COAL ASH: The ash left over after burning coal might provide the foundation for a strong but lightweight material for car manufacturers
Image: NYU Poly
NEW YORK -- Could coal be the key to manufacturing lighter, more energy-efficient vehicles, including electric cars?
It may seem counterintuitive to use coal to reduce a vehicle's fuel consumption, and thus its CO2 output. But one scientist at a New York technical school thinks he's found a way, and hopes to market it to automakers and the growing electric vehicle industry.
Dr. Nikhil Gupta, an instructor at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University in downtown Brooklyn, says the secret lies in the cumbersome and ubiquitous waste product from burning coal -- fly ash. Less than half of the fly ash produced from power plants is captured to make a certain type of cement, while the rest ends up in landfills.
Gupta said his team is working on a proprietary technology to use part of that coal fly ash to make a gasoline- or diesel-powered car at least 10 percent lighter. The weight of electric cars can be further reduced by making their batteries 20 to 30 percent lighter, thus extending their range, he said.
"It provides us the possibility of maximum weight reduction without compromising the mechanical properties," Gupta explained in an interview. "It adds volume but it does not add weight, so that's the advantage."
It's possible because coal fly ash contains fine microscopic structures called cenospheres, basically strong but hollow bubbles that are part of the waste byproduct of burning coal. These cenospheres can be separated from the rest of the material using water, because they float while the rest sinks.
Coating these spheres with nickel, copper or any other composite metal or ceramic material that manufacturers might prefer creates an ultra-strong but lightweight material that can be mixed in with a variety of metals. Gupta and his colleagues estimate that any given piece of metal could contain up to 60 percent fly ash, although that proportion would need to be adjusted depending on how resilient the part needed to be.
A 'definitely affordable' source of raw material
Thus, the weight of steel or aluminum could be cut dramatically without compromising the strength of the metal. Though the technology could be used for potentially hundreds of different applications, Gupta at NYU-Poly said heavy vehicle manufacturers and the military seem to be most interested. Research findings from Gupta and colleagues of his at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, on fly ash-composite metal fabrication were published last week in the Journal of Metals.
"If you take a bulk piece of metal and you put some holes inside, just holes, it reduces the mechanical properties quite a bit," he said. "This porosity is enclosed inside this ceramic particle, and these ceramics are very strong, so when you put them inside metal this porosity is enclosed by the ceramic shell, so that provides lots of strength in the final product."
Gupta admits that the unpredictable quality of cenospheres coming out of coal fly ash is a problem -- similar structures could be manufactured with much more consistency using glass, for example. But the enormous abundance of fly ash generated in the United States from power plants each year provides a cheap, abundant supply of material that can be cheaply and easily sorted to concentrate the best cenospheres.
The team members say they have been working with industry partners in Wisconsin and have already manufactured some prototypes to demonstrate the system's effectiveness. They say a 10 percent weight reduction in standard automobiles is "a conservative estimate," since automotive engineers may discover alternative uses that they can't think of.
Their next step is to court the electric vehicle market, both carmakers and battery manufacturers.
By mixing ceramic cenospheres into lead or other metal casings used for the batteries, manufacturers can cut the weight by 20 to 30 percent, or possibly even higher, the team contends.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentI hope that I will wait ... <a href="http://www.enformainteligente.com/">vida saludable</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould this have the metals and batteries taking on some of the radioactivity of the fly ash?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy concern was not addressed in the article. What problems, if any are created when such material is recycled? Mass use of metals demands this issue be addressed. So many exotic alloys are in current use, that metallurgists frequently struggle with establishing chemistry that meet standards and specifications when surprising elements show up in scrap steel, for instance. I'm sure the same holds true for copper and bronze alloys, also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a need for a more fuel effecient transportation system that is meant for the ever increasing world demand, but is the combustable engine or barely alive? Is the use of coal ash the answer for creating a fuel effecient car? Is the use of coal in order to generate electricity a way of lowering one carbon footprint. How much carbon does a coal burning electric generator produce?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEfficiency in energy production and use is a very important topic. I do not believe that the terms of "carbon footprint" or "carbon emissions" as they relate to the "Global Warming Hoax" need to be downplayed. As a nation, we have to internalize our dependency on energy. Concern about carbon dioxide being a "phony pollutant" when "ozone B" is a legitamate pollutant that we used to destroy with Freon gas, to old refrigerant we threw out in favor of a much more costly gas. The so called "hole in the ozone A layer is still there, growing and shrinking as it has for billions of years. There is plenty being generated by millions of thunderstorms worldwide. Another hoax that the "Lemmings" of the world fell for. The point being one of let's use real science in a responsible and practical manner and not enrich a few people and industries at the expense of the gullible masses that believe phony media reports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlant trees and reforest the land while at the same time producing future lumber, planet refreshment and recycling carbon dioxide into the precious oxygen that life depends on.
