5 ms·

1. Iron is heavy -- This means it costs more to transport iron fuel, compared to lighter fuels like methane, propane, or butane (aka: gasoline). 2. Iron is den

1. Iron is heavy -- This means it costs more to transport iron fuel, compared to lighter fuels like methane, propane, or butane (aka: gasoline). 2. Iron is dense -- ?? Not discussed in the webpage. But something like Hydrogen (despite being very light) takes up a lot of space. Hydrogen is so light that its volume becomes a problem. Iron does seem to solve that issue at least. 3. Iron is renewable -- Iron turns into Rust, and the rust can turn back into Iron easily. This makes Iron more comparable to Redox-flow batteries or Hydrogen. ---------- Funny thing is: I was just discussing with someone else in my social circles about how Iron/Rust is exactly the same process as battery-chemistries. Just... worse. Iron-electricity has less voltage than Li-ion or Zinc, or other elements. But the Iron -> Rust -> Iron process is a well known process for "storing energy". We just usually don't care about the energy storage part, and more about the physical properties of Iron, and preventing it from turning into Rust (which is weaker, redder, more stains, etc. etc.). Experimenting with Iron-based energy storage seems like it'd be destined for failure? Its one of the oldest elements and the chemical process has been known for a while. However, the only way to be sure that its a bad idea is to try it. So we should experiment with it, at least a little bit, to really make sure that we didn't miss anything here. Iron is a hugely abundant element after all... if at all else, it can be used as a "cheap" energy storage mechanism as opposed to a "quality" energy storage mechanism. After all, a lot of our energy is just wasted (ex: Solar Panels during the peak days just turn off). Instead of turning off solar panels when the grid is overloaded, maybe store the excess electricity in cheap iron? 40% round-trip efficiency is still better than 0%.

deltaonefour 5y ago
The overall solution to our energy problems is not singular. From what I'm seeing no single technology can replace our current energy infrastructure. It must be a multi-pronged approach with different technologies supporting each other. I envision iron to be one component of a complicated green energy future if such a future even possible as many sources day it's too late.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  We will end up with a few best-favored systems, after a wide variety are tried. Odds-on favorites include hydrogen synthesis, ammonia synthesis, pumped hydro (up hills and up out of underground cavities), liquified air, and various battery technologies. But there will without doubt be some surprise break-outs, and maybe surprise duds.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    Doubtful. Every system will have huge downsides. And thus all systems will have to be utilized in conjunction and even then none of it will beat the convenience of cheap oil. Unless a few miracle technologies like fusion make it out of the speculation stage, the future is not just a patchwork of all kinds of energy scavenging green technology, but a future of energy conservation where people are reluctant to drive a car because it eats into their life savings.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      The only "huge downside" of any tech listed is low-ish round-trip efficiency, somewhat limited material resource for some battery chemistries, or somewhat limited geographical placement for some tech. But round-trip efficiency doesn't matter much, given top-line electrical abundance from epochally cheap solar, wind, and maybe geothermal generation. Geographical placement doesn't matter much, given grid distribution. Battery technologies will yield to better ones. Cost for every kind of storage will only ever decline, and efficiency at every stage will only ever improve. So, it will come down to cost and value: i.e., what do the batteries or the synthesis and draw-down equipment cost (tankage is always cheap), and what is the industrial value of excess synthetic output after local tankage is full? Cost for every energy use will be substantially lower than today, as each provider competes to deliver from unlimited energy sources more cheaply than the others. Nukes and fossil fuel have already been priced out of the market.
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        Not true. At all. Fossil fuels represents the accumulation of green energy reserves over millions of years. We cannot beat that with the green energy of just today or tomorrow. Whatever green future awaits us, it will be much less convenient then the days of the past.
dv_dt 5y ago
Re: the heavy, For vehicle applications where power/weight is more important, iron based processes are maybe not as viable, but I would think the Iron is mostly being considered for grid or industrial storage.
jacquesm 5y ago
They way I understand it this is used as a cycle so it won't be transported other than during the initial construction of the plant. There are some properties here that are interesting (see other comment in this thread) and that may make this into a viable technology for specific applications.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nmasse-itix 5y ago
Is the 40% an estimation from your side ? I could not find the efficiency numbers on the official webpage...
- dragontamer 5y ago
  No, its not an estimation at all. I'm just grabbing a random number. Basically, it doesn't matter how well it performs because the current "solution" is just wasting energy at peak periods on the grid right now.
tzs 5y ago
They are aiming at heavy industry use where weight should't be a problem. From the site: > A detrimental side of iron fuel that it has a relatively low specific energy density. Therefore, it cannot be used in applications in which weight is of importance such as cars, trucks and planes. Also, it can only be transported in an economic manner by ship or train. However, most of the heavy industries are located on railways or waterways. Therefore, iron fuel is applicable to those industries.
- cogman10 5y ago
  They say "heavy industry" but the site is devoid of any examples of WHAT industry would actually use this. The question to ask is "where could you use this that you couldn't also use electric heaters and/or batteries". Seems like a similar scam to "gravity batteries". It may work but alternatives are likely cheaper, lighter, and more readily available.

