Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

Calliban · 2020-01-16 11:20:57

The link below provides you with a good example of a hydrogen manufacture, storage and distribution system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas

Hydrogen as an energy carrier is not a new technology, but an old one. It worked in this case, because coal based energy was very cheap. It's only cost was the cost of digging it out of the ground. It was also stored and distributed at very low pressure as a room temperature gas, which made hazards associated with leakage much less severe. The solution here is not more technology and complexity, but simple systems. Back in the 1930s, there were even hydrogen powered cars.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11 … icles.html

A modern hydrogen based energy system would replicate this arrangement, but would replace the coal-gasifier with a bank of electrolysis cells. What's not to like? Well, even with very cheap coal, coal gas still had to be manufactured and that was capital intensive. Natural gas could be extracted from reservoirs deep underground with far less capital investment. It was also five times denser and could be pressurized, which allowed for far more compact piping networks. Natural gas was suitable for long-distance pipeline distribution, which would have been too expensive using hydrogen. A modern hydrogen system would have all of the same problems. But whereas coal was an inexpensive stored energy source provided by nature, electricity for electrolysis is something that must be generated and is far more costly in terms of both money and embodied energy.

The bottom line is that it is an energy sink. It takes a number of units of expensive electricity and spits out a smaller amount of heat or power at the end use. This makes it an expensive system that degrades EROI. An iron based energy storage system would have an even greater efficiency problem and it cannot be distributed in pipes.

I maintain that electricity is not cheap, simply because wind turbines produce an overabundance of it at specific times. The capital cost of the turbines does not change and the sale of all electricity has to cover those costs. Cheaper electricity at one time must be balanced by more expensive electricity at others. The total revenue must cover total costs.

Last edited by Calliban (2020-01-16 11:23:20)

tahanson43206 · 2020-01-16 11:25:24

Letter to the Editor of Analog Science Fact and Fiction:

Thank you for the current issue, and for ALL the issues over 90 years.
A new technology has shown up that I'm hoping one or more authors will enjoy exploiting.
The site to visit is SOLID, which is (apparently) reflective of a college student project that has evolved.
The concept is to use iron powder as an energy storage medium.
The energy storage capability is about 1/10 that of coal, but it has the distinct advantage it does NOT put carbon into the atmosphere.
Iron powder can be made from rust, which is the output of a powerplant which burns iron powder.
The wind turbines in the western US (and other similar locations around the world) can make iron powder from rust powder.
Because a likely mechanism for harnessing energy from iron powder is steam, it is feasible to power engines to move iron powder with steam.
The huge fleet of coal powered power plants in the US, China, India and many other countries can be converted to burn iron power with little effort compared to other changes that are possible, and there is NO solid residue accumulating to poison the neighbors.
Best wishes for continued success over the next 90 years!

Calliban · 2020-01-16 15:00:17

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Louis re #24
Hopefully your calm reply will help to put things back on track.
For Calliban ... this is just a judgement from watching for a while, but I ** think ** that Louis is a valuable part of the forum ecosystem precisely BECAUSE he is resistant to persuasion by logical argument. This pattern has resulted in amazing posts by knowledgeable folks such as yourself. All those posts remain available for review by new visitors to the forum for as many years as the Mars Society is willing to fund the servers.
Potentially, that could be a long time.
When you write, please write for the long term readers, who do not have your background and who will often be influenced one way or the other by your views. If you are overly pessimistic about a new technology, you might inadvertently steer folks away from learning about it, and discovering potential of which no one is aware.
I appreciate the fact you often include references in your posts, and I hope you will continue and perhaps even expand that practice a bit.
It seems to me that Louis often plays the role of a sparring partner for a professional boxer. The pro does not (usually) get mad at the sparring partner when he lands a punch.
If there is something about using iron as an energy carrier that you think violates the laws of physics, we need to know that right away.
If the discussion descends into opinion about sales prospects, when the potential of the technology is not yet known, all of us are on shaky ground.
In any case, thank YOU for your contributions in multiple topics.
And! Please keep your asteroid topic going! It is a topic you created, and one which I think has significant potential for development.
You can add to that topic for months without having to deal with feedback, and in doing so you'll be creating a series of nuggets of information which have the potential to be inspiring to future readers, some of whom may be able to build businesses folks of our generation can imagine but perhaps not realize.
(th)

