But Would It Cause Mad Car Disease?

“Scrapyards full of old cars could become fuel for the vehicles of tomorrow."

You can't read this article without subscribing to The New Scientist, but both environmentalists and investors might want to do just that. Here's a summary from the e-mail newsletter of Unknowncountry.com:

Astonishing New Fuel Could Replace Oil

The New Scientist reports on a new fuel that could finally free us from our catastrophic dependence on oil and lead to economical pollution free driving.

The astonishing thing is that this new fuel is not a gas or a liquid, but a metal--iron. That's right, ordinary iron can be made into an excellent fuel capable of powering internal combustion engines with no residue and no pollution.

This can be accomplished because of a new process that pulverizes the metal into nanoparticles, which release more energy than gasoline when heated, leave no residue and, incredibly, can be reused.

David Beach, a researcher at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has come up with the new process, which is probably the most promising solution to the oil crisis so far. There are problems to be worked out, but they are far less of a challenge than those involving hydrogen fuel cells.

UPDATE: I suspected there'd be a way to read this for free online, and in the Comments, Sleipner found it. It is fascinating -- it explains why nanoparticles behave very differently from larger iron powder particles (much greater surface-to-volume ratio), and thereby overcome the insurmountable problems that confronted earlier attempts to burn iron powder as fuel -- the dangerously high temperatures that were needed (nanopowder will burn at just 250 degrees), and the engine-clogging ash that was left over from its oxidation. Not only do nanoparticles burn cool and clean -- they really can be recycled. And iron fuel can be stored and transported safely, unlike highly pressurized and flammable hydrogen.

A lot more work (detailed in the article) needs to be done to develop an engine that can run on iron, but in principle it can be done. Beach and colleagues haven't yet analyzed whether the manufacture, delivery and recycling of iron fuel could be cost-effective. The biggest drawback, though, is the sheer weight of the stuff (it gives a whole new meaning to the expression "pumping iron"):

A tank of fuel would weigh about 100 kilograms - more than twice as heavy as the petrol it replaces. And because the spent fuel is kept on board, unlike the polluting by-products of conventional fuel, this weight won't decrease as you drive - you must always lug the full load around. The weight of fuel will also add to the cost of shipping it back and forth to recycling facilities.

Iron isn't the only metal that can be burned as a fuel. Aluminum and boron are much lighter and more energy-dense, but also far more expensive. It remains to be seen whether ingenuity can overcome the challenges posed by making fuel from iron. Toronto science writer Kurt Kleiner ends his article:

[W]hatever happens, Beach's remarkable idea does raise one interesting possibility. In the past, energy magnates have earned billions from coal, oil and gas fields. In the future, they could grow rich from scrapyards full of yesterday's cars, by transforming them into fuel for the vehicles of tomorrow.

Comments

[sleipner]

Very interesting, looks like it has some promise but it's still in the fairly early developmental stages.

More of the article can be found at:

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14001

[amba]

Thanks, Sleipner -- I was pretty sure that would be online for free somewhere, but I couldn't find it.

[sleipner]

Google strikes again - I just looked up the guy's name & college and voila, there he was.

[amba]

Oho! The fine art of Googling. I just put in his name, so I got every Dave Beach on the planet.

[sleipner]

I was thinking about the cost problem with Aluminum and Boron and realized...if you have near 100% recycling, the cost doesn't really matter, does it? It becomes a one-time up-front expense, and if it saves you a hundred pounds accelerated and decelerated thousands of times, it will easily pay for itself in the long run.

Since I'm a motorcycle rider I'm guessing that this type of engine might be problematic for us...