←back to thread

113 points curl-up | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
jandrese ◴[] No.42742255[source]
Bottom line: 40% efficiency, which is better than I expected but the competition is batteries at 80+% efficiency. It's a hard sell, especially as continual improvements in battery storage will continue to eat away at their niche.

5,000 W/kg sounds great on paper compared to 150 W/kg for batteries and is even in the same ballpark as gasoline at 12,000 W/kg, but I think that's just the figure for the fuel. I don't think it includes storage, the solar panels, the burner, etc... The cost is an open ended question as well. Maybe this will pan out for aircraft?

replies(6): >>42742404 #>>42742536 #>>42742649 #>>42743119 #>>42744364 #>>42744374 #
datadrivenangel ◴[] No.42742536[source]
The better comparison is Fuel Cells and vehicle based electrical generators. So you could put this in a vehicle or remote location, run it off hydrogen or natural gas, and get better efficiency. Potentially this could be a much better option for longer term storage in remote areas as well, where excess solar/wind could be used to crack hydrogen which then gets stored and later burned in one of these instead of a much much larger battery installation.
replies(2): >>42742571 #>>42743646 #
1. jandrese ◴[] No.42742571[source]
You still need to truck in the sodium additive even if you're cracking water on site to store the H2. Dunno if you need a couple of mg/kg or if it is like 5% of the fuel to make it burn at the right color.