The specific energy of diesel fuel is roughly 38 mega joules (MJ) per litre.
How many joules of energy are in a litre of petrol?
While the joule is the SI base unit for energy, we commonly use the kilowatt-hour (kWh) in real-world situations. Because a joule is such a little unit of energy, this is the case. A liter of gasoline has 31,536,000 joules of energy, to give you an idea of how little a joule is. 3,600,000 joules equal one kilowatt-hour. As a result, a liter of gasoline contains 8.76 kW/hr of energy, a much more manageable figure.
How much energy is in a litre of diesel?
The specific energy of diesel fuel is roughly 38 mega joules (MJ) per litre. This figure varies based on the refiner, the crude oil source, and the time of year.
How many KW is a litre of diesel?
The energy content of one litre of diesel fuel (auto) is approximately 38 MJ, which is roughly 10 kWh (using a ballpark figure), however the conversion efficiency into kinetic energy is only about 30%, which is better than petrol, which is normally 25% depending on the design.
What fuel produces the most energy?
The United States generates electricity using a variety of energy sources and technologies. Over time, the sources and technologies have evolved, and some are now used more frequently than others.
Fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), nuclear energy, and renewable energy sources are the three major forms of energy for electricity generation. Steam turbines use fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, and solar thermal energy to create the majority of power. Gas turbines, hydro turbines, wind turbines, and solar photovoltaics are some of the other important electricity producing systems.
How many joules are in a gallon?
The joules unit number 383.56 J is equal to 1 gal atm, or one gallon of atmosphere in the United States. It is the EQUAL energy value of 1 Gallon-atmosphere US in joules energy units.
What is the energy density of diesel?
Despite the fact that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) have been known since the 1960s, they have only lately become a viable option for decarbonizing heavy transportation. Nikola Motors recently announced a $1 billion fundraising round for their hydrogen vehicle technology, with CNHI and Bosch joining as significant new partners. The firm also announced a bold plan for 700 fueling stations across the country earlier this year, as well as an 800-vehicle cooperation with Anheuser-Busch to help decarbonize its freight fleet. What makes FCEVs an attractive option for decarbonizing heavy-duty transportation? Let’s compare and contrast the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of FCEVs with conventional internal combustion trucks.
One of the advantages of FCEVs is that they employ a similar fueling infrastructure to regular trucks. This means that FCEVs may be refueled at current truck stops around the country and would have a similar fueling experience. In less than 15 minutes, a truck can be filled with hydrogen, and the method is comparable to that of a diesel truck; hydrogen gas is pushed into the vehicle tank using a gas pump and nozzle similar to that of a typical diesel pump.
Another benefit of hydrogen is its high energy density. The energy density of diesel is 45.5 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg), which is slightly lower than that of gasoline, which is 45.8 MJ/kg. Hydrogen, on the other hand, has an energy density of around 120 MJ/kg, roughly three times that of diesel or gasoline. In electrical terms, hydrogen has a density of 33.6 kWh of useful energy per kg, but diesel only has a density of 12–14 kWh per kg. This translates to 1 kilogram of hydrogen containing roughly the same energy as a gallon of diesel when used in a fuel cell to power an electric motor. Taking this into account, Nikola claims that its vehicles may achieve 12 to 15 mpg equivalent, which is far higher than the national average for a diesel truck, which is roughly 6.4 mpg.
Internal combustion engines are also less efficient than electric drivetrains. In an internal combustion engine, around half of the energy produced is lost to heat, but electric drivetrains lose only 10% of their energy to heat. This efficiency disparity demonstrates how much money people are squandering on inefficient internal combustion engines.
Another appealing feature of hydrogen is its low cost. Diesel prices are now hovering around $3.00 a gallon, and with Saudi Arabian oil output recently curtailed, it’s reasonable to predict more increases in diesel prices. However, according to a recent Bloomberg New Energy Finance research, the cost of producing hydrogen per kilogram might be as low as $1.40 per kilogram in about a decade.
