←back to thread

113 points curl-up | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | 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 #
VBprogrammer ◴[] No.42742404[source]
If that is 40% efficient as in 40% of the theoretical energy input comes out as electricity then it's quite incredible but I find that hard to believe. It would put it in the same range as diesel engines.
replies(2): >>42742471 #>>42745152 #
1. DaniFong ◴[] No.42745152[source]
and better than small diesels / turbines / internal combustion engines, at closer to 20%