Energy

Now we're cooking with water! Startup offers a hydrogen-powered stove

Now we're cooking with water! Startup offers a hydrogen-powered stove
Pricing for the GreenVize hydrogen cooking system starts at about US$1,128
Pricing for the GreenVize hydrogen cooking system starts at about US$1,128
View 1 Image
Pricing for the GreenVize hydrogen cooking system starts at about US$1,128
1/1
Pricing for the GreenVize hydrogen cooking system starts at about US$1,128

Imagine slashing your cooking electricity bill by a factor of six. That would almost be as wild as cooking with water! Well, a green-tech startup from India called GreenVize says it has made both possible with a hydrogen-based cooking unit that runs on water and a little bit of electricity.

The system utilizes an existing technology known as Proton Exchange Membrane electrolysis to produce hydrogen from water. This technology uses electricity to split water (H₂O) into high-purity hydrogen (H₂) and oxygen (O). A solid polymer electrolyte allows protons to pass through while separating the gases.

Hydrogen is collected and stored for various applications, while the oxygen is simply vented into the atmosphere. The startup’s system makes the hydrogen immediately available as fuel, eliminating the need for storage. As the hydrogen burns, it interacts with oxygen in the air, creating harmless water vapor as a byproduct.

According to GreenVize, its plug-and-play system requires around 100 milliliters (3.38 oz) of distilled or reverse-osmosis water and approximately 1 kWh of electricity to deliver up to six hours of continuous cooking. By comparison, standard induction cookers are rated 1.5 to 2 kW. This means that for the same six hours of cooking, they consume 9-12 kWh.

“While both induction stoves and the GreenVize hydrogen cooking system use electricity, the efficiency, flexibility, and real-world usability are fundamentally different, especially for hotels, community kitchens, and high-demand cooking environments,” said Sanjeev Choudhary, founder of GreenVize Energy Solutions, as reported by pv magazine.

Another beneficial feature of the system is the elimination of the requirement for storage, as it generates the hydrogen on demand. However, users also have the option of storage.

“In its standard configuration, the electrolyzer is directly coupled with the cooking unit, with hydrogen generated and consumed in real time, eliminating the need for storage. However, the system can also be configured with hydrogen storage, allowing production during off-peak hours or periods of solar generation and subsequent use during peak demand,” said Sanjeev.

The product is priced at 105,000 Indian Rupees (about US$1,130) for a single-burner stove, and 150,000 Indian Rupees (US$1,610) for a double-burner stove.

So, should you rip out your induction cooking systems? After all, 1 kWh of electricity for six hours of cooking is simply a steal, plus there's “free oxygen” being released into the environment.

Well, hold your horses! It's time for some good ol’ energy mathematics.

First of all, PEM electrolyzers are about 65-75% efficient. Since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that already limits how much usable energy you can get out. After accounting for both electrolysis and combustion losses, you are realistically left with around 0.5 to 0.6 kWh of actual heat from 1 kWh of electricity.

Now, as per the company’s “six hours of cooking” claims, 0.5 to 0.6 kWh amounts to a max power rating of 100 W per burner. This is extremely low. In comparison, most induction burners operate between 1,500 and 2,000 W, with higher power in some settings. A 100-W burner would take well over one hour to boil one quart (0.95 L) of water. For context, it would take its 2,000-W counterpart four minutes max.

So, yes, the “1 kWh for six hours' worth of cooking” claim is technically possible, but the flame would have to be really, really low. That meal that takes 30 minutes to cook on your standard induction burner? Get ready to wait at least 7.5 hours.

Regardless, it is quite an interesting technology with the potential for cleaner cooking.

Source: GreenVise via pv magazine

12 comments
12 comments
TechGazer
A good example of marketing misdirection.
Username
A 100w burner is useless. An open flame is less safe. An induction stove is clean and easier to clean.
jtgd
I suppose if solar powered then efficiency is less of a concern. The comparison should be, solar to H2 stored for later use, or solar to batteries for later use with induction. Hours of sun to heat generated.
Spud Murphy
This is idiotic, it takes a lot more energy to split the water than you get from burning the hydrogen, it would be much simpler to just use the electricity to do the heating. A classic example of someone coming up with an idea with no understanding of basic physics. Or, maybe, it really is just a scam for the hydrogen fools.
Techutante
I'm not sure how I feel about burning hydrogen while venting oxygen next to it
Parparanda
Pointless idea, unless you really really want to cook with gas. Much of the heat will be wasted in the combusted gas. I'm sure it will be less efficient use more electricity than just using an induction cooker.
PJ
Just looking at the pictures, I doubt that is a 100 watt burner. More likely it is a 1000 watt burner that can run on stored hydrogen at 1000 watts for 10 minutes or simmer at 100 watts for 6 hours. Or maybe it can run continuously at 100 watts if you continue to add water) The way the specs are expressed is confusing, but cooking a typical meal does not use 1000 watts per burner for over an hour.
SteveMc
Another money spinning gimmick for the easy-led. A standard dinner candle produces 60 watts of heat. You can buy a truckload for the same money that this costs. IF it was really efficient, everyone would already have one. I would however be interested to know if you recycled the water in the exhaust, you could self-fill it, right? The percentage of original water loss is around 1%, so hooked up to solar or hydro/wind, this could run indefinitely, with the very occasional top up of water.
rgbatduke
I''m glad you did the arithmetic in the article. Spared me the trouble. Also note that if you DO plan to use stored hydrogen you have to compress it to save it. Compression requires work. Work is energy. The work of compression is ultimately wasted as heat. I don't have the energy (cough cough) to work (cough) out how much energy you'd lose compressing 1 KWh of H2 at 60% efficiency to a volume of a liter or so in a small tank, but I'll bet it drops efficiency by a factor of 2. Then again, when you put a pot on top of a flame-based burner, only a fraction of the heat makes it into the pan to cook your food. Let's be generous and say half of it is actually delivered to food and you'd down to 15% efficiency, low compared to a straight up resistance hot plate. Also, to quote Gemini: "Induction stoves are highly efficient, with roughly 85% to 90% of the energy consumed transferred directly to the food, compared to roughly 74% for traditional electric and only 30% to 40% for gas". By this, knocking off ONLY 1/2 for gas flame is optimistic, especially given that the energy content of pure H2 is much less than natural gas and far lower than propane. You'd probably come out ahead if you used the H2 to run a fuel cell and the fuel cell to run an induction burner...
If you start with electricity, nothing touches an induction burner at ~90% efficiency. Resistance burners are next.
CraigAllenCorson
And what is the energy cost to provide the distilled or RO water? I saw no mention of that.
Load More