Results for “thermoelectric generator” — Page 29

NASA NTRS2019

Follow-on studies using the Voyager spacecraft thermal model

The 42-year-old Voyager mission, now named the Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM) is operating long beyond its design life. In 2012, Voyager 1 crossed the heliopause into interstellar space and Voyager 2 made the same transit in November 2018. Due to declining power output from the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) the Science and Flight Operations teams continue to make difficult choices in terms of managing both the power and thermal margins to preserve critical science observations and maintain the health of the two spacecraft. A previous paper, “Creating a Voyager Thermal Model 39 Years Into the Flight Mission, Along With Model Correlation and Application” described how a thermal model of these 1977 spacecraft was developed and correlated without many design artifacts and with limited temperature telemetry. This paper describes how the thermal model has been used to establish an Allowable Flight Temperature (AFT) limit for hydrazine propellant in the propulsion subsystem to minimize the risk of freezing. Voyager 2 temperatures have already descended to this limit in the vicinity of the Roll thruster propellant lines. The Flight Operations team has investigated several ways of detecting propellant freezing based on analysis and trending of thruster performance telemetry. In addition, the Voyager thermal model is being used to predict the spacecraft response to possible changes in power state. These changes could involve turning off outboard science instruments and/or their heaters to increase power margin and hence power dissipation inside the spacecraft bus (i.e. in Bay 7, where the power regulation electronics are located). Changes might also be made to turn on or off other loads inside the bus to more effectively heat the coldest propellant lines.

Medina, Enrique↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Spacecraft Charging as an Asset to Interplanetary Small Spacecraft

Small spacecraft operate on a far more limited power budget than their larger counterparts, a problem compounded for interplanetary spacecraft in the outer solar system. The reduced solar flux beyond Earth’s orbit makes solar panels less effective for spacecraft exploring the gas giants and can they are susceptible to damage by intense radiation belts. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators are expensive and bulky compared to their power output. Interplanetary small satellite missions benefit from both alternative energy sources and low-power electronics to power their buses and scientific payloads. Traditionally, spacecraft engineers treat the space environment as a hazard, but it nevertheless offers a potential solution. Currents from space plasmas charge spacecraft to high potentials and can cause electrical arcing to occur between differentially charged surfaces. The spacecraft can harvest a small amount of power —<10 mW/m2at Jupiter — from the electric field between these surfaces to do useful work, either by charging a battery or directly powering an instrument or actuator. While using the energy directly has limited use due to the low electron density and temperature of most space plasmas, it can nevertheless be used in situations where solar panels are not desirable, such as high radiation environments. Two applications — a Langmuir probe and an attitude control actuator — exploit the disparate current-voltage characteristics between surfaces with different material properties and require minimal input power to operate.

Spacecraft↗

NASA NTRS2019

Follow-on studies using the Voyager spacecraft thermal model

The 42-year-old Voyager mission, now named the Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM) is operating long beyond its design life. In 2012, Voyager 1 crossed the heliopause into interstellar space and Voyager 2 made the same transit in November 2018. Due to declining power output from the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) the Science and Flight Operations teams continue to make difficult choices in terms of managing both the power and thermal margins to preserve critical science observations and maintain the health of the two spacecraft. A previous paper, “Creating a Voyager Thermal Model 39 Years Into the Flight Mission, Along With Model Correlation and Application” described how a thermal model of these 1977 spacecraft was developed and correlated without many design artifacts and with limited temperature telemetry. This paper describes how the thermal model has been used to establish an Allowable Flight Temperature (AFT) limit for hydrazine propellant in the propulsion subsystem to minimize the risk of freezing. Voyager 2 temperatures have already descended to this limit in the vicinity of the Roll thruster propellant lines. The Flight Operations team has investigated several ways of detecting propellant freezing based on analysis and trending of thruster performance telemetry. In addition, the Voyager thermal model is being used to predict the spacecraft response to possible changes in power state. These changes could involve turning off outboard science instruments and/or their heaters to increase power margin and hence power dissipation inside the spacecraft bus (i.e. in Bay 7, where the power regulation electronics are located). Changes might also be made to turn on or off other loads inside the bus to more effectively heat the coldest propellant lines. Many of these changes have been or will be tested first on Voyager 1 which has more power margin and does not have the power matrix commanding issues experienced on Voyager 2. Ultimately this assessment may assist the Voyager project in making decisions on the order in which science instruments are permanently turned off.

