Julio Moreno-Blanco , David E. Jaramillo , Salvador M. Aceves
{"title":"重型卡车低温储氢性能的热力学评价","authors":"Julio Moreno-Blanco , David E. Jaramillo , Salvador M. Aceves","doi":"10.1016/j.nxener.2025.100362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Thermodynamic evaluation of 3 configurations of cryogenic hydrogen storage (liquid hydrogen LH<sub>2</sub>, subcooled liquid hydrogen sLH<sub>2</sub>, and cryo-compressed hydrogen CcH<sub>2</sub>) for vessel dimensions (2 frame-mounted vessels, each with 560 L capacity) and utilization patterns (Monday-Friday driving from full capacity to minimum usable density, and no driving during weekends) representative of heavy-duty trucks reveals that LH<sub>2</sub> and sLH<sub>2</sub> vessels have lower empty system weight than CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels (169 kg and 210 kg vs. 422 kg for CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels), and lower electricity consumption for LH<sub>2</sub> pumping (0.05 kWh/kg for sLH<sub>2</sub> vs. 0.2–0.3 kWh/kg for CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels). On the other hand, CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels have advantages on several key performance metrics that makes them a compelling alternative for hydrogen (H<sub>2</sub>) storage onboard trucks: storage density (73 g/L vs. 60 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 55.6 for LH<sub>2</sub>), usable storage density (68 g/L vs. 52.5 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 45.9 for LH<sub>2</sub>), system usable storage density (46.5 g/L vs. 43.2 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 38.7 for LH<sub>2</sub>), and driving range (858 km vs 662 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 579 for LH<sub>2</sub>). CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels accomplish these advantages while maintaining zero vent losses, while 5.1% of the total LH<sub>2</sub> fed into the sLH<sub>2</sub> vessel and 9.8% of the total LH<sub>2</sub> fed into the LH<sub>2</sub> vessel are vented. Flexibility for feeding engines or fuel cells at elevated pressure is also a valuable feature of CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels. Lastly, LH<sub>2</sub> pump-based CcH<sub>2</sub> fueling stations can be easily adapted to compressed H<sub>2</sub> refueling, as the same key equipment is leveraged. These unique advantages suggest that CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels are a promising technology to accomplish the important and challenging task of heavy-duty truck decarbonization.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100957,"journal":{"name":"Next Energy","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thermodynamic evaluation of cryogenic hydrogen storage performance for heavy-duty trucks\",\"authors\":\"Julio Moreno-Blanco , David E. Jaramillo , Salvador M. Aceves\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.nxener.2025.100362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Thermodynamic evaluation of 3 configurations of cryogenic hydrogen storage (liquid hydrogen LH<sub>2</sub>, subcooled liquid hydrogen sLH<sub>2</sub>, and cryo-compressed hydrogen CcH<sub>2</sub>) for vessel dimensions (2 frame-mounted vessels, each with 560 L capacity) and utilization patterns (Monday-Friday driving from full capacity to minimum usable density, and no driving during weekends) representative of heavy-duty trucks reveals that LH<sub>2</sub> and sLH<sub>2</sub> vessels have lower empty system weight than CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels (169 kg and 210 kg vs. 422 kg for CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels), and lower electricity consumption for LH<sub>2</sub> pumping (0.05 kWh/kg for sLH<sub>2</sub> vs. 0.2–0.3 kWh/kg for CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels). On the other hand, CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels have advantages on several key performance metrics that makes them a compelling alternative for hydrogen (H<sub>2</sub>) storage onboard trucks: storage density (73 g/L vs. 60 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 55.6 for LH<sub>2</sub>), usable storage density (68 g/L vs. 52.5 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 45.9 for LH<sub>2</sub>), system usable storage density (46.5 g/L vs. 43.2 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 38.7 for LH<sub>2</sub>), and driving range (858 km vs 662 for sLH<sub>2</sub> and 579 for LH<sub>2</sub>). CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels accomplish these advantages while maintaining zero vent losses, while 5.1% of the total LH<sub>2</sub> fed into the sLH<sub>2</sub> vessel and 9.8% of the total LH<sub>2</sub> fed into the LH<sub>2</sub> vessel are vented. Flexibility for feeding engines or fuel cells at elevated pressure is also a valuable feature of CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels. Lastly, LH<sub>2</sub> pump-based CcH<sub>2</sub> fueling stations can be easily adapted to compressed H<sub>2</sub> refueling, as the same key equipment is leveraged. These unique advantages suggest that CcH<sub>2</sub> vessels are a promising technology to accomplish the important and challenging task of heavy-duty truck decarbonization.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Next Energy\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100362\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Next Energy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949821X25001255\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Next Energy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949821X25001255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Thermodynamic evaluation of cryogenic hydrogen storage performance for heavy-duty trucks
Thermodynamic evaluation of 3 configurations of cryogenic hydrogen storage (liquid hydrogen LH2, subcooled liquid hydrogen sLH2, and cryo-compressed hydrogen CcH2) for vessel dimensions (2 frame-mounted vessels, each with 560 L capacity) and utilization patterns (Monday-Friday driving from full capacity to minimum usable density, and no driving during weekends) representative of heavy-duty trucks reveals that LH2 and sLH2 vessels have lower empty system weight than CcH2 vessels (169 kg and 210 kg vs. 422 kg for CcH2 vessels), and lower electricity consumption for LH2 pumping (0.05 kWh/kg for sLH2 vs. 0.2–0.3 kWh/kg for CcH2 vessels). On the other hand, CcH2 vessels have advantages on several key performance metrics that makes them a compelling alternative for hydrogen (H2) storage onboard trucks: storage density (73 g/L vs. 60 for sLH2 and 55.6 for LH2), usable storage density (68 g/L vs. 52.5 for sLH2 and 45.9 for LH2), system usable storage density (46.5 g/L vs. 43.2 for sLH2 and 38.7 for LH2), and driving range (858 km vs 662 for sLH2 and 579 for LH2). CcH2 vessels accomplish these advantages while maintaining zero vent losses, while 5.1% of the total LH2 fed into the sLH2 vessel and 9.8% of the total LH2 fed into the LH2 vessel are vented. Flexibility for feeding engines or fuel cells at elevated pressure is also a valuable feature of CcH2 vessels. Lastly, LH2 pump-based CcH2 fueling stations can be easily adapted to compressed H2 refueling, as the same key equipment is leveraged. These unique advantages suggest that CcH2 vessels are a promising technology to accomplish the important and challenging task of heavy-duty truck decarbonization.