60

When I turn on a heater, it's supposed to be roughly 100% efficient. So it converts electricity to heat with great efficiency, but why can't we do the reverse: generate electricity by absorbing heat? I have been searching the internet and from what I have read it seems completely pointless because it is so inefficient, like ridiculously inefficient, as in 10% efficient. So why can't we do the reverse? I get that energy is lost when converting from one form of energy to another but how can we get such great efficiency going from one form but have horrid efficiency going back?

I also read online that one way to cool the earth down could be to radiate the heat off the planet. Anyways, sorry about my mini debate, can anyone answer how we could potentially cool the earth, because to me it would seem funny if we couldn't, and if we could then global warming wouldn't be as bad of a thing as it is now, would it?

AccidentalFourierTransform
  • 53,248
  • 20
  • 131
  • 253
Random Name
  • 611
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
  • 26
    Also note that a machine that converts heat into electricity is really converting a temperature difference into electricity. If you have a warm thing and a cold thing next to one another, they tend to want to equalize, and you can get in on that action and get some electricity (or other energy) out of it. But once the temperatures are equal, your machine won't work any more. There is no machine that you can put in the middle of a warm room that will make the room colder and give you electricity (as long as the machine has the same temperature as the room). – Arthur Jan 08 '18 at 16:38
  • 90
    When I let go of a rock, it falls to the ground with 100% efficiency. Why do rocks not spontaneously hop in to the air? Why are they so bad at doing that? –  Jan 08 '18 at 17:10
  • 1
    What does it mean to "absorb heat" ? – HsMjstyMstdn Jan 08 '18 at 19:36
  • The Earth does radiate heat. That's why, despite about $1.5\times 10^{17},\mathrm{W}$ being poured onto it from the Sun, the temperature is finite. –  Jan 08 '18 at 22:42
  • 57
    You have a box with 1,000 chickens in it. Want them to spread out, just open the box. Want them back in the box? It's not so simple. – David Schwartz Jan 08 '18 at 22:44
  • 5
    "like ridiculously inefficient, as in 10% efficient" ever thought about the efficiency of incandescent bulbs? – PlasmaHH Jan 09 '18 at 14:57
  • 2
    This is how they make freeze ray guns and they don't even need batteries. – Reactgular Jan 10 '18 at 02:18
  • 13
    @PlasmaHH Incandescent lightbulbs are nearly 100% efficient... if your goal is to heat the room. :) – reirab Jan 10 '18 at 03:07
  • 1
    You almost answer your own question: the fact that it's so easy/efficient going from electricity to heat is pretty-much why it's so hard/inefficient to go from heat to electricity. As Philip Wood's answer, "heat" is an easy-to-get-to, "spread-out" form of energy; getting away from it is much harder. – TripeHound Jan 10 '18 at 10:02
  • @tfb: The temperature would still be finite if Earth didn't radiate heat away. The sun has been shining for 5 billion years "only". – Eric Duminil Jan 10 '18 at 10:50
  • 2
    "it seems completely pointless because it is so inefficient". It's still the way cars, nukes and thermal powerplants work. – Eric Duminil Jan 10 '18 at 10:51
  • 1
    @EricDuminil Good point: I really meant that the temperature is not, on long timescales, rising. –  Jan 10 '18 at 21:17
  • @TripeHound you can get away from heat just 100 miles from where you are right now. It is darn cold in space. –  Jan 10 '18 at 21:34
  • 1
    @nocomprende Only when the sun's not shining on your black leather jacket. – wizzwizz4 Jan 10 '18 at 22:38

6 Answers6

71

"So, why can't we do the reverse?" Because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics! Very, very roughly, heat is 'thinly spread' energy and won't spontaneously organize itself into the 'concentrated' energy that we want (in the same way that a drop of ink released into a tank of water won't spontaneously gather itself up into a drop again). Advice: if you're really interested, read up about thermodynamics!

Philip Wood
  • 35,641
53

tl;dr- Current technology absorbs temperature gradients, not heat. As temperature gradients become arbitrarily large, their information content nearly approaches the heat's information content, such that the apparent thermal efficiency,$$ {\eta}_{\text{Carnot~efficiency}}~~{\equiv}~~\frac{E_{\text{useful}}}{E_{\text{heat}}}~~{\approx}~~1-\frac{T_{\text{cold}}}{T_{\text{hot}}} \,,$$nearly approaches unity, showing that we can almost absorb heat while a temperature gradient is sufficiently large.


