# Fuel efficiency, turbine vs stroke generator

Hi,

I'm trying to figure which is more fuel efficient, turbine vs stroke generators.

This honda stroke engine generator does 1000w for 3.8 hrs with 0.6 gallons of fuel or 2.3 liters, so the power per liter of fuel is 1,300 kW.

http://powerequipment.honda.com/generators/models/eu1000i

Then I found this turbine generator that claims to generate 1.2 kW while consuming about 0.8 liters of fuel.

So, the power per liter is 1,200 kW / 0.8 = 1,500 kW per liter.

Mind that the cost of fuel is even cheaper with the turbine, considering that the turbine generator can run on kerosene, I'm not sure about the Honda generator, for the sake of comparison, let's assume both are running on petrol.

So, the question, are turbine generators more fuel efficient? If so why are they not popular For home use? Cost? Are there any other small turbine generators out there for comparison?

Related General Engineering News on Phys.org
billy_joule
Hi,

I'm trying to figure which is more fuel efficient, turbine vs stroke generators.

This honda stroke engine generator does 1000w for 3.8 hrs with 0.6 gallons of fuel or 2.3 liters, so the power per liter of fuel is 1,300 kW.
'Power per litre of fuel' is an ambiguous unit and your units aren't consistant
Output energy/litre fuel is more descriptive,
eg
1000W * (3.8hr /2.3l) = 1.65 kWhr / litre =5.94 MJ / litre (MJ = Megajoules)

As for the rest of your questions, I'd guess capex, maintenance costs, familiarity and availability all play a part.

I know of a guy who got .125 gallons per kilowat hour running a lister 6/1 with a 2500 watt load.

'Power per litre of fuel' is an ambiguous unit and your units aren't consistant
Output energy/litre fuel is more descriptive,
eg
1000W * (3.8hr /2.3l) = 1.65 kWhr / litre =5.94 MJ / litre (MJ = Megajoules)

As for the rest of your questions, I'd guess capex, maintenance costs, familiarity and availability all play a part.
Ok. Based on the specs of that machine, (visit the link) what is the amount of power that it can generate (in watts) with 1 liter of fuel? That's because the other turbine generator has a graph that shows consumption per liter relative to power output, that's why I'd also like this to be in liters. I may have calculated it wrong.

Just check what I used below.

1000w for 3.8 hrs = 3,800w
3,800w / 2.8L = 1,357 watts per liter (I just put 1,300 in the first post)

Is the above calculation correct?

Last edited:
I know of a guy who got .125 gallons per kilowat hour running a lister 6/1 with a 2500 watt load.
Very impressive! Checking it out. Thx.

Turbine generators are I think generally agreed to be one of the most efficient methods of converting chemical fuel to other kinds of energy,
However I think there is a problem with very small scale ones, you need really precise micro engineering, hard to get it right.

• billy_joule
Turbine generators are I think generally agreed to be one of the most efficient methods of converting chemical fuel to other kinds of energy,
However I think there is a problem with very small scale ones, you need really precise micro engineering, hard to get it right.
Noted.

billy_joule
Ok. Based on the specs of that machine, (visit the link) what is the amount of power that it can generate (in watts) with 1 liter of fuel? That's because the other turbine generator has a graph that shows consumption per liter relative to power output, that's why I'd also like this to be in liters. I may have calculated it wrong.

Just check what I used below.

1000w for 3.8 hrs = 3,800w
3,800w / 2.8L = 1,357 watts per liter (I just put 1,300 in the first post)

Is the above calculation correct?
Watts is a unit of power; energy per time (joules / second). if power is multiplied by time the result is just energy:
Power * time = ( Energy/time) *time = Energy
WattHour is a common unit of energy, it's probably on your electricity bill, the SI unit of energy is Joules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule#Conversions
0.6 gallons is, according to google, 2.3 litres, not 2.8 (you had 2.3 L in your OP so I guess 2.8 L a typo), so the correct calculation is in post #2.