The heating and cooling cycles that planet earth goes through is created by such a complex process that just to know all of the factors that are involved may never be accomplished in a million years of advanced study.
The complaint about the glacial melting in Iceland needs to be understood by comparison to the natural molten rock bubbles in that area of the planets crust.
Half-truths and missing factors involved in reporting any area of science is often done to manipulate public opinion and action. I suggest that when we are looking at the expenditure of money, that is exactly where one should be looking. Look at the "Money, Power and Greed" involved and you should be able to see the true nature of the reporting. P.T. Barnum was right, "there's a sucker born every minute". Phony science has suckered millions if not billions of people year after year and it appears that the "P.T. Barnum Principle" remains alive and well and bringing in big dollars as it always has. Something to think about.
I am not faulting Scientific American for anything that they publish. Their job is to sell magazines to inform and let the reader make their own decisions about the content and what it means to them. Selling more magazines increases the ABC rating and the amount that they can earn from advertising. Whether in print or as a component of the IT revolution, the advertising must support their bringing us the information that interests us. That is why we are readers.
OOOPS! My statement about "carbon footprint" and "carbon emissions" should have read that these terms should not be associated with any "Global Warming" which I see as a money making scam and a hoax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would not exist if it were not for the beneficial existance of carbon dioxide and that is a FACT that is undeniable.
The thousands of chemicals in coal ash sludge is deadly to humans and animals. What will keep these thousands of deadly chemicals, or their deadly vapors, from seeping into the closed environment of the vehicle and damaging or killing the people inside? This is why they do not use coal ask sludge to make roads or buildings. It is too deadly to be that close to humans. Coal ask sludge should be treated with the same respect as nuclear waste is treated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a professor at the Rockey Mountain Institute in Colorado that uses coal, turns it to carbon fiber and molds it into auto bodies and auto frames. This material is stronger than steel and so light that one person can lift the frame and body of the car and carry it around like they would a paper box. There is no toxicity to humans and they are already using carbon fiber to make race car bodies and frames. If mass produced, carbon fiber will only cost pennies and the miles per gallon could far exceed a hundred.
We do not need more deadly chemicals or radioactive waste spread throughout our environment, so I give this project ten thumbs down.
My concern would be that at some point we will have replaced so many coal-powered plants thus reducing the supply of coal ash at about the same time that industry has created a demand for it that there will be economic pressure to keep using coal as a fuel source. we have seen many times where commercial money-making opportunities maintain the manufacture and use scientifically bad, inefficient and dangerous materials and processes. The power of the dollar is strong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe old saying still holds true, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. Where some people get the idea that coal ash and waste coal ash oare toxic and radioactive just drives me nuts. I have worked with this material for many years and have collected thousands of samples and have reams of analysis and none of them are even close to being toxic or radioactive. The alarmists really get a hold of those who don't know the real facts and for some reason are able to make a lasting impression on what they think. I want everyone to know that the majority (95%) of coal ash and waste coal ash are not toxic, is not radioactive, doea not contain high levels of metals and is perfectly safe. It seems that someone may have read that one ash sample was high in metals and have blown everything out of proportion and claims that all ash is now represented by that one sample. You cannot label all cars as gas guzzlers because a Hummer gets 15 mpg can you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this