Reducing iron ore to iron no longer needs costly plant and equipment

 How to separate iron from iron ore in a low-cost plant, on any scale, at room temperature

The electrochemical process is described in this video. 

The process can be scaled up to small, medium and large-scale plants. 
The process runs at room temperature. 

There is no costly blast furnace.

There is no cost for coking coal. 

Processing one tonne of pure hematite iron ore to extract 699 kg of pure iron.

To estimate the electrical energy required to deposit $699\text{ kg}$ of pure iron, we can use Faraday's Laws of Electrolysis. Your conceptual breakdown is exactly right: we calculate the total electrical charge (in Coulombs) by determining how many moles of electrons are needed, and then multiply that charge by the cell voltage to get the total energy in watt-hours.

Here is the step-by-step mathematical estimation.

1. Calculating the Total Charge Required ($Q$)

First, we need to know how many moles of iron atoms are in $699\text{ kg}$ ($699,000\text{ g}$) of iron.

• The atomic weight of Iron ($Fe$) is approximately $55.85\text{ g/mol}$.

$$\text{Moles of }Fe=\frac{699,000\text{ g}}{55.85\text{ g/mol}}\approx 12,515.67\text{ moles of }Fe$$

Next, we look at the valency (the charge of the iron ion in solution). In an acid-chloride system like the one in the video, iron typically dissolves as Iron(II) chloride ($FeC{l}_2$), meaning the iron ions have a valency of $z=2$ ($F{e}^{2+}$). Each mole of iron requires 2 moles of electrons to plate out:

$$\text{Moles of electrons}=12,515.67\times 2=25,031.34\text{ moles of electrons}$$

Faraday's constant ($F$) tells us that 1 mole of electrons carries $96,485\text{ Coulombs}$ of charge.

$$Q=25,031.34\text{ moles of }{e}^{-}\times 96,485\text{ C/mol}\approx 2,415,148,832\text{ Coulombs}$$

Because $1\text{ Ampere}=1\text{ Coulomb per second}$, this number represents the total Ampere-seconds needed. To convert this into a more useful unit like Ampere-hours (Ah), we divide by $3,600$ (seconds in an hour):

$$\text{Total Capacity}=\frac{2,415,148,832\text{ C}}{3,600\text{ s/hr}}\approx 670,875\text{ Ah}$$

2. Incorporating the Voltage ($V$)

As you noted, energy is the voltage multiplied by the current over time ($E=V\times I\times t$, or simply $E=V\times Q$).

The absolute theoretical minimum voltage (thermodynamic electromotive force) required to split iron chloride into solid iron and chlorine gas is roughly $1.1\text{ to }1.3\text{ V}$. However, in a real-world industrial cell, you must overcome electrical resistance in the electrolyte, the resistance of the ion-exchange membrane, and "overpotentials" at the electrodes.

For an industrial electrowinning process, a realistic operating cell voltage is around $2.5\text{ Volts}$.

$$E=670,875\text{ Ah}\times 2.5\text{ V}=1,677,187.5\text{ Watt-hours (Wh)}$$

Converting this to Megawatt-hours (MWh) by dividing by $1,000,000$:

$$\text{Theoretical Energy}\approx 1.68\text{ MWh}$$

3. Factoring in Real-World Efficiency

In practice, electrochemical cells do not operate at 100% current efficiency. Some electrons are wasted on side reactions—most notably, generating tiny amounts of hydrogen gas at the cathode instead of plating iron.

If we assume a typical industrial current efficiency of $85\%$, the actual energy requirement increases:

$$\text{Actual Energy}=\frac{1.68\text{ MWh}}{0.85}\approx 1.98\text{ MWh}$$

Final Estimate

To process 1 tonne of iron ore (depositing $699\text{ kg}$ of pure iron), it will take approximately $1.7\text{ to }2.0\text{ MWh}$ of electrical energy.

How does this compare to other methods?

To put this into perspective, using hydrogen to reduce iron ore via the DRI path requires about $2.3\text{ to }3.0\text{ MWh}$ of electricity per tonne of iron (primarily because running an electrolyzer to generate, compress, and heat hydrogen involves multiple energy-loss steps).

Your aqueous electrolysis method is remarkably energy-efficient on paper because it cuts out the middleman (hydrogen) and applies the electrons directly to the iron ore atoms at room temperature.

To compare your electrolytic estimate of ~2 MWh per tonne of pure iron ore to a traditional blast furnace, we need to scale the consumption of coking coal down to that same 1-tonne-of-ore baseline and look at the financial costs.

A clear distinction exists between coke (the pure carbon fed into the furnace) and coking coal (the raw metallurgical coal mined from the ground used to make it).

1. The Material Balance (Per 1 Tonne of Ore)

In a conventional blast furnace, the consumption metrics are typically measured per tonne of pig iron produced. A highly optimized, modern blast furnace requires about 450 kg to 500 kg of finished coke per tonne of pig iron.

Using our established iron-yield ratios ($1.345\text{ tonnes of ore}$ to make $1\text{ tonne of pig iron}$):

• Coke required per tonne of ore: $\approx 350\text{ kg}$

However, to make 1 kg of finished furnace coke, you have to bake roughly 1.3 to 1.4 kg of raw coking coal in an oxygen-free oven to drive off the volatile matter, water, and impurities.

• Raw Coking Coal required per tonne of ore: $350\text{ kg}\times 1.35\approx 473\text{ kg}$

The Quantity Verdict: Processing 1 tonne of pure iron ore in a traditional blast furnace consumes roughly 473 kg of raw metallurgical coking coal.

2. The Cost Analysis (Per 1 Tonne of Ore)

Global seaborne benchmark pricing for Premium Hard Coking Coal (FOB Australia) sits around USD $240 to $250 per metric tonne.

$$\text{Cost of raw coal per tonne of ore}=0.473\text{ tonnes of coal}\times \$245\approx \text{USD }\$116$$

However, this is just for the raw material. Converting that coal into furnace-ready coke inside an industrial coke oven adds significant processing costs, pushing the actual value of the $350\text{ kg}$ of structural coke closer to USD $130 to $140 per tonne of processed ore.

3. Financial Comparison: Coal vs. Electrons

The economic viability of your low-temperature electrolysis process depends entirely on the local cost of renewable electricity relative to that $116–$140 carbon baseline.

To match or beat the raw cost of coking coal, your 2 MWh of electricity must cost less than the carbon it replaces.

Wholesale Green Electricity Price (per MWh)	2 MWh Electrolysis Cost	Cost vs. Coking Coal ($116)
$30 / MWh (Highly optimized solar/wind)	$60	~50% Cheaper (Highly competitive)
$55 / MWh (Average industrial grid rate)	$110	Parity (Breakeven on raw inputs)
$80 / MWh (Higher-cost grid/battery backup)	$160	More Expensive

The CapEx Advantage

While input cost parity happens at roughly $55/MWh, your electrolysis process holds an uncalculated economic advantage: Capital Expenditure (CapEx).

A traditional blast furnace requires an interconnected network of multi-billion dollar assets: a coking plant to bake the coal, a sintering plant to prep the ore, hot-blast stoves, and the furnace itself. Because these assets cannot be turned off without destroying their refractory linings, operators face massive financial risk if demand drops.

Your aqueous electrolysis cell cuts out the coke ovens entirely. It can scale up incrementally, stack by stack, matching whatever capital an enterprise has on hand—making it an attractive entry point for decentralized, small-to-medium scale ironmaking.

---

RoboDebt - the enablers remain faceless and nameless

 This snippet from the SBS series on the Robodebt illegal fraud scheme shows interviews with Department of Human Services staff. They describe supervisors who enabled the fraud. 

Those supervisors should be interviewed in a follow-up program so they can explain their folly. 

Trash into Treasure: The New Age of Green Gasification

Author: C Dunstan
Research: ChatGPT
Date: May 24, 2026

Plastic bottles and old clothes have very little in common—except for the fact that they are all destined for a landfill. Or are they? 

A groundbreaking new approach is to use renewable energy to gasify these stubborn mixtures,  together with low-grade brown coal, turning environmental burdens into a versatile energy source. Discover how this innovative technique can clean up our planet while fueling our industry, proving that with the right technology, even our messiest waste has a valuable future. 

A new approach is shifting the paradigm: coupling the gasification of waste plastics, textiles, and brown coal with integrated renewable energy systems. By utilising green electricity to drive high-temperature conversion, this method mitigates the environmental impact of traditional gasification while maximising the chemical potential of diverse, low-value feedstocks. This article explores how this hybrid energy-waste nexus offers a viable pathway for industrial-scale carbon optimisation. 

Waste plastic and old clothing

Most waste streams of synthetic polymers (plastics and textiles) have less than two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom. Gasification of wet brown coal could yield more hydrogen molecules for each CO2 molecule if it was first mixed with sufficient waste polymers so that all the oxygen in the water (in the coal) combined with carbon in the waste plastic - yielding hydrogen from both the water and the waste polymers.

Yes — that is a chemically coherent observation, and it exposes a possible alternative process concept that the HESC material does not appear to explore.

The HESC/CSIRO brown-coal gasification case treats Victorian brown coal as the feedstock, with oxygen-blown gasification followed by water-gas shift and hydrogen separation. The report expressly describes Option 4 as brown coal gasification using an oxygen-blown entrained-flow gasifier followed by a shift reactor, with CCS added to the coal-based routes. It then reports, for the preferred gasification option, 6.3 Mt/y raw coal, 3.7 Mt/y CO₂ generated, and 2.4 GL/y make-up process water to produce about 770 t/day H₂.

Your proposed modification is different. It treats the water in wet brown coal not merely as a nuisance to be evaporated or managed, but as an oxygen-and-hydrogen reagent. The simplified logic is:

Brown-coal/water-only limiting case

$$C + 2H_2O \rightarrow CO_2 + 2H_2$$

That gives only 2 hydrogen molecules per CO₂ molecule.

But for a hydrocarbon-like polymer, approximated as polyethylene:

$$CH_2 + 2H_2O \rightarrow CO_2 + 3H_2$$

That gives 3 hydrogen molecules per CO₂ molecule.

For a more hydrogen-rich plastic such as polypropylene, approximated per carbon as $CH_2$ to $CH_{2.0}$ or slightly higher depending on formulation, the same broad principle applies: the polymer contributes hydrogen as well as carbon. For many waste polymers and textiles, the oxygen content is far below the two oxygen atoms per carbon required to oxidise all carbon to CO₂. That oxygen can be supplied by water already present in wet brown coal, or by added steam.

The general relationship is useful. For a feedstock approximated as:

$$CH_aO_b$$

complete conversion with water to CO₂ and hydrogen can be written as:

$$CH_aO_b + (2-b)H_2O \rightarrow CO_2 + (2 + a/2 - b)H_2$$

So the hydrogen yield per carbon/CO₂ molecule is:

$$2 + a/2 - b$$

That makes the point clear:

Feed approximation	$a$	$b$	H₂ per CO₂
Pure carbon	0	0	2.0
Cellulose-like biomass, $CH_{1.67}O_{0.83}$	1.67	0.83	about 2.0
Polyethylene-like plastic, $CH_2$	2	0	3.0
Methane, $CH_4$	4	0	4.0

That explains why adding low-oxygen, hydrogen-rich polymer waste could improve the gross hydrogen per CO₂ ratio. It is not magic; it is simply using polymer hydrogen plus water hydrogen, while using water oxygen to oxidise carbon.

There is also a useful process implication. Wet brown coal’s moisture is usually treated as a severe efficiency penalty because energy is required to evaporate water. But in a co-gasification/reforming concept, some of that water could be a reactant. The 210-page report notes that the costs of recovering water from dryer condensate were not considered, despite the make-up water being less than the water evaporated during drying. That tends to support your instinct that the treatment of water in the brown-coal case may be too narrow.

The limitations are important, though.

First, adding plastics does not eliminate CO₂. It changes the ratio. Every carbon atom in the polymer still becomes CO₂ if the process is driven to full hydrogen production with shift conversion and carbon capture.

Second, waste polymer streams are messy. PVC introduces chlorine and HCl; PET contains oxygen; nylon contains nitrogen; textiles contain dyes, fillers, flame retardants and metals. Those contaminants can poison catalysts, corrode equipment, complicate syngas cleaning, and make the economics less simple than the stoichiometry.

Third, gasification does not automatically proceed by the clean global reactions above. Real gasifiers produce mixtures of CO, CO₂, H₂, CH₄, tars, char, soot and contaminants. The report itself relies on process simulation and gas separation/purification rather than a simple stoichiometric reaction model.

Fourth, the policy claim would change. A brown-coal-plus-waste-plastic system might be pitched less as “clean hydrogen from brown coal” and more as waste polymer destruction plus hydrogen recovery plus concentrated CO₂ capture. That may be more honest and technically defensible, but it would also make the carbon accounting more contested: fossil plastic carbon would still be fossil CO₂ unless permanently stored.

So the refined conclusion is:

Co-gasifying wet brown coal with low-oxygen waste polymers could, in principle, produce more hydrogen per molecule of CO₂ than gasifying brown coal alone, because the polymer contributes chemically bound hydrogen and the coal moisture can supply oxygen through steam reforming/shift chemistry. This would not make the process CO₂-free, but it could improve the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio and turn wet coal moisture from a drying burden into a process reagent.

That is a materially better idea than the simple HESC framing, but it would need a separate mass balance using actual brown-coal ultimate analysis, moisture content, polymer mix, oxygen-blown versus steam gasification assumptions, and contaminant-handling costs.

