Why don't they use Pyromagnetic Generators in nuclear power plants?

In summary, the article says that a lot of energy is wasted when converting from thermal to mechanic energy, and there are some technical problems with this technology that the author is unaware of.f
  • #1
I just read some stuff on pyromagnetic generators, and my first thought was why don't they use the pyromagnetic generators in nuclear power plants and in any power plants that use thermal energy? You would skip conversion from thermal to mechanic, and then from mechanic to electric. I'm sure that a lot of energy is lost when convertring to and from mechanic energy? Are there some technical problems that I'm unaware off?
  • #2
I must admit that I've never heard of that technology, unless it's some form of magnetohydrodynamics. That would require a high-speed movement of the working fluid (gas flow, particles, etc.) which might not be attainable safely with radioactive substances. If, on the other hand, it's some sort of thermionic conversion, perhaps it can't handle the power density needed in a commercial generator. Please provide more information about it. If it's something new, I want to learn about it.
  • #3
Well I have it before me in Serbian so my translation might not be accurate.

It says "Generator would consist off permanent magnet or electromagnet A, isolation box B (that is the best translation for "izolaciono kuciste" IgorS or Nikola Tesla might help out here) in which the feromagnetic pipes C would be, and arround the issolation box there would be coil E and E' in which, according to Faradey's Law of electromagnetic induction, create electromotor forces which would give the electricity...Well let me find some good dictionary or english version of the next part.
  • #4
Here is the closest English version I could find.

  • #5
The English link you provided is just a variation on a theme... using steam to power a magnet to pass though a coil... this on is just linear instead of rotational like the turbines in use now. If anything, it looks like it requires more moving parts than a turbine system does.
  • #6
The version I'm reading (Patented by Tesla) would work something like this:
If feromagnet pipes are on temperature below Curie point than they are good conductors of magnetomotor force. But if you let a fluid with raised temp. which would heat up the pipes above the Curie point then the magnetomotor force in the magnetic circut of the generator would change, which would, according to Faradeys law of electromagnetic induction, produce electromotor force in the coil. Then you could reverse the process and let the cold fluid into the pipes which would cool down the pipes below Curie point again changing the magnetomotor force of the magnetic circut of the generator and the electromotor force would be created in the coil again. That is what says in this Tesla's patent.
  • #7
I think you mean thermoelectric. Ie, a peltier device. The reason they don't use them is efficiency. They top out at about 10%, whereas once-through thermodynamic cycles (no form of heat recovery, cogen, etc.) are anywhere from 30-40% efficient.

http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2005/20050617/20050617.html [Broken]
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Man, it is sad that 60 % of energy is wasted. Thanks for the clarifying that for me.
  • #9
ludi srbin, i am so sorry I was not here to rescue you although you are doing very well. I''ll be studying EE in Toronto. Pls keep in touch. Thank you.

Suggested for: Why don't they use Pyromagnetic Generators in nuclear power plants?