4 ms·
Yes, but even best combustion engines have at very best 50% efficiency using direct transformation of thermal energy through gas expansion into mechanical energ
by nuccy 6y ago
Yes, but even best combustion engines have at very best 50% efficiency using direct transformation of thermal energy through gas expansion into mechanical energy. This involves numerous technologies, which better mix fuel and air, inject fuel directly, adjust timing of injection and exhaust following the RPMs, etc. Cars don't generate steam or use any other indirect method of transformation of thermal energy into mechanical energy, due to losses and impracticality (otherwise we would see other types of combustion engines). Burning of powder iron would not work with normal ICEs since powders are not liquids, they are abrasive and burn residuals are not gaseous (rust dust, which is even more abrasive). At very least this is non trivial engineering challenge. So 5-10 times lower specific energy of lithium batteries wins because of simplicity (and lower weight) of whole power-train (inverters, engines) and their high overall efficiency (90-95%). But indeed, on big ships (e.g. tankers), which can have a steam turbines, iron might be a feasible fuel (especially if using onboard solar power while cruising it is possible to recover part of it as a fuel again).
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoI this is is largely on point - this should work for larger ships that have steam turbines. Also, said turbines have better efficiency than an ICE engine.
- xyzzyz 6y agoThey don't, actually. Steam turbines are less, not more efficient than marine diesel engines. In modern marine propulsion, turbines are used pretty much only on gas and coal carriers.
- ncmncm 6y agoShips get well north of 70% efficiency on the same cycle: technically, the Diesel cycle. (It is named after the person, not the fuel.) Most cars run on the Otto cycle, less efficiently. (It is named after the person, not the vehicle.:-)