Tahanson, you are correct of course. My apologies for my lack of patience. I am going to get a good night's sleep and try not to be such a grumpy old man tomorrow.

louis · 2020-01-16 16:01:59

You can't cover the capital cost of a turbine with electricity that gets earthed rather than being sold. It is the combination of using previously wasted energy and the added revenue that will come from making wind power non-intermittent as an overall system that potentially makes energy storage viable. Whether the energy storage system will be methane manufacture, pumped hydro, weighted systems, hydrogen manufacture, iron fuel, chemical batteries, or something else (like pumping water into disused oil and gas fields), remains to be seen. But I think we are getting much closer to a viable renewables-plus-energy storage system.

As for EROI, wind turbines have a working life of over 20 years but pay back the energy input within 8 months:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/16/ … -8-months/

So that's an EROI of x 30. No wonder, wind power is able to produce eletricity so cheaply now.

Whenever I read about hydrogen there seem to be comments suggested that pressurised storage is challenging and expensive. Splitting water to make hydrogen is such a straighforward technology that I think it must be the storage issues that are holding it back.

Calliban wrote:

The link below provides you with a good example of a hydrogen manufacture, storage and distribution system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas
Hydrogen as an energy carrier is not a new technology, but an old one. It worked in this case, because coal based energy was very cheap. It's only cost was the cost of digging it out of the ground. It was also stored and distributed at very low pressure as a room temperature gas, which made hazards associated with leakage much less severe. The solution here is not more technology and complexity, but simple systems. Back in the 1930s, there were even hydrogen powered cars.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11 … icles.html
A modern hydrogen based energy system would replicate this arrangement, but would replace the coal-gasifier with a bank of electrolysis cells. What's not to like? Well, even with very cheap coal, coal gas still had to be manufactured and that was capital intensive. Natural gas could be extracted from reservoirs deep underground with far less capital investment. It was also five times denser and could be pressurized, which allowed for far more compact piping networks. Natural gas was suitable for long-distance pipeline distribution, which would have been too expensive using hydrogen. A modern hydrogen system would have all of the same problems. But whereas coal was an inexpensive stored energy source provided by nature, electricity for electrolysis is something that must be generated and is far more costly in terms of both money and embodied energy.
The bottom line is that it is an energy sink. It takes a number of units of expensive electricity and spits out a smaller amount of heat or power at the end use. This makes it an expensive system that degrades EROI. An iron based energy storage system would have an even greater efficiency problem and it cannot be distributed in pipes.
I maintain that electricity is not cheap, simply because wind turbines produce an overabundance of it at specific times. The capital cost of the turbines does not change and the sale of all electricity has to cover those costs. Cheaper electricity at one time must be balanced by more expensive electricity at others. The total revenue must cover total costs.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-16 16:58:34

Whether the energy comes form hydro, solar, chemical, wind the issue is there is always a time when the outpout falls short of the deliverable of said energy that is purchased by contracts to the grid supplier. The net effect is that no one source will give more energy than the contract words are saying that the grid is willing to purchase. That is why the electric compnies are buying from all of these sources and if you are under or over estimating the level of output there is nothing you can do as the provider of the power can do if you are not disconnecting from the grid once the contractual amount has been produced.

Then at that point and only are you the energy creator able to do something with your power. If its excess then you are trying to bank that energy in what ever means possible for later supply to the grid for when your next contract amount starts. So yes storing that excess by the provider is the only way that it makes it worth the effort but only if that storage method does not cost more than the supplying of it back to the grid later for what you would be paid for with regards to that energy.

So if it costs you x amount but the releasal of that storage back to the grid later is paid to you at a rate that earns you less than the cost to store it you are lossing money.

There is no free energy on the grid to which all connect to other than before for that connection point for the creator as the consumer is after and you are going to recieve a bill....

So the means to store and all associated equipment becomes the portion of the pay down or back for making the means as does any investment. Its the back back rate which relates to the store efficiency. With the whole means to this is to counter when the creators energy sources are to low to meet the contract value. Its when the storage amount needs to be great for the duration required for ever how long it takes for normal levels of energy to get back to contract levels such that you can get paid.

louis · 2020-01-16 18:01:23

In a country like the UK, you probably have to store only about 2% of the equivalent of the annual electricity output (at any one time), in order to completely overcome the intermittency issue. The figure might vary from one country to another of course, but I think that would cover the worst case scenarios in the UK.

