Leandro Jose Barbosa Lima Several technologies are being investigated as possible alternatives for the Rankine cycle method for energy generation. Among these technologies are:

1. Thermophotovoltaics (TPV): This technique uses infrared radiation and photovoltaic cells to turn heat into power. Traditional Rankine cycle systems have the potential to be more efficient and compact than TPV systems.

2. Advanced nuclear technologies such as advanced pressurized water reactors (APWR) and integrated pressurized water reactors (iPWR) have the potential to be more efficient and safer than standard Rankine cycle systems.

3. Concentrated solar power (CSP): CSP systems concentrate sunlight and generate heat, which is then utilized to generate electricity via a Rankine cycle process. Traditional Rankine cycle systems have the potential to be more efficient and adaptable than CSP systems.

4. Waste heat recovery systems collect and utilize heat that is generated as a byproduct of industrial operations or power generation. These technologies have the potential to considerably improve total energy production efficiency.

It is impossible to anticipate which of these technologies will eventually replace the Rankine cycle process since it will be determined by a variety of criteria such as cost, efficiency, and practicability.

Thank you so much for your answer Qamar Ul Islam

I don't know that the Rankine cycle will be eliminated. There are many waste heat recovery systems (4 above) that could be designed and there are certified "green" fluids to be used in such systems, including NOVEC. Geothermal is much underutilized and should be pursued with due haste.

Alternative cycles have been used over many years, the Field cycle which uses steam in a closed-cycle gas turbine based cycle was originally proposed in the 1950s. The Alam cycle using CO2 as the working fluid is still under active development. None have proved more economic than the well developed Rankine steam cycle so far.

The Sterling cycle is often presented in academic discussions, as it ideally has a higher efficiency, being closer to the rectangular shape of the Carnot cycle on a T-s diagram. However, the Sterling cycle is impractical. When I was at uni there was a Sterling engine the size of a dishwasher. When no one was around, I fired it up. Running at top speed I could grab the flywheel (that weighed about 30 kg) and stop it. You could never do that with a steam engine, which of the same size could pull a locomotive. The Sterling cycle depends on rapid heat transfer through a relatively small area, which isn't going to happen. Theory is important but is not the whole picture. We must also consider practicality. If the most efficient engine consumed diamonds, it wouldn't be a practical alternative. Some of the new ideas presented today are as silly as running your car on diamonds, for example: platinum-rubidium hydrogen fuel cells. Forget the car. Steal the fuel cell. You would have to post an armed guard to protect your silly car. The easy things have already been done so get ready for some hard work!

I have been working for over a decade to design alternative thermodynamic cycles. I have found several thermodynamic cycles to be more efficient than conventional cycles. Meanwhile, I designed a heat transfer system for Stirling engines. Summary of this invention:

This invention relates to solving the heat transfer problem in Stirling engines and Stirling heat pumps.

Mini Stirling engines work even with small temperature differences. Despite this, Stirling engines did not come into commercial use. Because the practical efficiency of these engines was only one-third of the theoretical efficiency. Efficiency loss is due to heat transfer problems. Because the heat transfer rate varies inversely with the engine volume.

The reasons for the heat transfer problems of Stirling engines are summarized below:

1) The inlet and outlet temperatures of the heating fluid are very close to each other. 2) the heat transfer surface is very narrow. 3) The heat transfer surface is far from the engine's interior gases. 4) Little of the heat transfer takes place at constant volume and continues during the expansion period of the engine and until the hot gases are separated in the hot cylinder.

The heat transfer system solves the 4 problems mentioned. These are in order: 1) heat transfer is done in the heat exchangers and the heating fluid is separated from the engine at a temperature close to the outside environment. 2-3) heat exchangers are the devices with the largest surface and the smallest volume. And they provide the highest heat transfer. 4) Heat transfer takes place before the gases enter the hot cylinder. That is, the heat transfer takes place at a completely constant volume.

The solutions mentioned are provided by separating the air transfer between the hot cylinder and the cold cylinder into two channels. One of these channels is the heating channel and the other is the cooling channel. The direction of the airflow to these channels is provided by Tesla valves or check valves.

