Comments on: New Technology Can Turn Heat Waste Into Electricity

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:43:00 +0000

It’s tellurium, not thallium. Use of toxic metals is common in all kinds of common materials, including computers, batteries, monitors, tvs, cars, industrial processes, and so on. Cars have to be processed when they’re disposed of anyway, a little extra lead or tellurium won’t make a difference.

If you’re interested in more of the nitty gritty, it’s most likely a use of the Seebeck effect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect)

By: timekeeping software

timekeeping software — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:57:51 +0000

Terrific. Anything to break the dependence on oil.

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:44:05 +0000

In automotive service it could be a removable (and reuseable) device. In industry there is a tremendous amount of waste heat from Boilers, Hot Oil Furnaces and other heating sources used in production. These forms of waste heat could generate huge amounts of electricity and help to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Instead of looking at the first negative we see (toxic metals) we should look at the positives and seek ways to safely achieve this goal.

By: No Small Steps for Man, One Giant Leap for Prius : CleanTechnica

No Small Steps for Man, One Giant Leap for Prius : CleanTechnica — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:30:44 +0000

[...] Don’t Waste the Heat [...]

By: Smokestack Heat Seen as Possible Fuel Source : CleanTechnica

Smokestack Heat Seen as Possible Fuel Source : CleanTechnica — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:49:35 +0000

[...] month, scientists announced the discovery of a new technology to efficiently turn heat waste from cars, power generators, and heat pumps into electricity. But why [...]

By: Yogesh Mistry

Yogesh Mistry — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:02:00 +0000

SOUNDS UNPRACTICAL TILL THE TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE ITSELF. BUT GOOD THINGS ARE NOT BELEIVED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

WELL IF WORKS IS WONDERFUL ACHIVEMENT.

KINLDY SEND MORE INFORMATION

By: Arwin

Arwin — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:50:39 +0000

One correction: NescioNomen, who posted two *posts above me.

Also, referring to someone’s comment on the first page. I’m pretty sure an internal combustion engine reaches temperatures far greater than ~200 degrees F.

This technology would not be implemented in such a way to reduce the running temperature of the engine by cooling it, and therefore reducing the engine’s efficiency. It would be use to soak up heat being released to the environment, which is pretty much where all the gasoline’s energy [thats not converted to kinetic energy or lost to frictin] goes anyway. Although a lot of that heat is lost throughout the entire car at various axles and in all moving/electronic components, the heat surrounding the engine can be potentially tapped into. It’s just a question as to the danger of using this material near a car engine, and if the exact location where this material can be used is hot enough. Also, it has to be worth the money.

By: Arwin

Arwin — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:50:00 +0000

One correction: NescioNomen, who posted two *posts above me.

Also, referring to someone’s comment on the first page. I’m pretty sure an internal combustion engine reaches temperatures far greater than ~200 degrees F.

By: Arwin

Arwin — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:41:17 +0000

I agree with NescioNomen, who posted two pages behind me.

Think of solar farms. Hundreds of solar cells in the desert can 1) Be turned to face the sun at all hours of the day (although this hasn’t been done in most places, there are companies looking at a cheap method for it

2) Have sunlight focused onto them for increased output.

I wonder what would be the result of using this technology in place of solar panels with the same two modifications I spoke of above. My guess is that it would most likely be possible to heat up the material to that temperature, but would it be cheaper than solar panels to do so?

By: jim sadler

jim sadler — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:45:23 +0000

Thermopiles have been around for many decades. I wonder what size and weight they claim would be needed as well as the financial cost of building a unit such as they describe that is capable of producing any meaningful amount of power. A $3,000 brick that weights 30lbs. that only produces enough power to charge a cell phone would not be attractive to me.