Medina, Enrique↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Spacecraft Charging as an Asset to Interplanetary Small Spacecraft

Small spacecraft operate on a far more limited power budget than their larger counterparts, a problem compounded for interplanetary spacecraft in the outer solar system. The reduced solar flux beyond Earth’s orbit makes solar panels less effective for spacecraft exploring the gas giants and they are susceptible to damage by intense radiation belts. Radioisotope thermoelectric generators are expensive and bulky compared to their power output. Interplanetary small satellite missions benefit from both alternative energy sources and low-power electronics to power their buses and scientific payloads. Traditionally, spacecraft engineers treat the space environment as a hazard, but it nevertheless offers a potential solution. Currents from space plasmas charge spacecraft to high potentials and can cause electrical arcing to occur between differentially charged surfaces. The spacecraft can harvest a small amount of power —<10 mW/m2at Jupiter — from the electric field between these surfaces to do useful work, either by charging a battery or directly powering an instrument or actuator. While using the energy directly has limited use due to the low electron density and temperature of most space plasmas, it can nevertheless be used in situations where solar panels are not desirable, such as high radiation environments. Two applications — a Langmuir probe and an attitude control actuator — exploit the disparate current-voltage characteristics between surfaces with different material properties and require minimal input power to operate.

spacecraft charging↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗

NASA NTRS2020

Innovative Thermal Management & Control to Surmount Challenges of Exploring Ocean Worlds on Europa and Enceladus

Probes to penetrate the thick ice shells of our solar system’s Ocean Worlds have been studied for nearly 20 years, since scientific evidence strongly suggested a subsurface ocean on the Jupiter moon called Europa. There is keen scientific interest in exploring four significant themes on such proposed missions: 1) Geodynamics, 2) Geochemistry, 3) Habitability, and 4) Life Detection. The ice shells of Ocean Worlds are predicted to be up to 40 km thick; they exhibit extreme thermal environments, with ice temperatures from 100 K to 270 K, and extreme pressure environments from vacuum to 53 MPa. Jet Propulsion Laboratory has conducted a broad-look investigation of proposed mission concepts to Europa to identify the significant technology and operational challenges of Europa ice-penetration. The thermal-mechanical system (TMS) of an ice penetration probe (IPP) designed to access the ocean of an icy moon using radioisotope thermoelectric generators for heat and power faces technological hurdles exacerbated by severe thermal and volume constraints. This study identified thermal management and control (TMC) challenges that are strongly linked to: ice penetration start-up, mobility and navigation in the ice, communications while in the ice sheet, and detecting and avoiding in-ice hazards. The major objectives of the TMC system are: 1) Absorb internal thermal energy from the IPP radioisotope power source, 2) Maintain liquid water conditions around the IPP at all times, 3) Manage and control thermal flows from probe nose to tail, and 4) Provide pressure containment for all internal probe components. This work discusses the baseline TMC system architecture and design developed to accomplish these objectives, and survive and transit the extreme ice thicknesses in pursuit of Icy/Ocean Worlds science goals. The proposed TMC system consisting of an internal pumped two-phase fluid loop “thermal bus” for thermal energy capture, variable conductance heat pipe system for passively adaptive thermal energy transport around the probe, and water jetting system for ice cutting is described and discussed. Critical testing performed to date is described.

Lee, Kuan-Lin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Comparison of Radioisotope and Solar Array/Battery Power Systems in the Solar System

Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) are an invaluable resource for the exploration of our solar system. Providing both heat and electricity, spacecraft using RPS can operate where its impractical to use solar array and/or battery systems because of either limited solar illumination or mission durations which make a standalone battery impractical. This paper highlights the performance advantages which may come from using a RPS compared with a solar array/battery system. Included in this paper is an overview of the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), the Next-Generation RTG (NGRTG) and Dynamic Radioisotope System (DRPS). State-the-Art (SOA) performance of solar arrays and batteries is discussed. Finally, a comparison of both solar cell/battery systems compare with RPS are made at a variety of locations, both orbital and on the surface of some planets and their moons within our solar system.

Paul C Schmitz↗

NASA NTRS2021

Thermoelectric System Economics - The Apex: New Paradigms in Manufacturing and Interface Performance Relationships Driving System Cost Optimizations