When it comes to heavy shipping, size and weight are important considerations. FCEVs have the same high torque as battery electric vehicles, but at a fraction of the weight. The estimated weight difference between the battery electric Lion 8 and the hydrogen fuel cell Nikola One, for example, is roughly 2–5 tons; the Lion 8 has a 480-kWh battery pack with a 250-mile range, equating to about 2–5 tons. A 250-kWh battery pack, with a range of 500-750 miles, is predicted to weigh 2.5-3 tons in a Nikola One with a range of 500-750 miles.
Taking all of these characteristics into account, hydrogen has a clear route to becoming a low-carbon, low-cost, and low-weight alternative fuel for heavy-duty trucks. FCEV trucks, on the other hand, are not without their drawbacks.
Despite the fact that hydrogen gas has no color or odor, we will require green hydrogen in large quantities to assist the decarbonization of heavy transportation. Green hydrogen, also known as renewable hydrogen, is hydrogen produced solely from renewable energy, usually by electrolysis. Water electrolysis converts electrical energy to chemical energy by separating water into gaseous hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). There are still doubts about how quickly green hydrogen generation can expand; electrolyzer manufacturing capacity is only now beginning to ramp up significantly.
The two biggest issues with hydrogen are transportation and storage. Hydrogen is created in a gaseous state and must be held under pressure or directly liquefied. Both of these processes necessitate additional energy, which might come from renewable or non-renewable sources. Chemical bonds (also known as liquid organic hydrogen carriers) or ammonia are two new approaches for transporting hydrogen in a stable state. Because these technologies do not rely on pressure or cryogenic liquification, they use less energy to transfer and store hydrogen. The technology, however, is still in its early stages of development and is not yet suitable for widespread usage.
Focusing on regional production has been another answer to transportation and storage issues. Nikola has teamed up with Nel and Bosch to build a network of local hydrogen production stations that use renewable energy sources and electrolyzers, bypassing the traditional diesel and gasoline supply chain. We may be able to use natural gas infrastructure to transport hydrogen in the future, minimizing the requirement for large-scale infrastructure development. This could also give a way to distribute hydrogen from centralized production centers rather than localized production.
Another drawback of hydrogen is its limited range. Fuel cell trucks have a range of 500–750 miles, depending on load and terrain, according to Nikola; Toyota Kenworth FCEV vehicles have a range of roughly 300 miles. Diesel trucks, on the other hand, can travel well over 1,000 miles without refueling. With drivers limited to 500 miles per day, however, this element may not provide a severe disruption to normal operations.
Regulatory pressure and industrial demand are increasing. By 2030, the European Union has promised to phase out gasoline and diesel automobiles. At the same time, in California and Canada, clean fuel regulations and related investment are laying the groundwork for policy reform. By 2030, Hyundai wants to produce up to 700,000 FCEVs per year, while Japan wants to produce 800,000 FCEVs. There is substantial momentum and investment in hydrogen, with technological costs expected to reach break-even with diesel trucks in some countries.
The more projects that use fuel cell technologies, the more cost savings and investment in the technology are possible. China’s commitment to put 1 million fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2030 (with $7.6 billion invested in heavy-duty transportation) opens the door to considerable improvements in fuel cell vehicle efficiency and cost.
Hydrogen has had its share of false dawns, but the low-carbon alternative is now being pushed by some of the world’s greatest corporations across numerous industries. Toyota Kenworth has a long history of creating fuel cell trucks, and in 2019 it added ten T680s to its fleet for usage at the Port of Los Angeles and throughout Southern California. Shell has lately made significant investments in large-scale hydrogen electrolyzers, which provide a zero-carbon hydrogen production option. Cummins just paid $290 million for Hydrogenics, a market-leading electrolyzer and fuel cell manufacturing company. These are all signs that industry leaders are serious about moving into the hydrogen and fuel cell space.