2
$\begingroup$

I'm going to go out on a limb and ask a question that will probably be a bit humiliating: Can Thermal Energy be converted into usable energy? I've been reading about conservation of energy, and I know that in no conversion is all the energy usable. There is always some thermal energy (which leads to the conclusion of the inevitable heat death of the universe). But couldn't this problem be avoided by turning the thermal energy into forms of usable energy?

Nothing I've read ever said that thermal energy couldn't be changed back, so why don't we do it? Is it impossible? (Which I find hard to believe). Is it too inefficient? (That would mean that the thermal energy is converted into, well, more thermal energy. Which we can make more usable energy out of. Still more inefficiency? Do it again.) Is there some other reason? Or is there an actual theoretical way to turn thermal energy into usable forms of energy?

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

To turn thermal energy into useful work completely one would need a thermal bath at the temperature of absolute zero. This is explicitly forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics. The best one can do is given by the efficiency of the (theoretical) Carnot cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle. Th efficiency of the Carnot cycle only depends on the ratio of the temperatures of the cold and the hot thermal baths that a cyclical thermodynamic machine has access to:

$\eta= 1 - T_{cold}/T_{hot}$.

As you can see from the formula, if $T_{cold}=0$, then the efficiency would be equal to one, i.e. all thermal energy would be converted. That, as we said, is forbidden, because of $T_{cold}>0$. On the other hand, if $T_{cold} =T_{hot}$, then the efficiency of any thermal machine is zero, i.e. one can't extract any useful energy from just one temperature bath.

Practical efficiencies that can be reached with real thermal machines range up to 60% (in combined cycle natural gas plants, I believe), but it becomes increasingly more expensive to improve efficiencies, so at some point the cost of the improvement is higher than the cost of the lost energy, at which point economics sets a limit to energy efficiency. A better way to use the lost heat is for heating purposes. Combining a small power plant with the heating systems of buildings makes almost 100% use of the energy in the fuels that are being burned in the power plant. These cogeneration facilities (named so because they produce electricity and useful heat) are playing an increasingly larger role in energy efficiency improvements.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Even still, there is an incredible amount of thermal energy in the universe. You've shown that it is possible, theoretically, to convert almost all the heat in a temperature bath. Then add more heat. If we're using the energy, it'll become more heat to use. You could then say that that little bit of heat energy left each time will accumulate for the eventual heat death. Okay, if it's accumulating, just use it once it becomes enough. So could we theoretically prevent the heat death of the universe as long as we existed to do so? $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Spirit Oct 15 '14 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ Posted that before your edit. But reaching maximum cost-effective efficiency, couldn't we make enough to achieve the same effect as I mentioned? $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Spirit Oct 15 '14 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ The limit is the cold temperature bath. The coldest temperature bath in the universe that exists in virtually "unlimited" quantity is the cosmic microwave radiation, so that's 2.7K, very close to absolute zero. The problem with that is that a radiator at 2.7K is extremely inefficient, so we can't practically make use of that particular thermal bath. On Earth it's technically hard to heat machines higher than to approx. 1200K degrees and to have the cold bath lower than maybe 400K. Real machines will always be less efficient than the Carnot limit... so that's the technical limitation to 60%. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Oct 15 '14 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ For theoretical purposes one could add that black holes should have temperatures that are extremely close to 0K, so, at least in theory, a thermodynamic machine converting heat using a black hole as a heat dump should have an efficiency of almost 100%. I do not know if the naive thermodynamic limit is correct for black holes, though. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Oct 15 '14 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ Say we placed our observations on just one solar system, and took the unusable thermal energy we produced and converted into as much usable energy as we could, which we use, making excess thermal energy again, although not as much as before. Since there isn't as much as before, obviously the trimmed thermal energy is outside of the system in question. So we take back the thermal energy that had escaped, although not necessarily the same thermal energy, just the same amount, and then the original quantity of energy is back in the system. $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Spirit Oct 15 '14 at 20:09
0
$\begingroup$

It is possible up to the Carnot limit, which is never 100%. In particular, the Carnot limit is higher if the temperature before extracting is higher. But you could only hit 100% if the temperature could reach infinity, which it can't.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

There was a time, when trains worked on coal. What sort of energy, do you think, it was? - Thermal.

There's also solar energy, which is, if you think thoroughly, thermal energy. You turn heat (received by a solar panel) into an usable energy source. However, as I know, solar energy produces so little electricity, it's not worth all the effort.

The way, I see it: if that massive heat energy source (the sun) can't produce energy enough to use it efficiently (I mean, if you don't have extremely large solar panels*), what other sources do you recommend?

*There are projects somewhere across the globe, when people cover their whole roofs with solar panels and yet they produce about 10% of the energy needed for that house.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, no, they didn't run on thermal energy. The steps: Coal was burned, which was converted into steam, and the steam turned turbines which ran the train. Solar energy is called Radiant Energy, which is converted into Electromagnetic Energy by the cells. The thermal energy is that which is released by the inefficiency, and it's not usable for electricity at all without converting it. $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Spirit Oct 15 '14 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ Well, my apologies... $\endgroup$ – Chanto Oct 15 '14 at 19:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, it's no problem. Thank you for putting thought into helping me answer the question! Every raised concern helps to increase the thoroughness. $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Spirit Oct 15 '14 at 20:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.