RTEG -- Ideal Energy Source for Cold Latitudes?

[Dockhead]

A friend of mine who is a nuclear physicist, who is just getting involved in sailing, only half-jokingly suggested that a RTEG such as used to power space probes (the Soviet Union used them also to power remote lighthouses) would be an ideal power source on board.


Indeed. These devices generate electrical power thermoelectrically from the heat produced by radioactive decay of isotopes, usually Pu238. Pu in any form would would obviously be unacceptable on a yacht, but Str90 can also be used with slightly less efficiency and shorter half-life.


Real life RTEGs produce up to several hundred watts of electrical power plus some kilowatts of heat -- similar to the old Stirling engine WhisperGen.


If we could have one of these which would produce 400 or 500 watts of electrical power, that would be just about all you need (10 to 12 kWh per day), with a decent battery bank no generator needed, and you could heat water or even heat the boat with the waste heat. Zero moving parts, zero noise or vibration, maintenance free, and service life of 20 or 25 years. Strontium 90 is cheap and plentiful. Maybe a startup idea? Wouldn't that be the bomb?

[flee27]

WAYYYYY above my pay grade but sounds great. I would love to benefit from some of the smarter people out there developing said device. I do like to learn and this sounds interesting even if not realistically practical.

Good luck and looking forward to it.

Foster

[CSYChip]

Shielding against beta decay shouldn't be an issue but what about the gamma decay? If that and the waste heat can be dealt with, it becomes a cost of manufacturing question. Is the waste heat in sufficient concentration to run a pump or turbine? It sounds like a lot of energy to just throw away.

[rslifkin]

I like the idea. Even in warmer latitudes it would work fine, just need a way to dump the excess heat when the boat doesn't need heating and the hot water is already hot. Or maybe use the heat to drive an absorption type A/C system (further reducing electrical needs).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CSYChip

Shielding against beta decay shouldn't be an issue but what about the gamma decay? If that and the waste heat can be dealt with, it becomes a cost of manufacturing question. Is the waste heat in sufficient concentration to run a pump or turbine? It sounds like a lot of energy to just throw away.

If you sail at 60N or higher, as I do, where we run heat almost year round, there is hardly any such thing as "waste heat" Keep the boat warm without burning hydrocarbons.

Originally Posted by rslifkin

I like the idea. Even in warmer latitudes it would work fine, just need a way to dump the excess heat when the boat doesn't need heating and the hot water is already hot. Or maybe use the heat to drive an absorption type A/C system (further reducing electrical needs).

Great idea with absorption chilling!!! There's your refrigeration right there -- massive saving of electrical power. Maybe some boat cooling, too. Adds a whole new dimension to this Refrigeration uses more than half of the kWh budget on most cruising boats.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Great idea with absorption chilling There's your refrigeration right there -- massive saving of electrical power. Maybe some boat cooling, too. Adds a whole new dimension to this

The only issue that would leave is when it's a perfect 70*, low humidity overnight. No boat cooling or heating needed, fridge won't need all that much cooling, so there will likely be waste heat to dump overboard in some form.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

The only issue that would leave is when it's a perfect 70*, low humidity overnight. No boat cooling or heating needed, fridge won't need all that much cooling, so there will likely be waste heat to dump overboard in some form.

Well, the heat is free, so dumping it into the ocean on occasion would be no big deal. It's a lot less than waste heat dumped from running a propulsion engine or genset.


Diesel engines produce several times as much waste heat as they produce mechanical power, so this is not a strange problem. Ordinary sea water heatex would do it easily.


There would be some safety engineering issues here; cooling system failure could be a problem. It's not so much heat that it would be hard to design a failure-proof containment vessel, but the device would get red hot if the cooling system fails.


No, I'm not going to name the first yacht to carry such a device "Chernobyl"

[Bill O]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

A friend of mine who is a nuclear physicist, who is just getting involved in sailing, only half-jokingly suggested that a RTEG such as used to power space probes (the Soviet Union used them also to power remote lighthouses) would be an ideal power source on board.

Do you mean RTG or RITEG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)?

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Wouldn't that be the bomb?

Yep, literally. Also just what we need is more radioactive material to eventually dispose of in the future. Where will it go?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bill O

Do you mean RTG or RITEG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator)?

All of those appelations are used. Yes, Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator, in Russian, радиоизотопный термоэлектрический генератор.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bill O

. . . Also just what we need is more radioactive material to eventually dispose of in the future. Where will it go?

No new radioactive material would be generated. Str90 is a common fission product and is widely used in industry, science and medicine. Of course it is harmful if ingested so must be handled carefully, and the device would have to be properly disposed of at end of life.



Imagine how much fossil fuel and therefore carbon emissions would be saved over the lifetime of such a device.

[more]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

A friend of mine who is a nuclear physicist, who is just getting involved in sailing, only half-jokingly suggested that a RTEG such as used to power space probes (the Soviet Union used them also to power remote lighthouses) would be an ideal power source on board.

if you have money to buy you don't have this problem.
Buy new antartica exploration ship 300-500 ft and 1 AgustaWestland AW169
and on deck also spare AgustaWestland AW109S Grand.
1-2 tug to be supplier boat of your primary yacht.
i suggest new ultramarin https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/exp...ps/ultramarine
but Abramovic have better defence his new yacht have ship to ship misile and ship air misile

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by more

if you have money to buy you don't have this problem.
Buy new antartica exploration ship 300-500 ft and 1 AgustaWestland AW169
and on deck also spare AgustaWestland AW109S Grand.
1-2 tug to be supplier boat of your primary yacht.
i suggest new ultramarin https://www.quarkexpeditions.com/exp...ps/ultramarine
but Abramovic have better defence his new yacht have ship to ship misile and ship air misile

That would be many orders of magnitude more expensive than a RTEG, which has zero moving parts, a few hundred grams of cheap nuclear waste, a bit of shielding, maintenance free. You are not getting the beauty of the idea.


You could pick up a used and still working RTEG for free if you don't mind poking through the ruins of old lighthouses on the Kola Peninsula. But I think we would want to design a better and lighter one.

[Dogscout]

So I am retired from BWXT the company that makes these for NASA and others. Most of my career was spent cleaning up or transitioning sites that used to process various materials or had research reactors. I've actually come out of retirement for a few months and am doing some work at Los Alamos National Laboratory cleanup program.

You dont want to do this. its fine to speculate, but its not gonna happen for many years to come.

[Bill O]

Agree, Sr-90 or Am-241 could be used instead of Pu-238 which would be safer for disposal, but way less efficient.

Due to the lower efficiency, the size of the RTG would need be larger and possibly not practical on a small boat.

[more]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That would be many orders of magnitude more expensive than a RTEG, which has zero moving parts, a few hundred grams of cheap nuclear waste, a bit of shielding, maintenance free. You are not getting the beauty of the idea.


You could pick up a used and still working RTEG for free if you don't mind poking through the ruins of old lighthouses on the Kola Peninsula. But I think we would want to design a better and lighter one.

1/last build RTEG for casino probe cost 118 million $
2/development is $83M 20 year and late couple year
3/NREL fuel charge Additional Cost for Pu-238 = $46.3M
but this is for government use in space
4/you must pass civil certification (you never pass 5-20 billion minimum but )

read

https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/si...ti/7267852.pdf