Ammonia as engine fuel, close to hydrogen you get

Status
Not open for further replies.
And electricity is made by burning stuff which releases which gas, that the Ammonia lobby states Ammonia use is free of ?

Seriously, your understating of the safety concerns of anhydrous ammonia means that you've never dealt with the stuff...when you get a leak of pressurised anhydrous, it's not the smell of rfile bore cleaner, and run away.
 
This is what I think related to the general condition of the world.
I dont believe in co2 AGW global climate change. It is a power grab by extreme greens to turn back time and 'save the planet from human beings' At their extreme expense, favoring animals and plants over health and life of ordinary people.

I believe their is negative eugenics movement against 'undesirables', people who are considered lesser humans and considered a threat to the health and safety of wealthy nations both within and without their borders. Sanger anyone?

Fossil fuel is not 'fossil'. It did not come entirely from dead animals and plants. Oil is abiotically created from Iron, carbonates, heat, steam, pressure creating various hydro-carbons which then float upwards from very deep layers.
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
http://www.gasresources.net/Kenney-NPR.mp3
http://tehnica-bordeianu.webnode.com/new...green-hysteria/
http://ergobalance.blogspot.com/2007/03/chinas-explores-ultra-deep-drilling.html
http://www.frot.co.nz/sift/peak_oil.htm
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/school/moviepage/03.01.01.html
http://www.crisisbydesign.com/blog/global-warming/oil-is-not-a-fossil-fuel-2/
http://www.rense.com/general75/zoil.htm

I believe energy production is deliberately rationed by governments as part of the save the earth AGW campaign.
And it is quite a big deception.

So if there is no oil shortage, no peak oil, and no extreme climate change (they say we are always at the 'tipping point into destruction of no return as scare mongers for weak minds'), we dont need energy alternatives. The oil is there, we are only limited as to the need to improve technology of extraction. Only thing is people have no common sense to see and they also close their eyes as they dont want to see the truth, but prefer to believe the lie.
 
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
The idea wont just go away even with all the negatives. When you smell anhydrous ammonia, it is not instant or certain death.


That's all fine, and yes, it can be knocked down with water spray. That's all common knowledge in the dangerous goods regulations. The issue about it is exactly the point where "most people will seek relief." You can spill a boatload of gas, diesel, propane, or natural gas. They're all going to stink to high heaven. They all have various levels of flammability. However, none of their odours are going to stop you from, say, walking to the emergency shut off and turning the pumps down, or hitting an alarm, or whatever.

If you walk into a cloud of ammonia, you're going to know it, and you WILL stop. You won't "suck it up" and walk to the emergency shut off, or think it's just a bad small and breathe through your mouth. Anhydrous ammonia is not like that, whatsoever.

Believe me and Shannow about this. Ammonia filling stations have windsocks for a very good reason. When filling ammonia, you are required to stay upwind - again, for a very good reason.

In a university chemistry class, we had to use some anhydrous ammonia for some experiment. I foolishly wanted to compare its odour to that of, say, laundry ammonia. There was less than 10 mL of the stuff released, and I almost ended up on the floor.

As for fuel rationing and peak oil and all that other business, please be cautious. This isn't a place for political debate and I'd hate to see an interesting thread closed because of an argument over whether peak oil is a government invention, oil company invention, scientific folly, or scientific truth; or whether Big Brother is going to regulate us back to the horse and buggy era.
 
Your advocacy of Anhydrous Ammonia then makes even less sense.

Back in engineering school we learned about running engines and turbines on the stuff, using it as a refrigerant etc. , and the issues that were had on fishing boats with ammonia refrigerant systems.

Since then, I've dealt with a couple of depots of 40 tonne size, and propane depots of similar scale, and had dangerous goods depot planning training.

Mom and Pop service stations don't have the capacity, or wherewithall to run such a dangerous goods system on a distributed basis, especially when such is supposed to be a liquid fuel replacement rather than a niche fuel like Propane has become...50,000 gallons of underground liquid tanks would need to be replaced with 150,000 gallons of pressurised vessels (even assuming a "50:1" compression ratio efficiency for comparison purposes)
 
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
yes, it really stinks bad. Which is in a way good. Cause If you smell a little you will want to get away. It notifies you of its presence.