Thermoelectric energy recovery systems require cost-optimized designs with high thermal and thermoelectric (TE) performance to surmount common commercialization barriers controlling the acceptance of thermoelectric generator (TEG) systems. Recent work has addressed this requirement with new analytic tools and paradigms that allow integrated TEG cost-performance analysis and optimization. New work herein has identified the existence of optimized TE element design (i.e., TE element length) for minimizing TEG cost and provides design guidelines associated with critical thermal and electrical contact resistance effects and TE manufacturing sensitivities. Once optimum hot-side heat flux criteria are satisfied, this work highlights the tradeoffs between interface resistance effects and manufacturing cost effects in determining optimum-cost TE element lengths, and then quantifies the increase in optimum-cost TE lengths as manufacturing costs become more sensitive to TE element lengths. Optimized TE element design criteria and key non-dimensional design parameters (i.e., [𝐶′′′LTE/𝐶′′], [TE/con], [con/(TE,aveLTE)]) driving the design are presented and explained showing the interdependencies between manufacturing cost parameters and thermal and electrical interface impacts on integrated TE cost-performance analysis and design. Comprehensive TEG system cost-performance relationships clearly demonstrate the two parameters that most greatly impact the TEG system cost are heat exchanger costs ($/(W/K)) and TE hot side heat flux. Reducing heat exhanger cost from $1/(W/K) to $0.5/(W/K) can decrease TEG system cost by $2/W to $4/W depending on TE hot side heat fluxes from 4-10 W/cm2. The impact of TE hot side heat flux on TEG system cost is larger; reducing TE system cost by factors of 2-4 as TE hot side heat flux increases from 4 W/cm2 to high levels around 18 W/cm2. The levels of thermal contact resistance and electrical contact resistance required to even approach the critical TEG system cost level of $1/W are characterized by con = 1.0 x 10-10 -m2 and r = 0.1, respectively. This not only lowers TEG costs, but it also makes the TEG system costs less sensitive to TE manufacturing dependences on TE element length. New design paradigms and relationships create holistic, integrated TE performance-cost models that enhance understanding of crucial interrelationships between component costs, TE design parameters and material properties, heat exchanger design parameters, interfacial heat flux, and now thermal and electrical interface effects in minimizing TEG system costs.

Hendricks, Terry J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Selection of Alternator Voltage for Dynamic Radioisotope Power Systems

In this paper, we present a study to select an appropriate alternator voltage of the free-piston Stirling convertors (FPSC) for efficient and light Dynamic Radioisotope Power Systems (DRPS). With a system thermal-to-electrical efficiency 3-4 times greater than radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) systems and a higher power density than Brayton systems in the power range of interest for radioisotope-powered systems, Stirling-based DRPS is uniquely suited to benefit upcoming NASA missions. Much effort has been invested in the design and optimization of the thermal, mechanical, and materials aspects of FPSCs, but the electrical aspect has been more nebulous. Therefore, in this paper, a preliminary study will be presented to select the appropriate Stirling alternator voltage to develop a light and efficient system using available flight components. Power conversion systems face a trade between efficiency and system volume/mass with the optimal trade being determined by the application. Neglecting non-idealities related to insulation thickness and winding packing factor and assuming a constant winding area, alternator efficiency is independent of alternator voltage. Because wire size and alternator current can be traded against turn count and alternator voltage without impacting efficiency, the guidance on the optimal design comes from analysis of the controller power electronics and the remainder of the system. Properties of available flight-qualified electrical components, such as rated voltage/current and on-resistance, typically come in discrete values instead of a continuous range of values. With multiple components being required to form the power conversion stage of the controller, each limited to incremental values, a continuous optimization is of little benefit. Instead of a continuous optimization, a random process using properties of the available components can be used to develop a Pareto design front indicating the optimized trade space. The most advantageous trade between system efficiency and mass for the system at hand can then be selected from the range of feasible designs. In the final paper, the design process, assumptions, and preliminary results will be presented.

Free-Piston Stirling Convertor Controller, Dynamic↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Comparison of Radioisotope and Solar Array/Battery Power Systems in the Solar System

Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) are an invaluable resource for the exploration of our solar system. Providing both heat and electricity, spacecraft using RPS can operate where its impractical to use solar array and/or battery systems because of either limited solar illumination or mission durations which make a standalone battery impractical. This paper highlights the performance advantages which may come from using a RPS compared with a solar array/battery system. Included in this paper is an overview of the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), the Next-Generation RTG (NGRTG) and Dynamic Radioisotope System (DRPS). State-the-Art (SOA) performance of solar arrays and batteries is discussed. Finally, a comparison of both solar cell/battery systems compare with RPS are made at a variety of locations, both orbital and on the surface of some planets and their moons within our solar system.

