What Can Induce Electron Flow and Why Are Magnets So Dominant?

[mayble]

I can think of three ways to induce electrons to flow and generate electricity:

1. Light (i.e. PV cells)
2. Catalyzed chemical reaction (batteries, fuel cells)
3. Magnetic field (turbines -- gas, wind, water, nuclear... everything else I can think of)

Mostly turbines. I was wondering if anyone could at to the list? Or could explain why magnets are so dominant?

 

[gerbi]

Well.. turbines are only responsible of creating a rotating field - as only non-stationary field can create current flow (voltage actually -> Faraday's Law of Induction).

Why turbine + magnets (electromagnets, permeant magnets) are dominant ? Because it's cheaper to produce power this way. Large power density (~few W\kg).

 

[NascentOxygen]

Thermocouples

Piezoelectric materials

Muscles

Kelvins water dropper, cat fur

Electric eels

 

[Forensics]

Well, when it comes to just causing electrons to flow, there are 6 ways I know of (general.)

Heat (thermocouples,) pressure (some crystals etc,) friction (static,) chemical (batteries,) solar (light,) and I believe the last one is magnetic.

I would post a more in depth explanation but I am on my phone. I can add more of an explanation later.

 

[psparky]

Certainly the most popular way to generate electricity is to rotate a magnetic field around a wire...also known as a generator. I would assume this generates at least 90% of the worlds power.

What drives that generator can be a number of things. Boiling a gigantic pot of water (usually heat created by coal or E=mc^2) and using the steam to drive a generator I would also think powers at least 90% of the worlds power. These giant pots of water can be 15 stories high and even higher.

Gigantic water falls (Hoover dam for example) also make a lot of power by turning generator. And these are certainly the best since the power source is free and the pollutants are near zero.

Wind turbines are inefficient, expensive and not overly impressive at this time.

All other forms are certainly important, but just subsets at the moment compared to the dominant rotating magnetic field.

 

[E_Q]

explain why magnets are so dominant?

I would say that this is because magnets are easy to manipulate mechanically, and any movement of a magnetical field entails a movement in an electric field.

Most of the energy generation methods used on a large scale involve a change of energy from one form (chemical, mass, kinetic) to kinetic; e.g. Chemical energy in coal is released as heat which is then converted to kinetic energy in steam.

Magnets seem to me to be the only to convert large amounts of kinetic energy into an electric current.

Gigantic water falls (Hoover dam for example) also make a lot of power by turning generator. And these are certainly the best since the power source is free and the pollutants are near zero.

Wind turbines are inefficient, expensive and not overly impressive at this time.

I question both statements. While the running of HEP stations does not require much energy input or pollutant output, the construction of a "gigantic water fall" involves "gigantic" amounts of concrete. Hoover dam, being your example, contains some 2,480,000 m3 of concrete. As concrete sets a chemical reaction takes place, emitting heat and carbon dioxide.

The carbon dioxide CO2 produced for the manufacture of one tonne of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...e#Carbon_dioxide_emissions_and_climate_change

Hence the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the Hoover dam during construction could be in the region of 1,016,800 tons. I'm not saying HEP is an environmental disaster (quite the contrary) but don't be ignorant of it's impacts!

"Wind turbines are inefficient, expensive and not overly impressive at this time."

Typical commercial turbine: 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed, which would be expected to run for about 120 000 hours. That's ~240,000,000 KWh, so roughly $0.016 per KWh. But I fear this is an under estimate, as NO wind turbine constantly runs at rated power, or anywhere near it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Suggests $/KWh for wind is $0.097, so I was out by a factor of about 6

Any way to the point... Natural gas is cheapest per unit energy, then HEP, then wind. So wind is not overly expensive.

Wind cannot be >56% efficient due to Betz' law, which basically uses the idea that the more efficient your wind turbine the slower the air after your turbine, which in turn slows the air before the turbine (which in turn lowers your power output). Read up on it, it's a great proof!