety • Geometry implications for engineering design • Environment ! Power flows • Licensing ! Direct energy conversion ! Magnet configuration • Economics ! Radiation shielding ! Maintenance in a highly radioactive environment • Nuclear non-proliferation ! Coolant piping accessibility • Non‑electric applications • Plasma‑surface interactions • 3He fuel supply JFS 2016 Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin 2 UW Developed and/or Participated in 40 MFE & 26 IFE Power Plant and Test Facility Studies in Past 46 years MFE-40 IFE-26 JFS 2016 Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin 3 Total Fusion Reactivities for Key Fusion Fuels Total Energy Production Rate st 1 generation fuels: MaxwellianTotal Reactivities -19 D + T → n (14.07 MeV) + 4He (3.52 MeV) 10 D + D → n (2.45 MeV) + 3He (0.82 MeV) → p (3.02 MeV) + T (1.01 MeV) -20 {50% each
  • A Review of Energy Storage Technologies' Application

    A Review of Energy Storage Technologies' Application

    sustainability Review A Review of Energy Storage Technologies’ Application Potentials in Renewable Energy Sources Grid Integration Henok Ayele Behabtu 1,2,* , Maarten Messagie 1, Thierry Coosemans 1, Maitane Berecibar 1, Kinde Anlay Fante 2 , Abraham Alem Kebede 1,2 and Joeri Van Mierlo 1 1 Mobility, Logistics, and Automotive Technology Research Centre, Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; [email protected] (M.M.); [email protected] (T.C.); [email protected] (M.B.); [email protected] (A.A.K.); [email protected] (J.V.M.) 2 Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Jimma Institute of Technology, Jimma University, Jimma P.O. Box 378, Ethiopia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +32-485659951 or +251-926434658 Received: 12 November 2020; Accepted: 11 December 2020; Published: 15 December 2020 Abstract: Renewable energy sources (RESs) such as wind and solar are frequently hit by fluctuations due to, for example, insufficient wind or sunshine. Energy storage technologies (ESTs) mitigate the problem by storing excess energy generated and then making it accessible on demand. While there are various EST studies, the literature remains isolated and dated. The comparison of the characteristics of ESTs and their potential applications is also short. This paper fills this gap. Using selected criteria, it identifies key ESTs and provides an updated review of the literature on ESTs and their application potential to the renewable energy sector. The critical review shows a high potential application for Li-ion batteries and most fit to mitigate the fluctuation of RESs in utility grid integration sector.
  • Energy and the Hydrogen Economy

    Energy and the Hydrogen Economy

    Energy and the Hydrogen Economy Ulf Bossel Fuel Cell Consultant Morgenacherstrasse 2F CH-5452 Oberrohrdorf / Switzerland +41-56-496-7292 and Baldur Eliasson ABB Switzerland Ltd. Corporate Research CH-5405 Baden-Dättwil / Switzerland Abstract Between production and use any commercial product is subject to the following processes: packaging, transportation, storage and transfer. The same is true for hydrogen in a “Hydrogen Economy”. Hydrogen has to be packaged by compression or liquefaction, it has to be transported by surface vehicles or pipelines, it has to be stored and transferred. Generated by electrolysis or chemistry, the fuel gas has to go through theses market procedures before it can be used by the customer, even if it is produced locally at filling stations. As there are no environmental or energetic advantages in producing hydrogen from natural gas or other hydrocarbons, we do not consider this option, although hydrogen can be chemically synthesized at relative low cost. In the past, hydrogen production and hydrogen use have been addressed by many, assuming that hydrogen gas is just another gaseous energy carrier and that it can be handled much like natural gas in today’s energy economy. With this study we present an analysis of the energy required to operate a pure hydrogen economy. High-grade electricity from renewable or nuclear sources is needed not only to generate hydrogen, but also for all other essential steps of a hydrogen economy. But because of the molecular structure of hydrogen, a hydrogen infrastructure is much more energy-intensive than a natural gas economy. In this study, the energy consumed by each stage is related to the energy content (higher heating value HHV) of the delivered hydrogen itself.
  • NASA Radioisotope Power Conversion Technology NRA Overview

