11
Iron-to-rust cycle tapped by scientists for safe renewable energy transport
(interestingengineering.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
11 points (100.0% liked)
Hydrogen
698 readers
12 users here now
A community about hydrogen and its use as a way to fight climate change.
Rules
- All posts must be about hydrogen, fuel cells, or a related topic.
- Posters that only attack hydrogen will not be tolerated.
This community has been migrated from:
fedia.io/m/hydrogen
fedia.io/m/hydrogen@kbin.social(Original server is defunct)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It would probably be more efficient to make synthetic fuels powered by nuclear directly from CO2 and hydrolyzed water if you need petroleum energy density and long term stability. I bet iron powder burners would work best for stationary power like a water tube boiler. I can't imagine running a ICE off of it since yaknow, you're sandblasting every precision internal component with fine iron dust and rust. I can't imagine it lasting a long time...
The existing nuclear infrastructure has its own issues, like long term waste management. My understanding is that long lived isotopes can be burned as fuel in fast breeder reactors, and the waste from those is safe in 100 years. Every nuclear power plant having enough cooling pools for 100 years worth of spent fuel is a manageable problem. But I've read that somewhere in that cycle some pretty nasty stuff gets generated & if it were stolen it could be used to make a potent radiological weapon. I think that's why building the things has been a non-starter in USA - we've been in a cold Civil War for the last 161 years, and I think MAGA would do a nuclear terrorism if we gave them the opportunity.
But yeah, iron powder is a drop in replacement for coal in stationary, utility scale electrical generation.
Iron powder is easier to transport than hydrogen. Hydrogen needs high pressure, cryogenically cooled tanks. It turns any metal it touches brittle. And it boils off over time, losing some of its energy value during transport and storage.
Iron powder is safer and cheaper to transport than ammonia, which also needs a pressurized tank and would be a major disaster if it spilled. Reprocessing rust back into iron using hydrogen is also orders of magnitude more efficient than converting hydrogen into ammonia.
All iron powder needs for transport is a shipping container full of nitrogen gas, with a rubber gasket to keep it somewhat air tight. If it spills its just a pile of rocks.
And if the source of renewable energy is co-located with the electrolysis plant, the rust recharging plant, and the thermal power plant, the cycle's excess O2 from electrolysis and nitrogen gas production can be pumped into the burner of the power plant, increasing efficiency and eliminating nitric acid pollution.
Nuclear was perfectly correlated with demand for weapons grade material. Historically the only reason nuclear was allowed to even exist as an option for power was for national security reasons. There's no way in hell they would have been allowed to take away free rents from the coal and gas lobbies in the US otherwise...
That's the political and incentive reason they were originally built and why we don't have more nuclear after the USSR collapsed (minus the time lag between when projects were approved and when they were completed.)
However there's a lot of issues with iron powder that aren't being addressed here. Milling energy to get the particle size you want is not trivial. A good example is powderized coal power plants which mill lump coal of various sizes down to 75μm or less. Coal is a hell of a lot softer than steel and they still can spend upwards of 10% of the power plant's energy output just milling their fuel in the worst case. Typically it's a lot lower around 1-3% of the plant's energy output. But we're talking about coal the milling energy to take molten iron castings and grind them down into powder that burns fast enough to fire well in a water tube boiler is not trivial.
And then there's the fact that you're probably going to be using a ball mill to grind it. What grinding media do you use then? Normally you use steel balls but if you're grinding iron down that's going to wear your media out extremely fast and spike your grinding energy needs massively. The unfortunate part here is you end up with either exotic and expensive materials in order to grind iron at this scale or you end up with huge maintenance and energy bills. That's what it seems like to me.
At about 50 kWh of electricity per kg of compressed electrolytic hydrogen, the hydrogen alone costs:
0.055 kg H₂/kg Fe × 50 kWh/kg H₂
≈ 2.75 kWh electricity/kg iron
That is already more electrical input than the iron later releases as heat:
Input to make H₂: ~2.75 kWh/kg Fe
Heat from burning Fe: ~2.05 kWh/kg Fe
More importantly, if we're going to use a metal powder as an energy store why not use aluminum? It burns hotter than iron and carries more energy per kg (it is lighter so the volumetric energy is probably similar) but you can infinitely regenerate aluminum oxide with electrical refining. You take your ash and use electricity to regenerate your energy store. No hydrogen needed (which you probably need to make with electricity anyways...) so your loop efficiency would be a lot higher.
The whole mass of iron powder does not need to be re-ground after every use. From what I've read so far, about half a percent experiences sintering and needs to be re-ground, and another half a percent breaks down into too fine of dust and needs to be filtered out of the exhaust, sintered, and then reground. The efficiency penalty of reprocessing the fuel is about 0.1% - 1 kWh of reprocessing for every 1 MWh of generation.
Ok so aluminum is still a better candidate than iron powder since it doesn't use hydrogen. I know I'm in the hydrogen sublemmy arguing against the use of hydrogen here, but green hydrogen uses a ton of electricity and it's an extra step that costs some energy efficiency, so why not cut out the need for green hydrogen and use electricity directly to smelt aluminum oxide into aluminum metal?
Aluminum carries 31MJ/kg of energy vs irons 7MJ/kg.
They also don't address how the iron oxide is reduced back it iron metal. I'm assuming they use DRI for that (Direct Reduced Iron) where you pelletized the oxide and pass hot hydrogen over it in an oven. You still need to sinter the pellets to allow for optimal gas contact around each pellet along with internal gas passage, which means you do need to grind it down after you reduce it back to metal. I don't know where your numbers are coming from.
Where did you find info on reducing a iron oxide powder without sintering directly? Is that a fluidized bed process? AFAIK there's either DRI pellets, or you do a vortex lance method the Chinese pioneered but that produces liquid iron and liquid slag.
Source for claim of 1% mass loss per cycle:
https://research.tue.nl/en/publications/combustion-of-micron-sized-iron-particles-in-a-drop-tube-reactor/
I think the deciding factor between iron and aluminum comes down to exhaust filtration.
Iron oxide in the exhaust can be collected cheaply with a combination of centrifugal and electrostatic forces and it tends to retain is grain size. Aluminum oxide is lighter, more electrically resistive, and tends to break down into too-small nanoparticles.
Yeah, you'd only need to sinter pellets to pump hydrogen through them in a static pile. A fluidized bed reactor can reduce the iron oxide powder as is, and keeping the temperature lower prevents sticky sintering at the cost of taking longer to complete.
That source only covers losses due to iron evaporation during combustion, it doesn't cover reduction losses back into iron or what the regenerated iron's particle size is, which tells us what milling energy is needed to get back down to sub micron iron. That's the inefficient part of the energy loop, along with reduction efficiency with green hydrogen.
You need to understand that whatever method is being used for reducing your powder back into iron metal is going to be a mature technology already used for steelmaking. If green energy scientists somehow found a new method for reducing iron into metal it would be global breaking news in the steelmaking industry. That's the extraordinary claim you need to support with sources: how it gets regenerated and at what efficiency, does it need to be milled and to what starting and finishing particle size, consuming what energy, CAPEX, and OPEX? What's the total loop efficiency?
I really think the overall efficiency is going to be terribly low once you do the math on all steps in the cycle...