deltaonefour 5y ago

The overall solution to our energy problems is not singular. From what I'm seeing no single technology can replace our current energy infrastructure. It must be a multi-pronged approach with different technologies supporting each other. I envision iron to be one component of a complicated green energy future if such a future even possible as many sources day it's too late.

ncmncm 5y ago
We will end up with a few best-favored systems, after a wide variety are tried. Odds-on favorites include hydrogen synthesis, ammonia synthesis, pumped hydro (up hills and up out of underground cavities), liquified air, and various battery technologies. But there will without doubt be some surprise break-outs, and maybe surprise duds.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Doubtful. Every system will have huge downsides. And thus all systems will have to be utilized in conjunction and even then none of it will beat the convenience of cheap oil. Unless a few miracle technologies like fusion make it out of the speculation stage, the future is not just a patchwork of all kinds of energy scavenging green technology, but a future of energy conservation where people are reluctant to drive a car because it eats into their life savings.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The only "huge downside" of any tech listed is low-ish round-trip efficiency, somewhat limited material resource for some battery chemistries, or somewhat limited geographical placement for some tech. But round-trip efficiency doesn't matter much, given top-line electrical abundance from epochally cheap solar, wind, and maybe geothermal generation. Geographical placement doesn't matter much, given grid distribution. Battery technologies will yield to better ones. Cost for every kind of storage will only ever decline, and efficiency at every stage will only ever improve. So, it will come down to cost and value: i.e., what do the batteries or the synthesis and draw-down equipment cost (tankage is always cheap), and what is the industrial value of excess synthetic output after local tankage is full? Cost for every energy use will be substantially lower than today, as each provider competes to deliver from unlimited energy sources more cheaply than the others. Nukes and fossil fuel have already been priced out of the market.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      Not true. At all. Fossil fuels represents the accumulation of green energy reserves over millions of years. We cannot beat that with the green energy of just today or tomorrow. Whatever green future awaits us, it will be much less convenient then the days of the past.

dv_dt 5y ago

Re: the heavy, For vehicle applications where power/weight is more important, iron based processes are maybe not as viable, but I would think the Iron is mostly being considered for grid or industrial storage.

jacquesm 5y ago

They way I understand it this is used as a cycle so it won't be transported other than during the initial construction of the plant. There are some properties here that are interesting (see other comment in this thread) and that may make this into a viable technology for specific applications.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nmasse-itix 5y ago

Is the 40% an estimation from your side ? I could not find the efficiency numbers on the official webpage...

dragontamer 5y ago
No, its not an estimation at all. I'm just grabbing a random number. Basically, it doesn't matter how well it performs because the current "solution" is just wasting energy at peak periods on the grid right now.

tzs 5y ago

They are aiming at heavy industry use where weight should't be a problem. From the site: > A detrimental side of iron fuel that it has a relatively low specific energy density. Therefore, it cannot be used in applications in which weight is of importance such as cars, trucks and planes. Also, it can only be transported in an economic manner by ship or train. However, most of the heavy industries are located on railways or waterways. Therefore, iron fuel is applicable to those industries.

cogman10 5y ago
They say "heavy industry" but the site is devoid of any examples of WHAT industry would actually use this. The question to ask is "where could you use this that you couldn't also use electric heaters and/or batteries". Seems like a similar scam to "gravity batteries". It may work but alternatives are likely cheaper, lighter, and more readily available.