    NASA Radioisotope Power Conversion Technology NRA Overview

    NASA Radioisotope Power Conversion Technology NRA Overview David J. Anderson NASA Glenn Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, OH 44135 216-433-8709, [email protected] Abstract. The focus of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Development program is aimed at developing nuclear power and technologies that would improve the effectiveness of space science missions. The Radioisotope Power Conversion Technology (RPCT) NASA Research Announcement (NRA) is an important mechanism through which research and technology activities are supported in the Advanced Power Conversion Research and Technology project of the Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems Development program. The purpose of the RPCT NRA is to advance the development of radioisotope power conversion technologies to provide higher efficiencies and specific powers than existing systems. These advances would enable a factor of 2 to 4 decrease in the amount of fuel and a reduction of waste heat required to generate electrical power, and thus could result in more cost effective science missions for NASA. The RPCT NRA selected advanced RPS power conversion technology research and development proposals in the following three areas: innovative RPS power conversion research, RPS power conversion technology development in a nominal 100We scale; and, milliwatt/multi-watt RPS (mWRPS) power conversion research. Ten RPCT NRA contracts were awarded in 2003 in the areas of Brayton, Stirling, thermoelectric (TE), and thermophotovoltaic (TPV) power conversion technologies. This paper will provide an overview of the RPCT NRA, a summary of the power conversion technologies approaches being pursued, and a brief digest of first year accomplishments. RADIOISOTOPE POWER CONVERSION TECHNOLOGY (RPCT) OVERVIEW The objective of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) Development program is to develop nuclear power conversion technologies that would improve the effectiveness of space science missions.
  • Hydroelectric Power -- What Is It? It=S a Form of Energy … a Renewable Resource

    Hydroelectric Power -- What Is It? It=S a Form of Energy … a Renewable Resource

    INTRODUCTION Hydroelectric Power -- what is it? It=s a form of energy … a renewable resource. Hydropower provides about 96 percent of the renewable energy in the United States. Other renewable resources include geothermal, wave power, tidal power, wind power, and solar power. Hydroelectric powerplants do not use up resources to create electricity nor do they pollute the air, land, or water, as other powerplants may. Hydroelectric power has played an important part in the development of this Nation's electric power industry. Both small and large hydroelectric power developments were instrumental in the early expansion of the electric power industry. Hydroelectric power comes from flowing water … winter and spring runoff from mountain streams and clear lakes. Water, when it is falling by the force of gravity, can be used to turn turbines and generators that produce electricity. Hydroelectric power is important to our Nation. Growing populations and modern technologies require vast amounts of electricity for creating, building, and expanding. In the 1920's, hydroelectric plants supplied as much as 40 percent of the electric energy produced. Although the amount of energy produced by this means has steadily increased, the amount produced by other types of powerplants has increased at a faster rate and hydroelectric power presently supplies about 10 percent of the electrical generating capacity of the United States. Hydropower is an essential contributor in the national power grid because of its ability to respond quickly to rapidly varying loads or system disturbances, which base load plants with steam systems powered by combustion or nuclear processes cannot accommodate. Reclamation=s 58 powerplants throughout the Western United States produce an average of 42 billion kWh (kilowatt-hours) per year, enough to meet the residential needs of more than 14 million people.
  • Formation of Hot, Stable, Long-Lived Field-Reversed Configuration Plasmas on the C-2W Device

    Formation of Hot, Stable, Long-Lived Field-Reversed Configuration Plasmas on the C-2W Device

    IOP Nuclear Fusion International Atomic Energy Agency Nuclear Fusion Nucl. Fusion Nucl. Fusion 59 (2019) 112009 (16pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab0be9 59 Formation of hot, stable, long-lived 2019 field-reversed configuration plasmas © 2019 IAEA, Vienna on the C-2W device NUFUAU H. Gota1 , M.W. Binderbauer1 , T. Tajima1, S. Putvinski1, M. Tuszewski1, 1 1 1 1 112009 B.H. Deng , S.A. Dettrick , D.K. Gupta , S. Korepanov , R.M. Magee1 , T. Roche1 , J.A. Romero1 , A. Smirnov1, V. Sokolov1, Y. Song1, L.C. Steinhauer1 , M.C. Thompson1 , E. Trask1 , A.D. Van H. Gota et al Drie1, X. Yang1, P. Yushmanov1, K. Zhai1 , I. Allfrey1, R. Andow1, E. Barraza1, M. Beall1 , N.G. Bolte1 , E. Bomgardner1, F. Ceccherini1, A. Chirumamilla1, R. Clary1, T. DeHaas1, J.D. Douglass1, A.M. DuBois1 , A. Dunaevsky1, D. Fallah1, P. Feng1, C. Finucane1, D.P. Fulton1, L. Galeotti1, K. Galvin1, E.M. Granstedt1 , M.E. Griswold1, U. Guerrero1, S. Gupta1, Printed in the UK K. Hubbard1, I. Isakov1, J.S. Kinley1, A. Korepanov1, S. Krause1, C.K. Lau1 , H. Leinweber1, J. Leuenberger1, D. Lieurance1, M. Madrid1, NF D. Madura1, T. Matsumoto1, V. Matvienko1, M. Meekins1, R. Mendoza1, R. Michel1, Y. Mok1, M. Morehouse1, M. Nations1 , A. Necas1, 1 1 1 1 1 10.1088/1741-4326/ab0be9 M. Onofri , D. Osin , A. Ottaviano , E. Parke , T.M. Schindler , J.H. Schroeder1, L. Sevier1, D. Sheftman1 , A. Sibley1, M. Signorelli1, R.J. Smith1 , M. Slepchenkov1, G. Snitchler1, J.B. Titus1, J. Ufnal1, Paper T. Valentine1, W. Waggoner1, J.K. Walters1, C.
  • NIAC 2011 Phase I Tarditti Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture Final Report

    NIAC 2011 Phase I Tarditti Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture Final Report

    NASA-NIAC 2001 PHASE I RESEARCH GRANT on “Aneutronic Fusion Spacecraft Architecture” Final Research Activity Report (SEPTEMBER 2012) P.I.: Alfonso G. Tarditi1 Collaborators: John H. Scott2, George H. Miley3 1Dept. of Physics, University of Houston – Clear Lake, Houston, TX 2NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 3University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL Executive Summary - Motivation This study was developed because the recognized need of defining of a new spacecraft architecture suitable for aneutronic fusion and featuring game-changing space travel capabilities. The core of this architecture is the definition of a new kind of fusion-based space propulsion system. This research is not about exploring a new fusion energy concept, it actually assumes the availability of an aneutronic fusion energy reactor. The focus is on providing the best (most efficient) utilization of fusion energy for propulsion purposes. The rationale is that without a proper architecture design even the utilization of a fusion reactor as a prime energy source for spacecraft propulsion is not going to provide the required performances for achieving a substantial change of current space travel capabilities. - Highlights of Research Results This NIAC Phase I study provided led to several findings that provide the foundation for further research leading to a higher TRL: first a quantitative analysis of the intrinsic limitations of a propulsion system that utilizes aneutronic fusion products directly as the exhaust jet for achieving propulsion was carried on. Then, as a natural continuation, a new beam conditioning process for the fusion products was devised to produce an exhaust jet with the required characteristics (both thrust and specific impulse) for the optimal propulsion performances (in essence, an energy-to-thrust direct conversion).
  • Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Hydrogen Versus Other Technologies for DE-AC36-08-GO28308 Electrical Energy Storage 5B

    Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Hydrogen Versus Other Technologies for DE-AC36-08-GO28308 Electrical Energy Storage 5B

    Technical Report Lifecycle Cost Analysis of NREL/TP-560-46719 Hydrogen Versus Other November 2009 Technologies for Electrical Energy Storage D. Steward, G. Saur, M. Penev, and T. Ramsden Technical Report Lifecycle Cost Analysis of NREL/TP-560-46719 Hydrogen Versus Other November 2009 Technologies for Electrical Energy Storage D. Steward, G. Saur, M. Penev, and T. Ramsden Prepared under Task No. H278.3400 National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S.
  • Electrical Energy Storage – a Lexicon

    Electrical Energy Storage – a Lexicon

    January 2016 Technology Advisory Electrical Energy Storage – A Lexicon Electrical energy storage is an increasingly important topic in discussions about the future of the grid. The purpose of this document is to provide a common vocabulary for talking about electrical energy storage systems. It is focused on grid-connected systems, but many of the terms also apply to off-grid systems. Technical Terms Battery An electrochemical energy storage device which is usually DC. This is one part of an energy storage system. Battery Cell This is the smallest individual electrical component of a battery. It may be a separate physical device (such as an “18650” cell commonly used with lithium batteries), or it may be part of a larger package, yet electrically isolated (a 12V lead acid car battery actually has six two-volt cells connected via bus bars). Battery Management System This is a system which manages and monitors the battery to ensure even charging and discharging. This may be part of a system controller or may be a separate subsystem controller. Charge Rate The ratio of the charge power to the energy capacity of an energy storage system. For example, a 2 MWh system being recharged at 400 kW would have a charge rate of 0.2C (or C/5), while the same battery being charged at 8 MW would have a charge rate of 4C. There are often limits as to how fast a system can be charged / discharged. Copyright © 2016 by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. All Rights Reserved. January 2016 Depth of Discharge This is the inverse of Battery State-of-Charge (BSOC), and is usually abbreviated as DOD.
  • A Review on Thermoelectric Generators: Progress and Applications

    A Review on Thermoelectric Generators: Progress and Applications

    energies Review A Review on Thermoelectric Generators: Progress and Applications Mohamed Amine Zoui 1,2 , Saïd Bentouba 2 , John G. Stocholm 3 and Mahmoud Bourouis 4,* 1 Laboratory of Energy, Environment and Information Systems (LEESI), University of Adrar, Adrar 01000, Algeria; [email protected] 2 Laboratory of Sustainable Development and Computing (LDDI), University of Adrar, Adrar 01000, Algeria; [email protected] 3 Marvel Thermoelectrics, 11 rue Joachim du Bellay, 78540 Vernouillet, Île de France, France; [email protected] 4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Av. Països Catalans No. 26, 43007 Tarragona, Spain * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 7 June 2020; Accepted: 7 July 2020; Published: 13 July 2020 Abstract: A thermoelectric effect is a physical phenomenon consisting of the direct conversion of heat into electrical energy (Seebeck effect) or inversely from electrical current into heat (Peltier effect) without moving mechanical parts. The low efficiency of thermoelectric devices has limited their applications to certain areas, such as refrigeration, heat recovery, power generation and renewable energy. However, for specific applications like space probes, laboratory equipment and medical applications, where cost and efficiency are not as important as availability, reliability and predictability, thermoelectricity offers noteworthy potential. The challenge of making thermoelectricity a future leader in waste heat recovery and renewable energy is intensified by the integration of nanotechnology. In this review, state-of-the-art thermoelectric generators, applications and recent progress are reported. Fundamental knowledge of the thermoelectric effect, basic laws, and parameters affecting the efficiency of conventional and new thermoelectric materials are discussed. The applications of thermoelectricity are grouped into three main domains.
  • Electrical Energy

    Electrical Energy

    Chapter 5 Electrical Energy Our modern technological society is largely defined by our widespread use of elec- trical energy. Electricity provides us with light, heat, refrigeration, communication, elevators, and entertainment. We are so dependent on electricity that when it is unavailable for even a few minutes, the word “crisis” comes to mind. Electrical energy is popular because it is so easily transmitted from one place to another, and converted into other forms of energy. The concepts and principles of electricity are beautiful and intricate, but this is hardly the place to present them in complete detail. For a more thorough treatment of the subject, you can consult almost any standard introductory physics textbook. Electric Charge The simplest electrical phenomenon is static electricity, the temporary “charg- ing” of certain objects when they are rubbed against each other. Run a comb through your hair when it’s dry, and the hair and comb begin to attract each other, indicating that they are charged. Other familiar examples include clothes sticking together in the dryer, and the sudden shock that you sometimes get when shaking someone’s hand after walking across a carpet with rubber-soled shoes. What you may not have noticed is that static electricity can result in both attractive and repulsive forces. The comb attracts the hair and vice-versa, but the hairs repel each other, and two combs similarly charged will likewise repel each other. To explain this we say that there are two types of electric charge, called positive and negative. When objects become charged by rubbing against each other, one always becomes positive and the other becomes negative.
  • Advanced Materials and Devices for Stationary Electrical Energy Storage Applications

    Advanced Materials and Devices for Stationary Electrical Energy Storage Applications

    Advanced Materials and Devices for Stationary Electrical Energy Storage Applications DECEMBER 2010 SPONSORED BY U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy ORGANIZED BY Sandia National Laboratories Pacific Northwest National Laboratory The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (TMS) PREPARED BY ABOUT THIS REPORT This report was supported by Sandia National Laboratories and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). This document was prepared by Sarah Lichtner, Ross Brindle, Lindsay Kishter, and Lindsay Pack of Nexight Group under the direction of Dr. Warren Hunt, Executive Director, The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society (TMS). The cooperation of ASM International through the Energy Materials Initiative, as well as the American Ceramic Society, the Electrochemical Society, and the Materials Research Society, is gratefully acknowledged. Notice: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.