Bill David talks about how ammonia could fuel the future

Bill David, a friend of X, talks about his moonshot project to turn ammonia into the fuel of the future.

[@wabisabi6802]

if only he stood still.

[@UnknownHumanoid]

and talk louder..

[@calorus]

Baby when you're at the forefront of energy, you've got plenty to dissipate.

[@gregvezina6312]

We drove an ammonia fueled 1981 Chevrolet Impala across Canada in late October and early November of 1981. In 2010 we converted a Dodge diesel truck and gasoline Ford Crown Victoria to run on multi-fuels including ammonia. See nh3fuel.com Hydrofuel NH3 (ammonia) Car kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqfanq2ho5Wjl68 2010-03-28 Hydrofuel Update kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKSWeYZ5nbiblac There were ammonia powered vehicles in Italy and Norway in the early 1930s and 12 buses ran on it in Belgium from 1943-1946. Ammonia was used to power street cars and for solar powered water pumping into houses in the 1800s. www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/ammonia/ammonia.htm

[@travismoore7849]

Sure use an ammonia tank, a pressure regulator and a propane carburetor to run a car.

[@foobargorch]

I thought the major sustainability problem of ammonia as an energy carrier was efficiently sourcing hydrogen (currently it depends on natural gas, so you might as well use it as LPG)... Is this proposed infrastructure based on electrolysis of water?

[@foobargorch]

phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-breakthrough-game-changer-future-car.html If this is about the same research, then it seems that the major innovation here relates to improving the safety of a hydrogen infrastructure, and doesn't have much to do with the production but more with making ammonia a safe and usable fuel source, too bad the talk didn't highlight that stuff more... Hopefully this will be made more and more practical as research on efficient sustainable water splitting makes progress. And even if it doesn't, this is a step towards making nuclear power more useful for transportation, if we can ever get past our phobia of 1950s nuclear technology. Anyway good stuff

[@nemoman93]

wastewater can be a source of ammonia and/or runoff from agriculture

[@velianlodestone1249]

He mentioned very briefly 'electrolyse water' during his 42KwH wind turbine talk

[@ciceroaraujo5183]

What about the nitro oxide. Is it a by product. And if so that's just as bad as carbon pollution.

[@bitchesbrew2315]

While this is true, it is being taken into account. Ultimately, if the reaction competes itself in full, then there will be only nitrogen and water left. However, it takes a step of some kind of NOx before it take place, which could be bad since it might result in those products not fully reacting and escaping. However, techniques are being developed to reduce the amount of unreacted NOx

[@shanewilson2484]

Ammonia fumes ... much more toxic than methane or gasoline fumes. If the concentration is too high you can't smell it and it knocks you out. So you need excellent ventilation, oxygen masks, and ammonia sensors with alarms to alert folks of the danger.

[@SeanLumly]

I had no idea NH3 could be used as a combustable fuel, and what's more that these engines have existed for some time. It seems like the perfect alternative to gas, and frankly, should have been used YEARS ago given the favourable economics and political ramifications when compared to fossil fuels. I do wonder, however, the ramifications of an increase of NO2 in the atmosphere would have, as I understand this to be a bi-product of direct combustion.

[@foobargorch]

a bi product of production or of combustion?

[@SeanLumly]

Daryl Christensen EDITED: Many thanks for the link, I am looking through the document. I've checked the report, and it seems that Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is 298 times more potent than CO2, however the bi-product of burning NH3 is Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), which is a different chemical. I would be interested to understand the environmental ramifications of much more NO2 in the atmosphere. A quick search seems to imply that NO2 is a pollutant and can have detrimental health effects. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide#NOx www.epa.gov/oaqps001/nitrogenoxides/

[@SeanLumly]

foobargorch I edited it! Thanks!

[@foobargorch]

Sean Lumly I found this article: phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-breakthrough-game-changer-future-car.html not many details but it makes a vague comment to the effect that they've made improvements on nox emissions as well, but unfortunately I haven't found anything else yet

[@SeanLumly]

foobargorch Great read! Thanks for the article! I'm really glad that they have effectively "stopped" the release of NOx pollutants, which is very encouraging. It seems that the ammonia "cracking" produces N2 and H2 very cheaply which are quite clean and the H2 is useful in power generation (combustion, fuel cell).

[@lavrentievv]

This is stupid. producing hydrogen is expensive enough, then you want to use not as a fuel, but to create ammonia? That's simply going to cost at least 4/5 times more than petrol per mile.

[@velianlodestone1249]

Applicable name, and ultimately wrong comment.

[@travisbeagle5691]

The issue with hydrogen is storing and transporting it. Ammonia doesn't have these issues and therefore is a better option for distribution.

[@UnknownHumanoid]

No, ammonia is very cheap and much more powerful than the petrol.

[@wilfriedschuler3796]

The production with the Haber Bosch process requires at least 10 KWh/ kg Ammonia. Ans the combustion energy of ammonia is 5,2 KWh/kg. This means it is a big waste of energy. 10 - 5,2 KWh wasted. In 1 kg ammonia there are 176 g of hydrogen. To obtain this 176g, you need 7 KWh electricity. Given the efficiency of the elektrolysis one needs about 10 KWh electricity only to produce the hydogen for 1kg ammonia. All this is just lunatic thinking.