In an industrial context, dangerous atmospheres are a major source of death, and one of the biggest secondary deaths is people trying to help, not understanding the risks.

in my state, 3 generations of a farming family were killed with CO in a well. Boy went down well, keeled over, Father went down to rescue his son, and keeled over, grandfather same...same story told over and over with toxic atmospheres.
 
The idea of using ammonia as a fuel did not start and wont end with me. I do still prefer gas and diesel. There is no realistic affordable competition with those fuels and there needs to be one.
Ammonia fuel advocacy continues to grow.
Everything has its downsides.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/a...katAmmonia.aspx

Quote:
Safety and inhalation hazards — although ammonia is not strictly toxic — are major concerns. When compared to gasoline and ethanol, ammonia has a higher ignition energy, higher flash point, and a narrower explosive range when mixed with air. Explosion and fire would be less likely with a ruptured ammonia tank than with gasoline or ethanol.

Ammonia vapors cause irritation at low concentration and are life-threatening at high concentration. This is because of ammonia’s extraordinary affinity for water, including water in human flesh and organs. Ammonia, however, is lighter than air and rapidly dissipates in open spaces, or can be controlled with water. Both gasoline and diesel fuel can contain carcinogenic components in their vapors, but ammonia is not carcinogenic.

Gasoline, and to a greater extent diesel fuel, can produce fine carbon soot particles if incompletely burned, which are extremely hazardous when breathed. Ammonia cannot produce soot since it contains no carbon.

The Department of Transportation keeps records of deaths and injuries due to transportation accidents. Ammonia has a lower death and injury rate than gasoline per ton-mile transported. Ammonia is also widely used by farmers as fertilizer and has a good safety record in this application. The safety message on ammonia is that the vapor is more hazardous but the strong odor provides early warning of its presence.
 
Last edited:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4696
Of course they are all coming at this from the idea of a peak oil perspective.
Peak oil and carbon induced global warming are powerfully prevalent theories in the public consciousness, (even though IMO and others untrue) and are going to force changes into your life like it or not.

Quote:
The sense among the attendees is that we're at a tipping point – the end of the beginning for ammonia fuel, and the beginning of a much more broad interest in the only hydrogen carrier that can be produced renewably.


Quote:
Alaska's Energy Authority is looking into the use of ammonia as a fuel in many locations. They have remote villages where electricity is entirely generated by diesel delivered in World War II era flying tankers, locations with a thousand residents that need $40 million worth of power line construction to get on the grid, stranded hydroelectric resources everywhere, and fantastic wind and wave energy available in the Aleutian Island chain. David Lockard's presentation was a fascinating gateway into a world already facing many of the issues peak oil will bring to all human society.
 
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
The idea of using ammonia as a fuel did not start and wont end with me. I do still prefer gas and diesel. There is no realistic affordable competition with those fuels and there needs to be one.


I'm not sure (may be corrected) that there's ever been an ammonia mine on the planet, so it's not really a source of fuel, but a transport medium for energy dug up from somewhere else.

And if Ammonia needs to be made out of fossil fuels (or their abiotic competition), then it's not competing with those fuels either...so can't reduce their prices.
 
Quote:
And if Ammonia needs to be made out of fossil fuels (or their abiotic competition), then it's not competing with those fuels either...so can't reduce their prices.


but it does not need to be made from regular old carbon based fuels. It can be made from seawater and electricity. Electricity can come from uranium or thorium reactors.

The powerful perception of AGW and peak oil leaves little other choices if you want to keep on keeping on. Those who believe the oil is about to run out also dont like coal and want to destroy its use.
Fortunate that FRACKING has discovered for us vast new amounts of usable NG and oil. Unfortunate that FRACKING has become controversial where some areas placing a total ban on the process out of fear. They said something similar about the keystone pipeline ground water aquifer pollution question when really it was environmentalism activism and going down the wrong path of the old dirty energy of oil that shut it down.
Golly, It is just another pipeline of many pipelines, just not politically and environmentally correct to support that dirty Canadian oil.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/
 
Last edited:
But the electricity from a Uranium or Thorium reactor doesn't need to be converted to Ammonia.

It can replace all of the other electricity that is produced otherwise from fossil fuels !
 
The electricity cant be efficiently stored for use in a vehicle.
Batteries are no good, they dont have long term power, they take long time to fill up, they wear out and are very expensive to replace.
The resale price of a used Prius is not great due to battery replacement costs. And then there is the electronic tech factor where newer and better electronic gear is always coming out obsoleting the old stuff.
 