Hypothetical/future technology: Absorbing heat for energy

You could harness heat with near-perfect efficiency! Just requires finding Maxwell's demon. Maxwell's demon can be tough to find, but Laplace's demon could tell ya where it's at.

The fun thing about Maxwell's demon is that it likes to separate stuff out based on its highly precise perception and movement:

            .

So, you basically tell Maxwell's demon to let out high-speed particles when they're at nearly-tangential velocities to power a dynamo. And, bam! Electricity.

One trouble with this scheme is that we don't really know what heat is. I mean, we get the gist that particles are bouncing around and such, but we don't know all of the exact locations and velocities and such for all of the particles. And given that ignorance, we're basically unable to do anything with heat.

Except, of course, when our ignorance isn't complete. At the macroscopic level, we can appreciate stuff like temperature gradients; the larger the temperature gradient, the more information we have about relative motion of the particles at different temperatures.

And we can exploit this information, up to the point at which we've drained it away. For example, we can use heat to boil water, producing steam and thus raising pressure, using that pressure to turn a turbine. As the steam turns the turbine by going from a region of higher pressure to lower pressure, we again lose discriminating information about the system until our ignorance is again complete; but, we get useful energy out of the deal.

Conceptually, it's all about information. Whenever we have information about something, we may be able to turn that information into effect until the point at which we cease having information. Though we might say that we don't necessarily lose all of the information, as the energy that we get out of the deal isn't so much actually "energy" quite so much as it's a system that we have relatively more information about, and thus can exploit more readily.

Maxwell's demon and Laplace's demon are powerful critters because they have tons of information. By always having information, they can always construct systems that they can exploit for the extraction of energy. By contrast, humans tend to be limited in what information we have.

And that's the problem with just arbitrarily absorbing "heat": heat is a vague description about stuff moving around. In fact, even knowing a temperature is fairly useless information by itself; rather, we need temperature gradients, i.e. discriminating information, to knowingly construct a system that behaves how we want it to, e.g. a power generator.

In real life, there's interest in creating molecular machines, like observed in the classical example of ATP synthase, as a future technology. As @J... pointed out, Maxwell's demon in the above is acting as a thermal rectifier which are currently being researched (example).


Current technology: Absorbing temperature gradients, not heat

Why is it so inefficient to generate electricity by absorbing heat?

The above describes a system for generating electricity from heat. However, current technology never does this.

With current technology, we absorb temperature gradients. This may sound pedantic, but the fact that we're absorbing gradients and not heat itself is precisely why we can't get the energy equal to the heat out of the process.

Since we absorb the gradients, the Carnot efficiency tends to increase with the size of the gradient,$$ {\eta}_{\text{Carnot~efficiency}}~~{\approx}~~1-\frac{T_{\text{cold}}}{T_{\text{hot}}}. $$

Conceptually, the reason for this is that, as the temperature gradient$$ {\Delta}T~~{\equiv}~~T_{\text{hot}}-T_{\text{cold}} $$becomes arbitrarily large, the information contained in knowing the temperature gradient approaches the information that Laplace's demon would know, at which point efficiency would approach unity:$$ \lim_{{\Delta}T{\rightarrow}\infty}{\left(1-\frac{T_{\text{cold}}}{T_{\text{cold}}+{\Delta}T}\right)}~~{\rightarrow}~~1, $$i.e. 100% efficiency.

This is, sure, you wouldn't know the exact velocities of all of the particles, but what you don't know is dwarfed by what you do know, i.e. the extreme relative temperature gradient.

Nat
  • 4,640
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – ACuriousMind Jan 09 '18 at 18:43
  • 2
    This answer's irking me a bit because I tried to talk about interesting aspects of the theory, but in the process, I ended up simplifying a lot, omitting points, not explaining basic background principles, hacked the notation a bit, etc.. If anyone'd like to suggest little tweaks or improvements, such suggestions would be entirely welcome! – Nat Jan 09 '18 at 20:40
  • 2
    @Nat To expand on the hypothetical technological use, is suspected that while Maxell's Demon may be possible, it would end up consuming more energy itself than you could produce by using the separation. – Eth Jan 10 '18 at 11:13
17

When you use heat to produce electricity (or any other form of energy), you are limited by Carnot efficiency:

$$\eta = 1 - \frac{T_C}{T_H} $$

You cannot produce any useful work using a heat source alone - you also need a cold environment to absorb the heat in the process. This is why it's pretty much impossible to make everything in the world simultaneously cooler when using a heat engine, and why it's impossible to achieve 100% (or even near-100% efficiency) with it, unless you're ready to go to a planet with near-absolute-zero ambient temperature.

