Ammonia is the solution

[Rmay635703]

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/0...owered-zero-emissions-tractor-starts-testing/

Methanol is more efficient, less polluting and cheaper

Bulk is only $1.20 a gallon, often wondered why no one figures that out.

 

[Tman220]

The title of the article is misleading and you can tell people didn't read more than the title. It is a hydrogen fuel cell with the source of hydrogen being from ammonia being cracked instead of compressed hydrogen in tanks. It has little to do with emissions.

Little to do with emissions? It's claimed in the headline and doesn't take two seconds of cracking the surface to figure out it's a boondoggle to presumably to soak up funding and donations. If someone wants to make this work find an energy efficient way to produce hydrogen without wasting a combustible gas like methane to do it, which also requires fracking and drilling to source I might add.

It's irresponsible to present it that way

 

[shanegtr]

I've worked in several anhydrous ammonia plants in the past. Current way of making ammonia is not very "green" at all, however in theory if can be produced in a low emission way. I don't believe anyone is currently doing this on a commercial scale but I'd be fairly confident in saying it wont be long before that happens.
So yes currently it would make more sense to just burn the methane rather than convert it to ammonia. However I think long term hydrogen/ammonia will become much more common as a fuel source - with ammonia having the benefit of being much easier to compress/liquefy than hydrogen so it will be the more favourable method of transporting the bulk product.

 

[jhellwig]

Little to do with emissions? It's claimed in the headline and doesn't take two seconds of cracking the surface to figure out it's a boondoggle to presumably to soak up funding and donations. If someone wants to make this work find an energy efficient way to produce hydrogen without wasting a combustible gas like methane to do it, which also requires fracking and drilling to source I might add.

It's irresponsible to present it that way

That is why I said the headline was misleading. Their technology has nothing to do with emissions. It is only a different way of sourcing hydrogen for the fuel cells.

 

[Dinoburner]

Bryant and Servel produced gas fired and ammonia charged chiller units for A/C. Serviced them for 25 years or so and remember mixing 414 refrigerant with distilled water and corrosion control chemicals. It was SOP to have a water hose nearby in the event ammonia gas or liquid leaked. Since ammonia has an affinity for water one could dose ones self if needed. One lung full of vapor was enough to instill caution. Mixed solution was transported in 20# style containers.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

Just an fyi ammonia can be produced without natural gas, scaling will improve.

https://investors.lsbindustries.com...lsb-industries-launches-green-ammonia-project

amonia Is also being explored for maritime ship power. https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Harnessing-ammonia-as-ship-fuel.html

 

[kschachn]

Just an fyi ammonia can be produced without natural gas, scaling will improve.

Scaling is not the problem. The problem is nitrogen’s bond energy.

 

[wemay]

This just doesn't strike me as a stroke of genius.

 

[sk_pete]

At least you don't need to add odorants... lol
Shipping cylinder pressure is about 8bar, which is similar to lpg in hot summer. Lighter than air, parking house safe.

Google cng car tanks which exploded...250bar... blasted half car off..
You need 4years periods tank check..
IMHO h2 even worse. Affecting material of cylinders..

 

[ctechbob]

But ammonia is way more irritating than those fumes. It can stun a person. In my experience, walking through a thick cloud of ammonia fumes is comparable to being exposed to a light dose of mace.

It wasn't a thick cloud of anhydrous ammonia then or you'd be dead.

 

[alarmguy]

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/0...owered-zero-emissions-tractor-starts-testing/

Ahhhh great post.
If you ever see my posts one thing I am sure of is an EV tied to an extension cord is not the future, its been around forever.
Vechicles generating their own energy via a fuel cell is the future and hydrogen is the key.
This is really unique way of doing it, having the vehicle create its own hydrogen.

Fuel cells are the future and a direct if not small threat to the US electric grid and corporations backing it.
Think forward such as fuel cell powered homes or anyplace that can’t or prefers not to be tied to an extension cord/power grid.

Fumes? Laughable, I bet that was said when gas vehicles replaced horses (which also emit funes)

 

[kschachn]

Ahhhh great post.
If you ever see my posts one thing I am sure of is an EV tied to an extension cord is not the future, its been around forever.
Vechicles generating their own energy via a fuel cell is the future and hydrogen is the key.
This is really unique way of doing it, having the vehicle create its own hydrogen.

Do you know anything about thermodynamics and basic chemistry?

 

[kschachn]

Fumes? Laughable, I bet that was said when gas vehicles replaced horses (which also emit funes)

Are you kidding? Please tell me you are.

 

[alarmguy]

Sigh. Yet another Rube Goldberg energy scheme. In the same department as the guys who propose to store excess power by stacking concrete blocks and then lowering them when power is needed.

Starting with either renewable electricity or natural gas as the primary energy there is about a 20% - 35% energy loss converting the primary energy to hydrogen. Outside the hydrogen manufacturing process, some more energy is consumed in a air separation process separating the nitrogen needed to make the ammonia. One you have ammonia it is not directly usable in a fuel cell you must turn around and input energy to decompose ammonia back to hydrogen and nitrogen. Finally the the hydrogen must be converted into electricity using a fuel cell which is less than 80% fuel efficient and put that through an electric motor with another 5-10% loss. In short, the laws of thermodynamics extract an energy tax every time you make an energy conversion and this process is so conversion intensive you would be lucky to wind up with a work output efficiency even close to that of a diesel engine.

