Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iron fuel shows its mettle

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 227 posts

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#161

Post by _hypx »

eddyzh wrote: post #152
scottLobster wrote: post #134

And just like articles about hydrogen, no mention of the extraction/distribution supply chains needed or the costs/emissions involved. Nope, just focus on our fancy (ZERO EMISSION) generator and ignore how the inputs are actually produced. It has the energy density of coal, only unlike coal it requires both mines as well as smelters/processing facilities to produce the iron powder. So this can only work if we build o…

It is not an energy source. It is a (battery) energy storage solution that can scale. Meant to support renewables use at night/ low sun/low wind periods. And not on hourly scale like normal batteries but on year scale on plant level. Like in an energy plant. That during the day when there Is surpluses they generate iron powder from ironoxide and cheap electricity. And when there is no surplus they burn the iron powde…

The problem is that that is the same idea that people are proposing with hydrogen energy storage systems. The difference is that hydrogen works a lot like natural gas. You can pipe it and fire up gas turbines with it. It is also useful as a chemical feedstock in many industrial processes. You can also use it to power vehicles, something that you probably can't with this idea.

So in other words, this is a really crappy version of something that already exists. I guess there are three takeaways to be had:

1) We still need large scale energy storage and it simply cannot just be a pile of batteries. It really needs to be a chemical system and it really has to be able to burn.

2) But that always takes you down one road: Hydrogen or something made from hydrogen. That's the only class of chemicals that really works and doesn't involve carbon. This causes a lot of conflict since it is definitely not many people's favored energy storage idea. And since so much FUD has been flung around for so long because of that, many people have become convinced that this inevitability is actually impossible.

3) So you usually end up with two alternative ideas: Something crazy like burning metals. I've heard of burning boron too BTW. This particular proposal is a continuation of that way of thinking. Probably they are all DOA ideas. And the other is something akin to linking all of the grids across world together with vast numbers of HVDC lines. But this too is crazy, especially once you realize the sheer cost and complexity of it all. Not to mention you are still wasting oodles of energy since you have minimal energy storage.

So eventually we end up in this cycle of one crazy idea being proposed after another, and nothing of importance actually being achieved.

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#162

Post by pixl97 »

13of40 wrote: post #51
thsksbd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iron oxide magnetic properties depend on its oxidation state, temperature and particle size.

Not sure why this is dead, but AFAIK magnetism in iron and steel is dependent on "domains" of iron molecules that are aligned in a crystal structure so the magnetic effect isn't just scattered to all directions. That's why some kinds of stainless steel aren't magnetic - the adulturant elements break up the crystal structure. In this case I think the question would be whether these particles are big enough to form a "…

If the output is iron oxide, no it is only very very weakly magnetic.

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#163

Post by lll-o-lll »

_hypx wrote: post #158
Tade0 wrote: post #50

> “Places that have excess energy could make iron, and others can buy it. This way, you could commodify renewable energy so it can be globally distributed without the need for transmission lines. Metals can solve a big problem in the renewable energy transition: long-duration energy storage.” My gut feeling is that transmission lines would still be cheaper. That being said long-term storage seems to be the value prop…

Pipelines of liquid or gaseous fuels is pretty much always going to be the cheapest solution for energy transmission. This fact will inevitably lead to people investing in some kind of green chemical. If not hydrogen, then likely something made from hydrogen like ammonia or methanol. It's not actually clear if transmission lines are cheaper. Ships and trains can carry a lot of mass. For an energy dense fuel, this can…

How many posts about hydrogen being the best and only hope have you made here?

I can’t recall it all now, but my understanding was that if you take the entire chain from production to storage to consumption of hydrogen, it’s pretty much an unworkable engineering problem. “The closest thing to a vacuum, other than a vacuum” was one memorable quote. Happy to be shown to be wrong.

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#164

Post by _hypx »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #163
_hypx wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pipelines of liquid or gaseous fuels is pretty much always going to be the cheapest solution for energy transmission. This fact will inevitably lead to people investing in some kind of green chemical. If not hydrogen, then likely something made from hydrogen like ammonia or methanol. It's not actually clear if transmission lines are cheaper. Ships and trains can carry a lot of mass. For an energy dense fuel, this can…

How many posts about hydrogen being the best and only hope have you made here? I can’t recall it all now, but my understanding was that if you take the entire chain from production to storage to consumption of hydrogen, it’s pretty much an unworkable engineering problem. “The closest thing to a vacuum, other than a vacuum” was one memorable quote. Happy to be shown to be wrong.

Because it is instrumental to solving to climate change. The better question is why are people unwilling to take the problem seriously?

Your understanding is the result of years of FUD against it. People really need to understand that they have been lied to repeatedly on this subject. If you have a basic grasp of engineering, you should understanding that it is literally made by running electricity through water. It is an incredible simple idea that you can even do at home. And since hydrogen is already being used in a vast number of industrial and chemical processes, it should be clear that there could not be any fundamental technical challenges that haven’t been solved.

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#165

Post by lll-o-lll »

balaga01 wrote: post #29
intothemild wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you could use renewables to make iron. But that thought process also extends to other methods too. You could use renewables to make other non renewable fuels. Why not just skip the middleman? Use renewables?

Well, it ties into the storage issue that we see with renewable. We still need energy when there is no wind at night. Burning iron at night and regenerating during the day could be a solution. It needs to prove that it can be competitive with the other methods (compressed air, li-ion batteries, flow batteries, molten salts, flywheels...).

