What does the level of performance indicated here likely mean in terms of the efficiency of, say, a thermal energy plant of some description? How far is the needle shifted for an end user?
From mucking about with the device efficiency formula from wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_materials#Therm... ), and a change of zT from 2.5 to 5, we see a maximal possible efficiency increase of 38% (when T_c == T_h). Wiki also tells me that the best TEG modules currently lock in around 8%, so we're looking at like 10-11% at best with the new material. So from a bulk scale electricity standpoint.…
Also, this seems to suffer the same problem that most high-zT thermoelectric materials do: the total power handling capability is too low to be worthwhile. From a large-scale waste heat recovery standpoint, you're probably better off with a less efficient solution that can actually handle a useful proportion of your total heat output.
What does the level of performance indicated here likely mean in terms of the efficiency of, say, a thermal energy plant of some description? How far is the needle shifted for an end user?
From mucking about with the device efficiency formula from wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_materials#Therm... ), and a change of zT from 2.5 to 5, we see a maximal possible efficiency increase of 38% (when T_c == T_h). Wiki also tells me that the best TEG modules currently lock in around 8%, so we're looking at like 10-11% at best with the new material. So from a bulk scale electricity standpoint.…
You have some kind of error here: with T_c = T_h, not only does Wikipedia’s formula give 0% efficiency, but it must: any power at all generated with no temperature difference would make a perpetual motion machine.
The Peltier and Seebeck effects are so grossly inefficient that even an order of magnitude increase in efficiency doesn’t bring it into reason for basically any purpose. I’m not actually aware of any device ever made that uses the seebeck effect in any substantial way other than the little heat powered fans people put on wood stoves. The peltier effect is just down right awesome, you put power in and now it’s cold!?…
My camp cooler is powered by a 60W peltier. Plugs in to any automotive cigarette lighter. It will keep things refrigerator cold for as long as you want, and it's almost completely silent in operation. There's tons of different models on the market. FWIW.
>It will keep things refrigerator cold for as long as you want, and it's almost completely silent in operation.
that's more a function of the insulation , rather than the cooling ability. The wattage needed for 'thermal maintenance' is far lower than needed for actually removing heat from the system.
Peltiers' are kind of on the same scale of efficiency as using your car (on purpose) to cook food in the engine bay.
This would be an even bigger deal for remote spacecraft that rely on the heat from on-board nuclear reactors.
Unlikely. Much easier to just connect the sensor to the main power supply via a wire.
RTGs[0] use the thermoelectric effect to generate electricity from the decay heat of radioactive isotopes. This new material would allow better power generation using RTGs.
This will be slowly but surely be used everywhere. Reducing heat output while providing electricity is almost always a win-win situation.
There are a lot of factors you're not considering. Reducing heat output is good, yes, but putting a layer between your chips and their heat sink is bad! Even though the total heat output is lower, the chip temperature will be higher, because it will be more insulated. There is no way around this; any heat-to-power device acts as insulation compared to a plain heat conductor. You will also have added weight and cost. In a phone, where the heat differences are small, the electricity gained will be almost nothing. So actually we're not likely to see this in phones.