I get that energy is lost when converting from one form of energy to another but how can we get such great efficiency going from one form but have horrid efficiency going back?

Energy is never lost, or created out of nowhere. Colloquially, "energy is lost" means that some of it got converted to heat instead of the form you wanted. This is why a heater is said to have 100% efficiency.

  • 3
    There is not even any such thing as a heat source, in the absence of a "cold source". – Steve Jan 08 '18 at 17:59
  • 3
    This seems like a great (and very precise) explanation of what the limit is, but does nothing to answer the original question about why the limit exists. – Daniel Wagner Jan 08 '18 at 21:07
  • 10
    @DanielWagner because you carnot do any better than that, so everything else is less efficient. –  Jan 09 '18 at 02:05
  • 4
    @DanielWagner I don't think there is a logical answer to why the laws of physics are the way they are. – Dmitry Grigoryev Jan 09 '18 at 07:44
  • 2
    @DmitryGrigoryev I cannot express how strongly I disagree. One can explain a law of physics by finding a more fundamental one and showing how it leads inexorably to the less fundamental one. I admit I am not a physicist; nevertheless given what I know of how detailed our understanding of, say, subatomic particles is, I would be shocked to learn that we had only experimental evidence for this equation and no understanding of how it might have arisen from other more fundamental phenomena. – Daniel Wagner Jan 09 '18 at 09:23
  • 7
    @DanielWagner No, physics never really answers the question "Why?". Just how. Even if you go to the next level down its still just answering a more detailed how. Weather or not you can use a lower level understanding to make a meaningful why in your logic framework, its still not fundamentally answering why. Now i agree that this is not a very good answer and indeed many thermodynamics effects are very simple on a fundamental level. In essence they are just random processes and millions of simple rules. However the end results are highly emergent, that is not self evident from the rules. – joojaa Jan 09 '18 at 10:14
  • Who would have thought that if you put 100 trillion brain cells together you would get religion? –  Jan 09 '18 at 14:26
  • 1
    @DanielWagner is correct; physics does explain the why behind this stuff. For more on this topic, this answer provides useful information. Note their point that: "But this is an anachronism, since the second law is no longer considered fundamental but derived.". – Nat Jan 09 '18 at 17:34
  • 1
    @joojaa The question "Why [x]?" literally means "Explain [x] in more fundamental terms.". Physics does go to answer this question as we go down to more fundamental levels. Of course, as every parent knows when their child goes through the why?-phase, there's never any end to the why's; it's a recursive process down to the current level of ignorance, i.e. the current fundamental understanding. But to deny that physics addresses why?'s is to deny the ability to ever answer any why? question. – Nat Jan 09 '18 at 17:50
  • 2
    @Nat kindof, but its only true if you can integrate that lower level to some meaningful thought framework. If not then the underlying explanation is just as far from why as the formulation here. – joojaa Jan 09 '18 at 18:35
4

Image

"Why" is generally a difficult question to answer. But in this case it is really easy to draw a mental picture:

Imagine a complete set of billiard balls nicely ordered in their usual triangle formation. As a analogy, this corresponds to something that is comparatively cold, (i.e., the atoms wiggle around relatively little and are more ordered when colder - of course, colder atoms are not standing still like the billiard balls).

Now the game starts, and a good player hits the balls so they are spread out over the whole table. This corresponds to the higher entropy of a warmer situation, (i.e. the disorder of the warmer, more wiggling atoms increases).

Note that it does not matter how the balls come to rest: any configuration of the balls is widely different from the original starting triangle - this disorder corresponds to a higher entropy state. There is only one low entropy, highly ordered starting position, and many high entropy, disordered states after the breaking the triangle. It is very easy to create any chaotic configuration of the balls (just hit them with the cue however you like). It is quite unlikely to produce an ordered state, like the triangle configuration, (which corresponds to ordered, coherent, useful energy). Collision with the cue is very unlikely to return them to the triangle frame (i.e. it is unlikely for atoms randomly colliding with each other to all move in the same direction).

Now, to relate to your question:

  • The balls are the atoms.
  • Balls in an ordered state (triangle) correspond to colder atoms.
  • Balls in a chaotic state correspond to warmer atoms.
  • Electrons correspond to the cue ball (in a wire with current flowing in it).

Conclusion/Answer

Orderly electrons (currents) randomly hitting atoms easily make the atoms they hit in a wire wiggle around more (heat them up), which means it is easy to build an electric heater.

