Metal powered cars.

[Glaucus]

http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article.aspx?id=10663&vf=7&bg=27&pp=0


Now this to me, sounds like the perfect alternative to petrol. Can run in normal engines witha few modifications, the fuel is reusable. Its totaly clean/ Infact the only down side I can see is *** weight (for iron anyway) the fuel would way about 100kilos, however would we mind lumping taht around in a 1-2tonne car...

Hydrogen sounds good but in practice isn't really taht good with storage and production problems. Where this is easy, everythign about it screams that it could suceed..

What you guys think..

 

[SourChipmunk]

Hydrogen sounds good but in practice isn't really taht good with storage and production problems. Where this is easy, everythign about it screams that it could suceed...

The only thing I've heard about hydrogen is a problem with the exhaust. In normal testing the byproduct is water (awesome!), but what happens to water in cold-weather climates?

 

[Glaucus]

The only thing I've heard about hydrogen is a problem with the exhaust. In normal testing the byproduct is water (awesome!), but what happens to water cold-weather climates?

theres a big problem with storage as well. and production currently uses fossile fuels. And yes as water is 100X more powerfull a greenhouse gas as co2 it might be worse than petrol.

 

[Sanzy]

i think this could very well work metal powered cars for the win!!

 

[Cold_And_Miserable]

I strongly disagree for one very obvious reason above all. The articles suggests the use of powdered metals such as iron or aluminium of nanometre sizes.
(1) Pyromaniacs would kill to get hold of nanometre aluminium powders and the UK would be very dangerous with so much easily available flash powder around.
(2) Micron size aluminium powder is EXPENSIVE, nanometre size aluminium will also be expensive. We're talking double figures for 1Kg.
(3) You need energy to extract aluminium, so CO2 is produced anyway.
(4) You need even more energy to mill the aluminium into nano grade powder.
(5) To make the fuel you would need 3 processes, power production by burning coal, aluminium extraction by possibly reduction (since the carbides wouldn't be a problem), then milling. In contrast hydrogen requires just 1 process, turning water into steam at high temperatures in the presence of a catalyst to split it into hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[Glaucus]

how about iron or boron though?

 

[Zip]

I strongly disagree for one very obvious reason above all. The articles suggests the use of powdered metals such as iron or aluminium of nanometre sizes.
(1) Pyromaniacs would kill to get hold of nanometre aluminium powders and the UK would be very dangerous with so much easily available flash powder around.
(2) Micron size aluminium powder is EXPENSIVE, nanometre size aluminium will also be expensive. We're talking double figures for 1Kg.
(3) You need energy to extract aluminium, so CO2 is produced anyway.
(4) You need even more energy to mill the aluminium into nano grade powder.
(5) To make the fuel you would need 3 processes, power production by burning coal, aluminium extraction by possibly reduction (since the carbides wouldn't be a problem), then milling. In contrast hydrogen requires just 1 process, turning water into steam at high temperatures in the presence of a catalyst to split it into hydrogen and oxygen.

What about other metles? Would they all be the same?

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

(2) Micron size aluminium powder is EXPENSIVE, nanometre size aluminium will also be expensive. We're talking double figures for 1Kg.

(2) Surely, if the Nanometre metal powder is used a sthe main power source for cars worldwide, then economies of scale will bring that cost right down?

Edit: (4) Irrelivant really, as oil and petrol as we use in our cars now requires extensive processing before we bung it in our engines.

 

[cleanbluesky]

(1) Pyromaniacs would kill to get hold of nanometre aluminium powders and the UK would be very dangerous with so much easily available flash powder around.

Whereas petrol is no use to them?

<snip>

I consider the rest of your ponits to be valid

 

[Sanzy]

I strongly disagree for one very obvious reason above all. The articles suggests the use of powdered metals such as iron or aluminium of nanometre sizes.
(1) Pyromaniacs would kill to get hold of nanometre aluminium powders and the UK would be very dangerous with so much easily available flash powder around.
(2) Micron size aluminium powder is EXPENSIVE, nanometre size aluminium will also be expensive. We're talking double figures for 1Kg.
(3) You need energy to extract aluminium, so CO2 is produced anyway.
(4) You need even more energy to mill the aluminium into nano grade powder.
(5) To make the fuel you would need 3 processes, power production by burning coal, aluminium extraction by possibly reduction (since the carbides wouldn't be a problem), then milling. In contrast hydrogen requires just 1 process, turning water into steam at high temperatures in the presence of a catalyst to split it into hydrogen and oxygen.

surely they have already thought of solutions for this as the only problem they say they have is wieght.

and aluminium will be double figures but it says Iron is 15x cheaper so im guessing the price is going to be cheap

 

[kaiowas]

This is a long way from being a workable alternative to oil. The metal isn't really being used as a fuel more as an energy carrier. Once you've burned the metal you have to reduce it back from an oxide to a metal - this process will require energy.

One way or another the energy that's fuelling the whole process will still have to come from burning fossil fuels until other energy sources (solar, tidal, wind, nuclear etc) become viable on a large scale.

 

[Glaucus]

This is a long way from being a workable alternative to oil. The metal isn't really being used as a fuel more as an energy carrier. Once you've burned the metal you have to reduce it back from an oxide to a metal - this process will require energy.

One way or another the energy that's fuelling the whole process will still have to come from burning fossil fuels until other energy sources (solar, tidal, wind, nuclear etc) become viable on a large scale.

Thats the same with any alternative though..

 

[chopchop]

we already have some good renewable fuels, but they are not being used!!

vegetable oil - can be grown
alcohol - can be made from fermented organic matter, maybe even from the leftovers when making vegetable oil.

question is why is it not being used?

 

[Glaucus]

we already have some good renewable fuels, but they are not being used!!

vegetable oil - can be grown
alcohol - can be made from fermented organic matter, maybe even from the leftovers when making vegetable oil.

question is why is it not being used?

economics and also farming scale..

 

[Lashout_UK]

Why not use it? Because no one's made a viable working engine off it yet.

 

[B@Th*nG]

u can't tax vegetable oil effectively either

B@Th*nG

 

[alexakasloth]

we already have some good renewable fuels, but they are not being used!!

vegetable oil - can be grown
alcohol - can be made from fermented organic matter, maybe even from the leftovers when making vegetable oil.

question is why is it not being used?

Doesn't fementing give of CO2?

 

[Ex-RoNiN]

Iron is not a renewable source - we would be delaying the problem, rather than solving it.

 

[Glaucus]

Iron is not a renewable source - we would be delaying the problem, rather than solving it.

He he if you went on to read the nano particles can be reused by removing the oxygen, returning it to iron..

 

[Jotun]

Whereas petrol is no use to them?

I was under the impression that petrol isn't particularly explosive, there's a mythbusters clip they did about it, investigating how easy it was to cause an explosion, the powder they used had the most violent reaction.