Much is made about the convenience of ammonia for energy storage but a gallon of ammonia still only contains about 45% the energy of a gallon of diesel. Back to the drawing boards.

There is up to a 50% energy loss from a power plant producing power then transporting that power through the electric grid to your home to charge your EV. So may be we should say back to the drawing board for the power that powers your home?
It drives me NuTs that no one ever brings that up or is aware of it.

Having a fuel cell maybe more efficient not only for your car but for your home.

 

[kschachn]

Yes and that shows you don’t know what you’re talking about in regards to ammonia as a fuel and specifically your comments earlier in this thread.

 

[sk_pete]

It wasn't a thick cloud of anhydrous ammonia then or you'd be dead.

you can´t protect everybody, people are inherently stupid.

 

[OVERKILL]

There is up to a 50% energy loss from a power plant producing power then transporting that power through the electric grid to your home to charge your EV. So may be we should say back to the drawing board for the power that powers your home?
It drives me NuTs that no one ever brings that up or is aware of it.

Having a fuel cell maybe more efficient not only for your car but for your home.

Are you trying to compare generator efficiency and line losses to the multiple stacked series of losses before an ammonia-fuelled hydrogen fuel cell makes usable power?

BTW, they already make fuel cells for your home, but the source is natural gas (which is also the source for almost all commercially produced hydrogen presently):
https://www.solidpower.com/en/bluegen

So, the same methane that runs the natural gas power plant can be piped into one of these devices and produce both heat and electricity. Clearly, this is a far more efficient process than the one you've replied to.

To reiterate what he's saying:
Commercial ammonia production uses the Haber Process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Which uses atmospheric nitrogen, a catalyst and hydrogen under pressure to produce ammonia.

The source of that hydrogen is typically methane! (natural gas). So, you use energy to separate the hydrogen. Then you use energy to produce the ammonia, and this is likely all grid power or power produced using methane or coal-fuelled generators, so there's your power plant losses upfront at multiple steps here.

Then, you have to transport the ammonia, and THEN it goes through the conversion process in the fuel cell to be decomposed into hydrogen.

So, you have:
Methane -> transport -> Hydrogen (power consumed) -> transport -> Haber (power consumed) -> ammonia -> transport -> fuel cell -> power
vs
Methane -> transport -> fuel cell -> power

Even if the hydrogen was produced using some other mechanism like electrolysis or high temp decomposition via a nuclear reactor, you would have to reduce the emissions of the entire process significantly to put it on-par with just using that methane directly.

 

[kschachn]

Which uses atmospheric nitrogen, a catalyst and hydrogen under pressure to produce ammonia.

The source of that hydrogen is typically methane! (natural gas). So, you use energy to separate the hydrogen. Then you use energy to produce the ammonia, and this is likely all grid power or power produced using methane or coal-fuelled generators, so there's your power plant losses upfront at multiple steps here.

Then, you have to transport the ammonia, and THEN it goes through the conversion process in the fuel cell to be decomposed into hydrogen.

So, you have:
Methane -> transport -> Hydrogen (power consumed) -> transport -> Haber (power consumed) -> ammonia -> transport -> fuel cell -> power
vs
Methane -> transport -> fuel cell -> power

Even if the hydrogen was produced using some other mechanism like electrolysis or high temp decomposition via a nuclear reactor, you would have to reduce the emissions of the entire process significantly to put it on-par with just using that methane directly.

Exactly, thanks for the detailed post. Ammonia is a very thermodynamically expensive fuel, it is hard to compete with something that is essentially just pumped out of the ground prior to use. There are no ammonia wells just as there are no hydrogen wells. Both need post-processing, the ammonia extensively so. All that energy that goes into production is accountable.

All this "making its own fuel" reminds me of the truly ignorant websites describing how you decompose water with your alternator to make hydrogen as "free" fuel

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

There is up to a 50% energy loss from a power plant producing power then transporting that power through the electric grid to your home to charge your EV. So may be we should say back to the drawing board for the power that powers your home?
It drives me NuTs that no one ever brings that up or is aware of it.

Having a fuel cell maybe more efficient not only for your car but for your home.

They are aware of it and it's not true. The efficiency of the motor and batteries in the EV makes up for the transmission losses. The other issue is the emissions associated with an energy source. Tailpipe emissions from burning gas/diesel vs nuclear reactor (ex, Lake Oconee SC. VC Summer SC, Robinson SC, Catawba Station, SC)

 

[JohnnyG]

Hydrogen is not particularly unhealthy to breathe in small % (fume level) amounts, even long term. The risk of it is the same as any other low-harm gas, that you wouldn't want to be trapped in an enclosed area and fill that with hydrogen, because then there is no oxygen to breathe. Air is mostly (~78%) nitrogen yet the same applies, fill the area with nitrogen and you don't have any oxygen to breathe.

Not to mention the fact that there is so much nitrogen in the air, Your body doesn't recognize the lack of oxygen. The first sign of 100% N atmosphere is you drop over dead.