There is also a valved Stirling engine here. 1-) This is to ensure that the heat transfer system is as far away from the engine as desired. 2-) Valve system makes an additional compression in Stirling engines. Thus, valved Stirling engines are a more efficient engine version than conventional Stirling engines.

Link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363367886_HEAT_TRANSFER_SYSTEM_FOR_STIRLING_ENGINES

Nevzat is correct! Heat transfer is proportional to surface area or (L²) while power is proportional to volume (L³ think the displacement of a reciprocating internal combustion engine in liters). This creates the big/small disparity. In animals, weight goes up with volume (L³) while muscular and bone strength goes up with area (L²) which is why the large dinosaurs all had huge thighs and a small head. A bee can fly quite well but an aircraft shaped like a bee couldn't.

It depends on the specific application. However, the supercritical carbon dioxide power cycle is a promising technology.

Leandro Jose Barbosa Lima. It is known that one of the most ancient energy generation technologies is used in hydropower. However, the resource of hydropower is limited for known reasons and it still affects the environment.

But the energy of falling water is the energy of gravity. And the resource of gravitational energy is practically unlimited. In the future, it is the technologies for generating energy from the almost limitless gravitational resources of the Earth that will make it possible to obtain unlimited energy with zero emissions of harmful substances. Then the cheap energy of gravity energy will allow restore the environment.

But the use of gravitational energy is hampered by a primitive approach to its description in the existing concept of physics, based on the abstract curvature of space-time. The abstract curvature of space-time does not even have physical analogues.

If we assume that gravity is formed due to the curvature of space-time, then the speed of light measured in the Earth's orbit around the Sun must differ from the speed of light, which is measured on Earth, by the value of the first cosmic velocity, because the gravitational potential of the Earth is equal to the square of the first cosmic speed.

However, such a change in the speed of light is not observed, and Shapiro's time delay measured in the solar system turned out to be very small. Therefore, the curvature of space-time does not exist.

Then there remains the only mechanism for the formation of the gravitational force, due to the inertia force of the penetrating gravitons in the gradient of the propagation velocity of the gravitational interaction. Gravitons have mass, unlike photons, and the speed of movement their matter on the Earth differs from the speed of their movement in the Earth's orbit around the Sun by the value of the first cosmic velocity of the Earth.

Not having found experiments that were convincing for me, I had to come up with and conduct a simple experiment showing that gravitons exist. However, my experiment contradicts the existing concept of physics, where gravitons are denied, and the emphasis in energy is on the hot fusion of complex atoms from hydrogen.

But any schoolchild knows that when atoms are heated, they repel each other, and naturally, miraculous synthesis does not occur. That is, the synthesis of atoms with the release of energy is always associated with an increase in pressure and a decrease, and not with an increase in temperature. When some scientists realized this, since then humanity has been hanging by a “hair” from self-destruction. Consequently, it is beneficial for someone to simply cut budgets calmly.

Thus, artificially created economic, political and physical problems are a brake on the use of gravitational energy.

It has long been known that there is a circulation of energy in eddy electric and magnetic fields, which is shown by Maxwell's equations. Obviously, therefore, Maxwell's electrodynamics successfully works in practice, which is the criterion of truth. That is, it can be confidently asserted that without the circulation of energy in the fields, the formation of force is impossible. Thus, the mass of the Earth, which forms the gravitational field, provides the necessary circulation of energy for the formation of the gravitational force in the gravitational field of the Earth.

If we calculate the amount of circulating gravitational energy on Earth, then it exceeds the energy consumed by our civilization by 1019 times. With regard to the concentration of gravitational energy, the power of circulating gravitational energy per 1 square meter of the Earth's surface exceeds 20,000 times the entire installed power generation capacity on Earth.

It should be noted that the gravitational fields of the Earth and the Sun are huge compared to their size. The density of circulating gravitons in a gravitational field (with spherical symmetry) varies according to the inverse square law. Depending on the density of gravitons, the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction changes.