Paul C Schmitz↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Comparison of Radioisotope and Solar Array/Battery Power Systems in the Solar System

Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) are an invaluable resource for the exploration of our solar system. Providing both heat and electricity, spacecraft using RPS can operate where its impractical to use solar array and/or battery systems because of either limited solar illumination or mission durations which make a standalone battery impractical. This paper highlights the performance advantages which may come from using a RPS compared with a solar array/battery system. Included in this paper is an overview of the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG), the Next-Generation RTG (NGRTG) and Dynamic Radioisotope System (DRPS). State-the-Art (SOA) performance of solar arrays and batteries is discussed. Finally, a comparison of both solar cell/battery systems compare with RPS are made at a variety of locations, both orbital and on the surface of some planets and their moons within our solar system.

Paul Schmitz↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lunar Surface Relay - Mobile: Concept to Provide Relay Links to Surface Assets

At the request of NASA’s Space Communication and Navigation (SCaN) program, the Glenn Research Center’s (GRC) Compass concurrent engineering team developed a conceptual design of a Lunar Surface Relay- Mobile (LSR-M) system to provide a variety of surface and relay communication links in support of future Artemis sorties. The team determined that a mobile asset, with its ability to relocate to support a variety of surface sites and leverage more hospitable winter locations on the lunar south pole, would be of particular use in the architecture. Following the design of a solar array and battery powered baseline case, a quick look design further investigated adding a multi-mission radioisotope thermoelectric generator (MMRTG) to the system to reduce battery requirements to survive the lunar night and remove the need to relocate to favorable night locations during the lunar winter.

Lunar Surface Relay↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Non-Nuclear, Solar Powered Mission to Uranus Utilizing the PowerSail - a Large Solar Sail with Embedded Solar Cells

Powering missions to the outer solar system is a significant challenge. These missions are typically powered by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG). Though these sources provide stable power regardless of location in space, they are expensive to produce, difficult to integrate, and have both safety concerns as well as negative sociopolitical connotations. Perhaps most importantly, the availability of their fuel, plutonium-238, is scarce. Solar power is often considered a more attractive option. However, photovoltaic generation falls off at the distance from the sun squared. This drives the size of traditional solar generators to infeasible levels for deep space and their utilization at locations deeper the Jupiter is currently non-existent. Herein, a hypothetical solution, the PowerSail, and its application to a non-nuclear Uranus mission is presented. The PowerSail is a marriage of solar sails and thin-film solar cell assemblies. Herein the application of PowerSail spacecraft to a high priority science mission, the Applied Physics Laboratory’s Uranus Probe and Explorer, is studied. The overall mission design along with key subsystems design changes are discussed, ultimately showing that a PowerSail could be utilized as a non-nuclear option to reach destinations very deep in our solar system. Key needed technology developments to make the PowerSail and such a mission a reality are given.

John A. Carr↗

NASA NTRS2026

Uranus Orbiter and Probe: Mission Challenges and Concept Updates Since the Origins, Worlds, and Life Decadal Survey

Origins, Worlds, and Life: Planetary Science and Astrobiology in the Next Decade identified a Uranus Orbiter and Probe as the highest-priority strategic mission for the decade 2023–2032, as it enables broad cross-disciplinary science in the largely unexplored Uranian system. The mission architecture evaluated by the Decadal Survey was a singular proof of concept demonstrating that a moderately instrumented mission could deliver Decadal-priority science with a reduced cost and risk posture by leveraging existing technologies to the maximum extent possible. With revised assumptions since the Decadal, we have explored a large trade space including launch vehicles, propulsion options, cruise trajectories, available power sources, viable concept of operations, and science data return for later launch dates without a Jupiter gravity assist. The most repeatable trajectory solutions employ either a commercially derived solar electric propulsion (SEP) transfer stage or the availability of a more capable launch vehicle under development, such as the SpaceX Starship. Orbit insertion has been moved farther from Uranus to acknowledge the remaining uncertainty in Uranian ring structure. A streamlined, SEP-adaptable, orbiter design was developed using two Next Gen Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, and the probe design was matured, reducing the entry gravitational acceleration, and assuming the largest Decadal-recommended payload to provide margin for future instrument selections. With this updated design, we also constructed a detailed concept of operations for three representative science cases, returning 13–15 Gbit of science data and spacecraft telemetry per ∼34 day orbit.