Here’s an out of the box thought. Can we wrap the globe in undersea cables or does transmission losses kill the idea? Reason being that time zones and hemispheres make the “renewable is not always on” problem go away. It’s always on somewhere, so if there was a global grid you don’t really need storage?

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#166

Post by scottLobster »

wolverine876 wrote: post #150
scottLobster wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but from an emissions standpoint this is a bad idea too. You not going to create an emission-free iron mine/processing supply chain any time soon. This just moves the emissions up the chain and would take decades to build out. It might be just as bad as coal in terms of emissions at the end of the day, and marginally better at best. Solar, Wind, more/better batteries and nuclear are our best paths forward if w…

Then the issue is with the chemical engineers, who haven't learned the waste, counterproductiveness and foolishess of dismissing other ideas, viewpoints and people. It's a vicious cycle - it greatly limits their ability to learn what they don't already believe, or deal with challenges to their ideas. The only solution is to give no validity to such dismissals. I was taught that, in part, by a fed-up engineering profe…

Actually rejecting someone's perspective because they lack expertise in the thing they claim to be an expert in is a pretty smart thing to do. Particularly if you can explain why their perspective is wrong because you are in fact an expert and have superior knowledge.

I would hope Environmental Scientists, who are purportedly concerned with things like ocean acidity, pollution, atmospheric makeup, etc would have the chemical knowledge necessary to understand what they're looking at. Apparently whoever designed their curriculum at my almamater thought it was unnecessary.

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#167

Post by lll-o-lll »

_hypx wrote: post #164
lll-o-lll wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many posts about hydrogen being the best and only hope have you made here? I can’t recall it all now, but my understanding was that if you take the entire chain from production to storage to consumption of hydrogen, it’s pretty much an unworkable engineering problem. “The closest thing to a vacuum, other than a vacuum” was one memorable quote. Happy to be shown to be wrong.

Because it is instrumental to solving to climate change. The better question is why are people unwilling to take the problem seriously? Your understanding is the result of years of FUD against it. People really need to understand that they have been lied to repeatedly on this subject. If you have a basic grasp of engineering, you should understanding that it is literally made by running electricity through water. It…

Well, many years ago before I switched to software, I was an engineer in real life! Putting on the old dusty engineering cap, I have to say that your explanation there is so underwhelming as to make it hard to take you seriously. The information I have read on this has not been FUD. It’s been careful analysis by actual engineers with experience in the field. Something being “technically possible” is completely different to something being “economically feasible”. Sorry, if you want to make an argument, you’re going to have to do better than that.

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#168

Post by _hypx »

lll-o-lll wrote: post #167
_hypx wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is instrumental to solving to climate change. The better question is why are people unwilling to take the problem seriously? Your understanding is the result of years of FUD against it. People really need to understand that they have been lied to repeatedly on this subject. If you have a basic grasp of engineering, you should understanding that it is literally made by running electricity through water. It…

Well, many years ago before I switched to software, I was an engineer in real life! Putting on the old dusty engineering cap, I have to say that your explanation there is so underwhelming as to make it hard to take you seriously. The information I have read on this has not been FUD. It’s been careful analysis by actual engineers with experience in the field. Something being “technically possible” is completely differ…

Well even engineers can have seriously incorrect understanding of an issue, especially if it is many years out of date.

You’re argument seems to be based around economically feasibility, not technical issues, right? So then you will also agree that if green hydrogen radically dropped in cost, then you will agree that it will become a viable solution? Furthermore there will be subsidies going on, that will accelerate the process.

In fact, the problem might be that a combination of subsidies and cost reductions will drive the price to below $0/kg, causing market confusion:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...

That would be an interesting outcome and it will be interest to see how it ends up. But nevertheless, super-cheap green hydrogen should quickly refute the major arguments used against it. It is a process that mirrors what happened to wind and solar energy. They too have years of FUD followed by many skeptics who denied the possibility of cheap renewable energy. But that skepticism simply fell apart because basic economics overrule outdated opinions.

Re: Iron fuel shows its mettle

#169

Post by lll-o-lll »

_hypx wrote: post #168
lll-o-lll wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, many years ago before I switched to software, I was an engineer in real life! Putting on the old dusty engineering cap, I have to say that your explanation there is so underwhelming as to make it hard to take you seriously. The information I have read on this has not been FUD. It’s been careful analysis by actual engineers with experience in the field. Something being “technically possible” is completely differ…

Well even engineers can have seriously incorrect understanding of an issue, especially if it is many years out of date. You’re argument seems to be based around economically feasibility, not technical issues, right? So then you will also agree that if green hydrogen radically dropped in cost, then you will agree that it will become a viable solution? Furthermore there will be subsidies going on, that will accelerate…

> You’re argument seems to be based around economically feasibility, not technical issues, right?

Economic feasibility due to engineering problems. Just because something can be done in a lab does not mean it can be done at scale. As an example, Musk with his stupid hyper-loop. Sure it is technically possible to evacuate a tube and send a vehicle through it at high speeds. It will never be economically feasible, however. Sometimes the engineers just have to say “not going to work” to an otherwise cool idea.

It’s not the cost of hydrogen production. It’s the engineering problems that pervade the rest of the handling, storage and distribution of hydrogen that look to be insurmountable.

Post reply on HN