If gravitons have a significantly larger mass than photons, then the gravitational interaction cannot have the ideal property of moving without the interaction of their gravitational fields and without energy dissipation. Since photons always move in the material gravitational fields of all structures of the Universe, it can be assumed that the fields are the medium for the propagation of gravitons and photons, and they move with energy dissipation, which is measured as the Hubble constant.

If physical fields are material and dissipative, then they are soliton and quantum parametric structures, in which the main property of matter exists, to minimize the interaction energy in dynamic fields to the level of energy dissipation with the Hubble constant. The mechanism of parametric reformation of the matter of soliton fields minimizes the inertia force of bodies until they move uniformly by inertia. Thos, the force of inertia is the process of changing the energy and shape of the huge dynamic gravitational fields of any bodies.

The circulation of energy in gravitational fields leads to the focusing of the distributed energy of gravitons from the surrounding space to their centers of gravity, which explains the glow of the Sun.

On the Sun, Hydrogen is synthesized in the spicules of the chromosphere (natural particle accelerators) with the absorption of its gravitational energy, and the synthesis of heavy atoms is carried out in the bowels of the Sun under high pressure, also with the absorption of gravitational energy. Therefore, the radiation of the Sun occurs as a result of a side effect of the synthesis of atoms with equal power of the ongoing processes of synthesis and radiation. Therefore, the radiation power of the Sun can be easily calculated from the parameters of the Sun, the Solar System and the Hubble constant.

Thus, the Sun shines due to the concentration of the scattered dissipation energy of gravitons and photons in the gravitational fields of the stationary Universe, where the energy of gravitons and photons circulates, which turns into matter in stars, and matter turns into the energy of gravitons and photons.

The challenge for the future will be to find methods for registering and controlling the flow of neutrino gravitons to generate energy.

The problem with neutrino gravitons is solved quite simply. It is assumed that gravitons are pairs of charged elements of matter and therefore are neutral and neutrino elements of gravitational waves, like a neutral electron-positron pair. Therefore, the polarization of gravitational waves leads to the formation of electric and magnetic field lines.

Many people have already created devices and were able to receive the energy of the Earth's gravitation due to electromagnetic effects, acting intuitively and often without even understanding of the true of action physical mechanism of these devices. Under the pretext that this is impossible and is charlatanism, the troublemakers are neutralized. Therefore, practically all operating models of installations have been bought up, and all the principles and details of the designs of these installations have been patented for the future. Business people are now unprofitable new physics, but they are ready for unexpected changes. In the meantime, they operate on the principle that fish are caught with nets better in muddy waters.

Thus, technologies using the energy of gravity are the only way to prevent an ecological catastrophe and the complete destruction of life on Earth. But first, something needs to be done to make the use of gravitational energy beneficial for all people, without exception.

I apologize for the harshness of the statements and the gloominess of the predictions.

The next technology that could potentially replace the Rankine Cycle process for energy production is Combined Cycle Power Plants. In combined cycle power plants, two or more thermodynamic cycles are used to generate electricity. These cycles are typically a gas turbine cycle and a steam turbine cycle, with the heat from the gas turbine cycle being used to generate steam to drive the steam turbine cycle. This type of power plant is more efficient than the Rankine Cycle process, as it recovers the heat from the gas turbine exhaust and uses it to generate additional electricity.

The Rankine cycle process for energy production is likely to be supplanted by a range of things, such as the necessity for more efficient and eco-friendly ways to generate power, and the escalating request for renewable energy sources. Some of the fresh advances that could substitute the Rankine cycle in the future include: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology, Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), Advanced Nuclear Reactors, Fuel Cells, and Ocean Energy Technologies (e.g. wave and tidal energy). It is essential to keep in mind that no single technology is probably going to completely replace the Rankine cycle and the energy production landscape will keep on developing and be influenced by multiple elements, including cost, effectiveness, scalability, and environmental effect.

The most likely technology to replace the Rankine cycle process for energy production is a combined cycle system, which combines a gas turbine cycle with a steam turbine cycle to maximize efficiency. Other promising alternatives include a thermoelectric cycle and a brayton cycle, which both use a different set of working fluids to increase efficiency. Technologies such as combined cycle systems, fuel cells, and nuclear power are also being explored as possible replacements for steam systems.