Amy A Simon↗

DOE OSTI2023

NASA Dragonfly Mission MMRTG

The Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) group at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is supporting NASA’s New Frontier class mission, Dragonfly, to explore the Saturn moon Titan. Titan has been observed by both Voyager spacecrafts in 1979 and 1980 and during over 100 close flyby encounters by the Cassini orbiter and subsequent landing of the Huygens probe which landed on Titan in 2005. The probe lasted about 2.5 hours without an RPS due to the thick atmosphere and cold climate but gave scientists valuable insight into the geology of Titan. The surface is composed of vast sand dunes and liquid methane with an atmosphere composed primarily of nitrogen that is 60% more dense as the Earth’s with 1/7th of Earth’s gravity. These conditions allow for exploration using a dual-quadcopter. Due to the extreme temperatures (-290°F or -180°C), changes to the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (MMRTG) are required. This generator, designated flight unit 4 or MMRTG-F4, is being built by a team lead by INL and includes the prime contractor Aerojet Rocketdyne and their supplier Teledyne Energy System. This poster outlines the mission, the unique challenges and updates the build progress.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2022

Chapter 6: Thermoelectric Energy Harvesters and Applications

With recent progress in the field of wearable and bio-integrated devices, which are widely used for various applications, such as real-time health monitoring, point-of-care diagnostics, and biological actuators, the need for a continuous and reliable power source is increasing. As solid-state devices with no moving parts, thermoelectric energy generators provide a reliable solution for harnessing body heat and converting it into electricity on demand. However, traditional thermoelectric generators, comprising inorganic materials, are rigid and bulky, limiting their wide deployment. Nonconventional thermoelectric generators, composed of organic and hybrid thermoelectric materials, are flexible and lightweight. In this chapter, we will discuss the working principle of thermoelectric energy harvesting, including materials, devices, and applications. While we briefly touch upon the inorganic materials, we will focus primarily on the organic and hybrid materials, which are nontoxic, flexible, easy to manufacture, easy to scale, and readily available at low cost, providing a promising solution for lightweight and conformal thermoelectric power generation.

body heat harvesting↗

NASA NTRS2017

Compliant Interfacial Layers in Thermoelectric Devices

A thermoelectric power generation device is disclosed using one or more mechanically compliant and thermally and electrically conductive layers at the thermoelectric material interfaces to accommodate high temperature differentials and stresses induced thereby. The compliant material may be metal foam or metal graphite composite (e.g. using nickel) and is particularly beneficial in high temperature thermoelectric generators employing Zintl thermoelectric materials. The compliant material may be disposed between the thermoelectric segments of the device or between a thermoelectric segment and the hot or cold side interconnect of the device.

Firdosy, Samad A.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Controllable Multi-Functional Heat Exchanger for Space Applications

Team Spacering will design SpaceRing, a cooling and waste heat recycling system that addresses NASA’s interest for a cooling and power-generating unit in its prototype deep space habitat[1]. The merits of this system are as follows: - Controllable cooling is critical in maintaining a habitable environment and in the functionality of life support systems, powering electronics and other devices in a spacecraft. - Power is expensive to produce in a space environment. Converting wasted thermal energy into electricity will save energy and money for the space station. Space habitation is a highly complex endeavor. Consequently, the SpaceRing must adhere to additional constraints, which include: - Lack of natural fluid or gas convection due to micro-gravity environment - Limited range for heat source and cold sink temperature - Subject to high fluctuations of incoming thermal energy - Minimal weight due to the high cost of transporting items into space After consulting with NASA and experts in thermal studies, several design objectives were identified and are listed below in order of importance: - High cooling capacity - Reliable safety control and alert system - Maximization of energy generation from wasted heat - Optimization of cooling capability and power generation - Long operational life and minimization of maintenance In space, conventional cooling systems utilize passive heat pipe systems for small-scale heat rejection and pumped pipes with heat exchangers for large-scale heat rejection. Thermal power generation in space is mainly achieved by using thermoelectric material that produces electric energy from temperature differentials. We propose a design that combines cooling and thermoelectric power generation. Using a hot pipe connected to a heat source, a cold pipe connected to a radiator, a heat exchanger in contact with both pipes, and a pump in each pipe to move the fluid, we make an active cooling system. The thermoelectric material is inserted in the heat exchanger between the hot and cold pipes to extract energy from the maximum temperature difference coming from the two pipes. It also provides controllable cooling capacity through the use of the thermoelectric material as cooling modules. We have tested our system under target heat source and sink conditions and measured the temperatures and flow rates. Our preliminary results are promising, demonstrating the output of 25 Watts of power on average. We are in the process of running control tests to compare the heat transfer performance without the thermoelectric generators, which is vital in determining whether or not the generators introduce an unacceptable amount of thermal resistance. While some control tests have been run already, the results have been noisy. We have modified our testing environment and data acquisition methods to allow for simple comparison between the control test results and thermoelectric performance results. Lastly, we have modified the heat exchanger design slightly to include acrylic baffles. This will allow the heat to flow through the heat exchanger more efficiently. We have presented our preliminary results to NASA and will deliver the final product by the end of May 2014.

Lee Xiong↗