You can't easily separate the cost of storage from the costs of the overall system in a renewables-plus-storage system...you really have to look at the overall income-cost balance. Yes, storage itself viewed in isolation can be seen as expensive. But we know already that some renewables energy contracts in some parts of the world are going as low as around 2 cents per KwH. In other words, they are undercutting even natural gas. But of course what they don't deliver is reliable 24/7 energy. If they could, then their revenue will rise across the board.

Let's look at a future scenario: suppose 90% of your electricity comes directly from renewables at 1.8 cents per KwHe and 10% comes from a storage system at an expensive 12 cents per KwHe, that would give you an overall average price of 2.8 cents per KwHe - still very cheap but it's also delivering a secure electricity supply (that enriches your domestic economy, rather than foreign potentates), while also improving air quality, reducing carbon emissions and improving your balance of trade. This is a very attractive package.

For me, iron fuel - though at an early stage - is looking good.

SpaceNut wrote:

Whether the energy comes form hydro, solar, chemical, wind the issue is there is always a time when the outpout falls short of the deliverable of said energy that is purchased by contracts to the grid supplier. The net effect is that no one source will give more energy than the contract words are saying that the grid is willing to purchase. That is why the electric compnies are buying from all of these sources and if you are under or over estimating the level of output there is nothing you can do as the provider of the power can do if you are not disconnecting from the grid once the contractual amount has been produced.
Then at that point and only are you the energy creator able to do something with your power. If its excess then you are trying to bank that energy in what ever means possible for later supply to the grid for when your next contract amount starts. So yes storing that excess by the provider is the only way that it makes it worth the effort but only if that storage method does not cost more than the supplying of it back to the grid later for what you would be paid for with regards to that energy.
So if it costs you x amount but the releasal of that storage back to the grid later is paid to you at a rate that earns you less than the cost to store it you are lossing money.
There is no free energy on the grid to which all connect to other than before for that connection point for the creator as the consumer is after and you are going to recieve a bill....
So the means to store and all associated equipment becomes the portion of the pay down or back for making the means as does any investment. Its the back back rate which relates to the store efficiency. With the whole means to this is to counter when the creators energy sources are to low to meet the contract value. Its when the storage amount needs to be great for the duration required for ever how long it takes for normal levels of energy to get back to contract levels such that you can get paid.

Last edited by louis (2020-01-16 19:32:50)

SpaceNut · 2020-01-16 18:48:56

Search is on for young space entrepreneurs across the UK

Calliban · 2020-01-18 15:39:59

EROI for real wind systems is closer to 20, but may be much higher for kite power concepts.
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss … eprint.pdf
http://euanmearns.com/the-eroei-of-high … ind-power/

But as Weisbach's study indicates, EROI falls off a cliff as soon as measures intended to deal with intermittency are introduced. Maybe kite power will have a high enough EROI to get past this limitation. But conventional wind does not.

Interesting question though: Could kite power work on Mars? We could potentially bring the kites down during dust storms.

louis · 2020-01-18 16:16:47

Wind force is very low on Mars - about 5% for equivalent wind speeds IIRC, so not a very potent source of energy compared with solar at around 40% of the equivalent on Earth. I doubt kites would work very effectively on Mars, but they say airships would be possible, so I guess they are not impossible.

Calliban wrote:

EROI for real wind systems is closer to 20, but may be much higher for kite power concepts.
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss … eprint.pdf
http://euanmearns.com/the-eroei-of-high … ind-power/
But as Weisbach's study indicates, EROI falls off a cliff as soon as measures intended to deal with intermittency are introduced. Maybe kite power will have a high enough EROI to get past this limitation. But conventional wind does not.
Interesting question though: Could kite power work on Mars? We could potentially bring the kites down during dust storms.