The University of Colorado Boulder developed high temperature gasification of biomass streams in the early 2000's - at about 1200 Celsius. (Commercially is was less attractive than now. Natural gas was much cheaper. Solar panels to provide the thermal energy in electric furnaces were more expensive. There technology would allow the solar energy to be added to the chemical energy in the feedstock, and at the temperature it reaches, a number of pollutants in lower-temperature gasification are eliminated. Professor Alan Weimer led the research: "Solar Thermal Chemical Processing".

That is an important comparison, because it changes the HESC problem from:

“How do we extract hydrogen from brown coal while minimising CO₂?”

to:

“How do we use external high-temperature energy to upgrade carbonaceous waste into syngas, so the feedstock’s chemical energy is supplemented rather than partly consumed to drive the process?”

Professor Alan Weimer’s CU Boulder work is directly relevant. His group describes research into solar-thermal chemical reactors/receivers, including gasification/pyrolysis of biomass and splitting water or CO₂ to produce hydrogen or syngas. The lab also uses electrically heated reactors and a high-flux solar simulator with a hybrid solar/electric receiver. University of Colorado Boulder A CU Boulder profile of Brian Woodruff in Weimer’s group describes the core reaction concept: biomass and steam at high temperature produce syngas containing H₂, CO and CO₂, which can then be converted into liquid fuels such as methanol, ethanol or gasoline. University of Colorado Boulder

The thermodynamic advantage is substantial. Conventional gasification often burns part of the feedstock with oxygen or air to provide heat. That sacrifices carbon and hydrogen that might otherwise appear in the syngas. Solar/electric high-temperature gasification instead supplies some of the enthalpy externally. In simplified terms:

$$C + H_2O + \text{heat} \rightarrow CO + H_2$$

rather than:

$$\text{some feedstock} + O_2 \rightarrow CO_2 + \text{heat}$$

That distinction matters. The first pathway stores added solar/electrical heat as chemical energy in syngas. The second pathway consumes part of the feedstock and generates extra CO₂ merely to run the process.

Your point about temperature is also right. Around 1200 °C, tar cracking, char gasification and steam reforming become much more favourable. A solar biomass gasification paper describes operation above 1200 °C, where char gasification, tar thermal cracking and tar steam reforming can occur. Victor Pozzobon A review also notes experimental particle temperatures around 1200 °C, sometimes reaching 1500 °C, under direct solar heating. HAL

That creates a cleaner conceptual alternative to HESC:

1. Use wet brown coal, biomass, textiles or waste polymers as carbonaceous feedstock.

2. Use their moisture, added steam, or CO₂ as gasifying agents.

3. Supply the high-temperature heat from solar thermal concentration, electric furnaces powered by low-cost renewables, or hybrid solar/electric heating.

4. Produce syngas with less need to oxidise the feedstock for process heat.

5. Shift or reform the syngas depending on whether the desired product is hydrogen, methanol, synthetic fuels or industrial CO/H₂ mixtures.

6. Capture concentrated CO₂ only where the selected product pathway actually creates it.

This also explains why the older commercial assessment may have looked unattractive. In the early 2000s, natural gas was cheaper, renewable electricity was more expensive, and high-temperature solar/electric systems were less mature. The value proposition is different if the alternative is landfilling waste polymers, paying for waste disposal, curtailing solar generation, or building an intrinsically carbon-intensive brown-coal-to-hydrogen export chain.

For your HESC critique, the point can be framed this way:

The HESC concept assumed that brown coal would provide both feedstock and much of the process energy, so the project necessarily became a large CO₂-generation and CO₂-disposal exercise. High-temperature solar or electric gasification offers a different thermodynamic architecture: external renewable heat can supply part of the reaction enthalpy, reducing the need to burn feedstock and potentially improving hydrogen or syngas yield per tonne of CO₂ generated.

The limitation is that this is not automatically a hydrogen-only solution. High-temperature gasification naturally produces syngas, not pure hydrogen. If the end product is hydrogen, the CO must usually be shifted:

$$CO + H_2O \rightarrow CO_2 + H_2$$

That step reintroduces CO₂. But if the product is methanol, ammonia feedstock, Fischer–Tropsch liquids, industrial syngas, or a hydrogen/CO blend, the process may avoid forcing every carbon atom to CO₂ simply to maximise hydrogen.

So, compared with HESC, the Weimer-style route seems more defensible as a solar-assisted waste-to-syngas platform than as a simple “brown coal to clean hydrogen” story.

---