The reverse, heated atoms causing electrons to move in an ordered fashion, will not happen spontaneously because it is an extremely unlikely possibility. Therefore, we cannot depend on an "accidental" current being generated from heat.

AnoE
  • 2,678
3

We can and it is already done. You have thermoelectric generators - basically a Peltier element as you use to cool CPU in personal computers (but put in reverse). You make one side hot and the other cool and you get an electric current. How do you make the heat? Well that's up to you. You can try by optics or heating water (like "backwards water cooling", lol). There are lots of people experimenting on youtube if you want to learn some about it.

How do you get the cool then? Well outside the ground is often cool. Water is a good coolant et.c.

  • 8
    Peltier elements are not usually used for cooling CPUs. Yes, such coolers exist on the overclocking enthusiast market, but it's actually a quite wasteful practice because the Peltier elements are very inefficient indeed (as the question correctly premises, and your answer seems to contradict) and have to work against the flow. That cooling energy would better invested in powering another regular-fan-cooled processor, or an whole array of passively-cooled e.g. ARMs. – leftaroundabout Jan 09 '18 at 00:03
  • 4
    Peltier elements are lame for CPU cooling, I have tried it and the results are they use way to much power for the amount of cooling you get. You can achieve much better results with water cooling like a cosair h80i or similar. – cybernard Jan 09 '18 at 00:22
  • @cybernard you have tried it and you don't know you can couple the peltier element with a water cooler..? – mathreadler Jan 09 '18 at 07:37
  • @mathreadler Yes, I tried it with a water cooler, and the temperature advantage vs power draw and it just wasn't worth it. The water cooling kit alone was the best bang per watt. – cybernard Jan 09 '18 at 12:37
  • These do not generate electricity (like this question asks), but just shift heat energy around from one place to another. They require energy input. – AnoE Jan 09 '18 at 14:48
  • @AnoE I'm confused because this answer suggests thermoelectric generators and then the comments discuss CPU coolers. Which are you referencing? – Kristopher Jan 09 '18 at 15:54
  • @Kristopher: sorry, I got triggered by the mentioning of "Peltier element" in the answer. But still, the answer doesn't bring anything to the table. The OP mentions that we can do it "with 10% efficiency", and those 10% are what these generators seem to be able to do. And these things are still not "absorbing" heat energy directly, just taking a bit from a pre-existing heat flow (which is not the opposite of what an electric heater would do). – AnoE Jan 09 '18 at 16:12
  • @cybernard : Depends on how you count. If it makes you able to overclock to the equivalent of a much more expensive CPU which you would otherwise have bought and you also can get the electricity for cheap / even free it can still be worth it. – mathreadler Jan 09 '18 at 17:36
  • @cybernard Peltier elements are great for cooling in really hot environments, because they can cool something down to below the ambient temperature, whereas conventional cooling systems require the CPU to be substantially hotter than the environment. Indeed, for house/office use Peltier elements are pretty inefficient. – Dmitry Grigoryev Jan 10 '18 at 13:20
  • Fun fact, the my original question actually started from cryptocurrency mining. I am mining right now and I since I am an eco freak I worried what I am doing is harming the environment (which is is) in two ways. So I saw two environmental problems that can arise from my mining. – Random Name Jan 13 '18 at 09:31
  • My energy demands are not guaranteed to be coming from renewable resources as I do not own nor do I know much about the grid where I am living in. This is easy to fix as I would have to switch to solar which would also earn/save me some money in the long run.
  • – Random Name Jan 13 '18 at 09:36
  • The heat output. That's where I started to worry. I started watching videos and simulations of the world getting hotter and I wondered weather there could be a way to counter that. I like investing in computer hardware and cryptocurrency as in a way it is fueling the innovation of technology but I don't want to do that at the cost of the environment.
  • – Random Name Jan 13 '18 at 09:36
  • Lol say what?! What can I say... Try and worry mostly about things you actually can do anything about and don't let other things bother you. – mathreadler Jan 13 '18 at 11:14
  • @mathreadler Haha yea. I know I can switch to solar one day. But for now I'll stick with the grid since my mining farm is quite small. But if I move to Germany soon to study there I will have to switch to solar. 30 USD cents per kWh is ridiculous, and they use clean energy which shouldn't be that expensive. If I would make a farm powered by solar there, I would get ROI for the solar equipment in less than two years as opposed to the US average of 7 years (because in Germany I would save much more). – Random Name Jan 14 '18 at 01:37