kbd512 · 2020-01-18 16:55:24

If you keep the solar panels in orbit, then you get 12 hours of full Sun every day, no exceptions, and never have to worry about dust affecting panel output. The solar powered satellites in orbit around Mars, such as MRO, have lived through the entire life cycle of multiple solar powered rovers we sent to the surface. Despite the high radiation environment, it would seem that solar panels in orbit will still be producing output long after the radios and computers have died as well as anything solar powered on the surface that has been killed by the fine abrasive dust that sticks to everything like glue. A surface antenna array, especially if made from doped CNT, despite its size, weighs practically nothing compared to any other energy solution, including nuclear power.

louis · 2020-01-18 19:03:59

Last time I looked I think the maximum range achieved was about 1 Km...It will be the perfect technology for Mars, much more so than Earth but I don't think we are anywhere near an effective technology yet, are we?

kbd512 wrote:

If you keep the solar panels in orbit, then you get 12 hours of full Sun every day, no exceptions, and never have to worry about dust affecting panel output. The solar powered satellites in orbit around Mars, such as MRO, have lived through the entire life cycle of multiple solar powered rovers we sent to the surface. Despite the high radiation environment, it would seem that solar panels in orbit will still be producing output long after the radios and computers have died as well as anything solar powered on the surface that has been killed by the fine abrasive dust that sticks to everything like glue. A surface antenna array, especially if made from doped CNT, despite its size, weighs practically nothing compared to any other energy solution, including nuclear power.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-26 20:05:02

Here is another Iron - the natural fuel for Mars?

tahanson43206 · 2020-01-26 21:00:40

For SpaceNut re #37

You have discovered Louis repeating himself.

The link in #37 goes back to Louis talking about exactly THE SAME topic in 2017.

However, I'll admit that the topic has lasted longer this time around.

(th)

Last edited by tahanson43206 (2020-01-26 21:04:41)

louis · 2020-01-27 04:34:56

Yes, I've known about metals as fuel for a few years now. This difference this time round was that a demonstration project was being taken forward to a proof of concept stage.

tahanson43206 wrote:

For SpaceNut re #37
You have discovered Louis repeating himself.
The link in #37 goes back to Louis talking about exactly THE SAME topic in 2017.
However, I'll admit that the topic has lasted longer this time around.
(th)

tahanson43206 · 2020-01-27 06:48:06

For Louis re #39

Thank you for noting your having created a new topic instead of continuing the older one.

I am hoping you will check in with the iron-as-storage folks frequently, and post updates as they advance in their quest. When I took a look at their web site, I found that they've been working hard to find investors willing to try the concept, and have at least one small scale project underway.

As reported earlier in this topic, I see significant advantages to use of iron as an energy storage medium, with the only disadvantage I've found so far being the volume difference which arises from the 10 to 1 energy content as compared to coal. The advantages of cycling iron instead of carbon appear to me to be well worth considering as justification for converting all existing coal powered electric plants as rapidly as practical.

Another (potential) benefit is that the highly refined iron needed for this energy storage system is ** always ** then available for emergency supply of high quality iron for a national need that might occur.

Another significant benefit is that reserves of coal and oil presently used for combustion to make energy are left available for more worthy uses, such as lubrication in the case of oil, or any number of useful products in the case of coal.

Another benefit is the increase of steady employment that might reasonably be expected by a reduction of energy content of fuel used for major electricity production facilities. In the age of advancing robotic manufacturing, this would be a social policy that would/should yield respectable full time employment for citizens of the many countries who currently use coal.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2020-01-27 08:20:14

The continuing to create new topics is why we lose the originals and why they languish untalked of.
Since the merge topics function was not carried forward we tend to lose important data for use in the current most up todate conversations.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2020-01-16 11:20:57

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#27 2020-01-16 11:25:24

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#28 2020-01-16 15:00:17

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#29 2020-01-16 16:01:59

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#30 2020-01-16 16:58:34

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#31 2020-01-16 18:01:23

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#32 2020-01-16 18:48:56

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#33 2020-01-18 15:39:59

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#34 2020-01-18 16:16:47

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#35 2020-01-18 16:55:24

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#36 2020-01-18 19:03:59

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#37 2020-01-26 20:05:02

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#38 2020-01-26 21:00:40

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#39 2020-01-27 04:34:56

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#40 2020-01-27 06:48:06

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

#41 2020-01-27 08:20:14

Re: Iron fuel energy storage (to support renewables)

Board footer