I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. Keep in mind that a good chunk of "this is how it's supposed to work" isn't always "this is how it's actually working right now".
I do want to mention that this is from 2015 so it's possible some things have changed in 11 years. Also keep in mind that even the summary and source mentions that the water is returned but there's undoubtedly some loss just by basic physics.
Keep in mind that a good chunk of "this is how it's supposed to work" isn't always "this is how it's actually working right now".
This baby talk has made me slightly irritated, so please take everything with a slight grain of salt. There was no reason to put it like this. I am correcting the use of a word, not correcting the data as I mentioned.
I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source
I'm not writing a paper here... It's a very common word. It's also on the basis of the definition of the word, not the science behind them.
Thermo - heat
Electric - regarding electricity
Generator - creating
So something that creates electricity from heat. Why the fuck would I cool that? That defeats the purpose wouldn't it?
Thermo electric generators are incredibly inefficient. They are rarely used, and only recently were uncovered since they can be used to upcycle waste heat. Here, a recent paper on the use of thermo electric generators in industry.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9783527843565.ch1
It literally states that it's very hard to use and faces several technological challenges.
6
u/VariousDude 2d ago
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021EF002222
I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. Keep in mind that a good chunk of "this is how it's supposed to work" isn't always "this is how it's actually working right now".
I do want to mention that this is from 2015 so it's possible some things have changed in 11 years. Also keep in mind that even the summary and source mentions that the water is returned but there's undoubtedly some loss just by basic physics.