this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
114 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59312 readers
5184 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
114
Steam condenser coating could save 460 million tons of carbon dioxide annually (techxplore.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
8 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Steam condenser coating could save 460 million tons of carbon dioxide annually:: If coal and natural gas power generation were 2% more efficient, then every year, there could be 460 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide released and 2 trillion fewer gallons of water used. A recent innovation to the steam cycle used in fossil fuel power generation could achieve this.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"If our F-DLC coating were adopted globally, it would noticeably curtail carbon emissions and water usage for the existing power infrastructure"

There are clearly benefits to increasing the efficiency of the steam cycle, but I feel like for 2% this is a bit of an overstatement.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Skepticism is good, but if it would seem they have checked things out.

improved the heat transfer properties by a factor of 20, which translates to a 2% overall process boost.

They also ran some durability tests, that pass my poorly informed laymen's bar of reasonable. (5K scratches and a different test of about 3 years in open.)

Edit: A chemist I know days "PFAS".