- 67% of raw energy is lost in conversion to electricity
- 5% of raw energy is lost in plant usage
- 9% of raw energy is lost in transmission and distribution
For now, lets assume that we can't do anything about the plant usage, transmission and distribution losses. But what about this 67%? SIXTY SEVEN PERCENT LOSS - thats awesome.
Now, any of us who have taken a Thermodynamics course understand that, mostly, this loss is inherent to any steam engine (yes, conventional and nuclear power plants are steam engines). That is, this energy is lost (to the nether land of entropy) in the conversion from thermal energy to mechanical energy. To a lesser extent there is a loss from mechanical to electrical energy as well.
This begs the question: Is a steam engine (and all its loss) a requirement of electricity production?
Obviously the answer is a flat "no." Hydro-electricity is produced without steam. The production of hydro-electricity is , arguably, detrimental to biodiversity. Its not feasible in much of the world, etc, etc, etc. So what other options are there? Are any of these elusive options more efficient than 33% at converting raw energy to electrical energy? That, my friends, is the question.
And wasn't there supposed to be Science discussed in this post? Its coming - we're all trying to be thorough.