The Well-to-Tank efficiency takes into account the energy lost during production and distribution of the electricity.
The well-to-tank efficiency ranges from a low of 8% in one version of the third regeneration scheme to as high as 37% in the second scheme if the missing process steps were to have no impact on efficiency.
To maximize the tank thermal efficiency, a thorough investigation will be carried out, starting with measurements of the molten salt emissivity, to determine the cone outlet radius/tank aperture and cone height that achieve maximum system efficiency with a 250-550 °C molten salt working temperature range.
While the Well-to-Tank energy efficiency is around 83% taking into account the production, refining and transportation of fuel, the Tank-to-Wheel energy efficiency of ICEVs is quite low: around 18%[12]].
As I hiked down to El Garoé, sacred because of its water-tank-like efficiency, the logic was clear, but the tree, sadly, was not: a dense white void of wind and cloud swirled between the spiral branches, obscuring its leaves as surely as it worked its magic.
The Well-to-Tank energy efficiency can be thus calculated to be around 37% (40%*92.5%).
Both the 350-bar and 700-bar systems come close to meeting the Well-to-Tank (WTT) efficiency target, but fall short by about 5%.
Additionally, total energy requirements across the entire chain of production, delivery, storage, recovery, and regeneration were evaluated to determine the total cycle well-to-tank energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions.
If waste heat from the engine is used to maintain an elevated tank temperature, efficiencies of nearly 50% may be possible, indicating that the concept could be effective for practical hybridization of passenger vehicles.