No, but in that case, you can use hydrogen. Hydrogen is a great store of energy, just as ammonia is only a way to store energy. Trying to upgrade and/or completely overhaul the energy grid is necessary, but it's going to be at least as much of a nightmare as is switching from the usual internal combustion fuels.
 
hydrogen cant easily be stored by itself. Using Ammonia as a carrier for hydrogen makes a lot more sense if you want a hydrogen fuel.
BMW mad a pure hydrogen concept car and the tank had to be vented. In 2 weeks of sitting, it looses all of its fuel.
And you cant store it under such intense pressure with such a large quantity that it can be safe in the public eye. Ammonia is also not very safe in the public consciousness. Gasoline is perceived safer fuel cause we are used to it. If we had all been using diesel the last 100 years and someone suggested gasoline, I bet the public would be turned off from that dangerous explosive fuel.

Here is a chart showing the depths of oil wells today. Notice where the dinosaur is and look how far below that is the oil lakes. Abiotic oil graphically shown.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/resources/the-depth-of-oil-wells

depth-of-oil-wells-energy-and-capital.png
]
 
More on Abiotic oil
http://www.rense.com/general54/moreevi.htm

Quote:
Kantrowitz turned to the geologist beside him and asked, "Do you really believe that petroleum is a fossil fuel?" The man said,"Certainly" and all four of them joined in. Kantrowitz listened quietly and then said, "The deepest fossil ever found has been at about 16,000 feet below sea level; yet we are getting oil from wells drilled to 30,000 and more. How could fossil fuel get down there? If it was once living matter, it had to be on the surface. If it did turn into petroleum, at or near the surface,how could it ever get to such depths? What is heavier Oil or Water?" Water: so it would go down, not oil. Oil would be on top, if it were "organic" and "lighter."
 
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
hydrogen cant easily be stored by itself. Using Ammonia as a carrier for hydrogen makes a lot more sense if you want a hydrogen fuel.


That's certainly true, as is your point about what would happen if we had been using only diesel until now, and someone suddenly tried to introduce gasoline. I think that's another thing we have to face. No matter what is introduced or considered, there are a lot of environmental and safety hurdles to overcome.

Assuming electrical generation is not an issue, I'm sure ammonia would be rather environmentally friendly. The safety issue is another matter, though. At worst, natural gas creates an explosive cloud and LPG creates explosive pools. The invisible clouds of death from ammonia are a little harder to sell to the public.
wink.gif
 
As to abiotic oil, simple chamistry says that carbonates, hydrates, minerals and heat will create some equilibrium states of hydrocarbons...the ratio of abiotic to oil of biological origin is unknown, and anyway, as the Earth isn't expanding (introduce expansion tectonics), it's still finite.

The dinosaur in the cahrt is a neat obfuscation, as dinosaurs didn't become oil.

Fossils found in coal should give a reasonable explaination, and look how much of that there is.
 
India's plan for hydrogen is to add it at 10% into natural gas mains, so that those burning natural gas can use the hydrogen at no additional cost/effort/modification/risk over their existing behaviour.

Makes sense, as the partial pressure of H2 in the lines is 1/10 of what it would otherwise be, and leaks are reduced.

If Nukes and Thorium come on line, rather than making hydrogen and ammonia, they are best served offsetting fossil fueled power...at that point you can use any one of the hundreds of hundred year old technologies for converting coal to liquid fuels, and have every one continue doing what they are doing with the existing risks, systems,and infrastructure.
 
WSJ on peak oil myth
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html

more interesting stuff on abiotic oil
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Abiotic_Oil

Oil just wont run out, if it is abiotic, it is basically infinite, even considering the earth is not getting larger.
Somewhere I was reading that coal was once liquid oil. Gold said the reason you can have microscopically features of delicate fossil structures in coal is it was once liquid oil that solidified into coal.

A fun vid on the expanding earth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U
 
WOW...in the face of such science, it's pretty hard to argue against it and not sound like a crackpot with an agenda..

But as to coal being solidified oil, there's enough progression of coal from peats, basically dehydrated vegetable matter, lignite, bituminous, through to anthracite to demonstrate that it's not "solidified" oil...and if the oil that hardened into coal was abiotic, then by your own argument, it had to happen at temperatures and pressures that would destroy any detail in any vegetable matter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom