Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Dutch Brewery Burns Iron as a Clean, Recyclable Fuel (newatlas.com) 127

Many industries use heat-intensive processes that generally require the burning of fossil fuels, but a surprising green fuel alternative is emerging in the form of metal powders. Ground very fine, cheap iron powder burns readily at high temperatures, releasing energy as it oxidizes in a process that emits no carbon and produces easily collectable rust, or iron oxide, as its only emission. From a report: If burning metal powder as fuel sounds strange, the next part of the process will be even more surprising. That rust can be regenerated straight back into iron powder with the application of electricity, and if you do this using solar, wind or other zero-carbon power generation systems, you end up with a totally carbon-free cycle. The iron acts as a kind of clean battery for combustion processes, charging up via one of a number of means including electrolysis, and discharging in flames and heat. Recently, Swinkels Family Brewers in the Netherlands has become the first business in the world to put this process to work at an industrial scale. The company has been working with the Metal Power Consortium and researchers at TU Eindhoven to install a cyclical iron fuel system at its Brewery Bavaria that's capable of providing all the heat necessary for some 15 million glasses of beer a year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Brewery Burns Iron as a Clean, Recyclable Fuel

Comments Filter:
  • Rust bucket. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Ostracus ( 1354233 )

    Finally a way to burn our rusty vehicles.

  • Don't you need carbon to strip oxygen from iron oxide? Bauxite can be processed into aluminum but I didn't know it was possible with iron.

    • Using an electrolysis method for reducing iron oxide to iron metal has been in the works for about two decades at least.

      You can also use hydrogen to a reducing agent, which I believe is a slightly newer process than electrolysis.

      So no, you no longer need carbon to make iron - it can be an entirely green process powered by renewable energy.
      =Smidge=

      • Hydrogen as a reducing agent sounds like an invitation to a whole host of metallurgical problems, but I guess they worked out the kinks.

    • by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Thursday November 05, 2020 @02:02PM (#60688086)
      Most Iron oxide is reduced in Coke furnaces, but it can also be reduced via electrolysis. The latter is more expensive, but commonly done for e.g. tool steel where controlling the carbon content is critical. That's a thing to watch here, are they going to be green or just act green? This question extends to the power source for the electrolysis too. If it's powered by Coal or LNG it's just adding extra steps to make people feel good.
      • by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Thursday November 05, 2020 @02:53PM (#60688288)

        "If it's powered by Coal or LNG it's just adding extra steps to make people feel good."

        That isn't strictly speaking true. With that attitude you could never fix much of anything because you can rarely fix everything in a single step. There is definitely value in being green ready without regard for the fuel being used by the electricity producer.

        • No, their attitude is the correct one. We need to look at the whole chain and make sure that in the end we are not making things worse. We need to look at life-cycle CO2 production, not just individual steps.

          • No, their attitude is the correct one. We need to look at the whole chain and make sure that in the end we are not making things worse. We need to look at life-cycle CO2 production, not just individual steps.

            In the long run, yes. In the short run, if you have to build a new furnace and you can choose a system that can be powered by electricity or one that is powered by coke, it's better to choose the former even if right now your electricity comes from burning coal. It's easy to incrementally replace electrical power production with renewable sources.

          • We need to look at the whole chain

            Very few groups of people are in a position to control the whole chain. So it comes back to not, the attitude is not correct. You don't abandon the idea because your upstream part of the chain isn't ready for it. Just like you don't abandon an idea because the downstream part isn't. Otherwise we can argue about chickens and eggs until the cows come home.

      • by jabuzz ( 182671 )

        Controlling the carbon content in steel was the breakthrough that made the Bessemer process practical, patented by Robert Forester Mushet who sold it to Bessemer. Though these days in a further refinement you blow pure oxygen through the pig iron rather than air. Something that was not practical till the middle of the 20th century.

        You start of by removing *ALL* of the carbon then adding back what you need. As you blow oxygen through the molten pig iron you any residual carbon from the smelting process is tu

        • Why doesn't iron oxidize as well? It is molten hot anyway so it should be quite reactive. Or it is and it is forming slag which is later removed?

          • For almost all steelmaking the slag protects the melt pool from atmospheric oxygen. Oddly, you add additional oxygen (by bubbling) to reduce impurities. The oxygen preferentially combines/oxidizes with e.g. Carbon and it bubbles out of the melt pool or becomes part of the slag.

    • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      You normally have to use charcoal or bituminous coal, but if you dig down to the magma sea, or if you embark on a volcano so magma is available near the surface, then you can use a magma smelter to do it for free.

  • Iron Brew? (Score:5, Funny)

    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Thursday November 05, 2020 @01:47PM (#60688018)
    Won't the Scots sue for that?
  • Al might be even better. It is known as 'solidified electricity', and that electrical energy can be released later on by burning the powdered form.

    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      Drastically more expensive.

      • by vyvepe ( 809573 )

        Drastically more expensive.

        But not because of the aluminium ore cost. It is more expensive because of the required energy to refine it. If you want to use it for energy storing then it is a plus. Moreover it is lighter and therefore easier to transport

    • You can do Zinc and Iron electrolysis in an aqueous electrolyte, Aluminium not so much.

  • Save for the carbon output used to actually manufacture the renewable power system's materials...

  • Wasting 60% of energy doesn't seem like a great way to store or use it. I'm sure if you compared a carbon capture tech, it would come in well ahead of metal powder combustion. The other problem is mass Iron weighs much more than carbon or hydrogen and will cost more to transport. On top of that why they wouldn't just use an electric heater, which costs very little for transporting energy and doesn't incur a 60% loss is beyond me.

    • by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      Electric actually does a poor job for industrial purposes and when combined with renewable energy creates the need for the battery.

      • No it doesn't, especially in norway where they have a lot of hydroelectric they can adjust the amount of power with water storage. And batteries are way more efficent than burning metal. Metal is 40% round trip, batteries are 70% to 90% depending on the battery. So even batteries are more efficient then metal combustion.

        • Lithium batteries don't scale well, the cost and material use per TWh are both too large.

          A Zinc or Iron air battery which you can mechanically charge/discharge with metal oxide and metal might do better on both, albeit at lower round trip efficiency. For heating it might then be easier to just burn the metal.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It is actually not that bad. Pumped storage (the gold standard) is at 70% to 80%. Battery storage is a bit better but vastly more expensive. The really nice thing about this system is no storage losses, vast scalability and easy transport of the stored energy if you do not reduce the iron locally.

    • This would be true for a lot of applications, but not for a brewery.

      Breweries need a massive amount of power for short periods of time. Boiling is a very energy intense process, but they only do that for a couple hours a day, unless they're a giant macrobrewery.

      And a lot of small to medium sized breweries only brew a few times a week.

      So they have a lot of downtime in which to store power for the short, energy intense periods where they need it.

  • I know that writers try to make things relevant but why do they always come up with strange measurements with no frame of reference?

    I'd be curious to know how many BTUs (or other standard units) of heat is being produced - is this a process that might be practical for a house, a car or is it basically a candle?

  • Grinding up Iron so that's small like the article says takes energy, and I would imagine not an insignificant amount.
    • There are multiple industrial processes to produce metal powders, grinding is not one of them:

      o Atomization
      o Centrifugal atomization
      o Electrolysis
      o Chemical
      o Solid state reduction

      • Ball mill.

        • The methods I listed usually produce a powder that's quite pure, but ball mill works if you aren't that concerned about the produced powder being slightly contaminated by the balls wearing down.

          • What if the balls are iron too?

            • The balls are usually made of chrome steel (for durability reasons), which contains a lot of different elements which may not be what you want in the produced powder.

    • Missing the point.
      Energy efficiency is not it.
      Look at the sky. It's not like we're gonna use that fusion reactor up anytime soon.

      I think this non-argument was spread by the fossil fuel industry, to mislead and destroy.

  • That in theory high efficiency electrolysis is possible is nice, but unlike the iron burner I don't see any pictures of an electrolysis plant.

    Do they just use good old dirty reduction using coal to get back iron from the iron oxide?

    • Well guess which one some *Danes* might use, whose whole point os to become 'green', genius! :)

      This is not American culture, where it is expected to lie and cheat on ALL the things. ;)

  • 15 million glasses of beer...
  • My car has slowly been burning iron since 1979.

  • Stratospherically cool. It won't solve any energy problems, but it has the potential to contribute. Iron is very abundant, after all, but this demand may compete with industrial applications.
  • Iron ore has to be mined and purified.
    Anybody know a way to do that doesn't invole burning copious
    quantities of fossil fuel?

    Even if you recycle old car bodies, etc. that process
    will require energy.

    • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      dynamite and electicity?

    • Wat?

      The entire damn point here is that you re-use the iron, not mine it.

      And if you really need more, there nothing stopping you from mining it with electric machines. Or machines powered by iron oxyde turned into iron with solar power right outside the mine.

  • Why not go with aluminimimum instead? (Called 'lumnum in Cody's land. :)

    Still a quite good form of energy storage. Nice!

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Working...