Hydrogen energy storage in AMMONIA: Fantastic future or fossil fuel scam?

Hydrogen energy storage in ammonia is not something that would be instinctively obvious to most of us, but the folks in the energy industry are apparently getting quite excited about the concept. It's a far safer, easier and more energy dense way to transport hydrogen around the world and could be the final cog in the gears of a true hydrogen economy of the future. But some warn that it could actually be a smokescreen enabling the fossil fuel industry to continue burning huge quantities of natural gas and maintain their vice-like grip on the global energy market.
Video Transcripts available at our website
www.justhaveathink.com
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
You can also help keep my brain ticking over during the long hours of research and editing via the nice folks at BuyMeACoffee.com
www.buymeacoffee.com/justhave...
Download the Just Have a Think App from the AppStore or Google Play
Interested in mastering and remembering the concepts that I present in my videos?
Check out the FREE DiveDeeper mini-courses offered by the Center for Behavior and Climate. These mini-courses teach the main concepts in select JHAT videos and go beyond to help you learn additional scientific or conservation concepts. The courses are great for teachers to use or for individual learning.
climatechange.behaviordevelop...
Check out other KZbin Climate Communicators
zentouro:
/ zentouro
Climate Adam:
/ climateadam
Kurtis Baute:
/ scopeofscience
Levi Hildebrand:
/ the100lh
Simon Clark:
/ simonoxfphys
Sarah Karver:
/ @sarahkarver
ClimateTown:
/ @climatetown
Jack Harries:
/ jacksgap
Beckisphere:
/ @beckisphere
Our Changing Climate :
/ @ourchangingclimate
This week's Research links
Robert Service article
www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...
Douglas MacFarlane Paper
www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-...
Article in The Chemical Engineer magazine
www.thechemicalengineer.com/f...
Recharge Article : hydrogen on offshore platforms
www.rechargenews.com/wind/one...
EU Hydrogen Strategy
ec.europa.eu/commission/press...
www.euractiv.com/section/ener...
DESMOG article
www.desmogblog.com/2020/12/09...
corporateeurope.org/sites/def...
US DoE Investment in Hydrogen
cleantechnica.com/2020/12/12/...
Global Ammonia Market Trends
www.globenewswire.com/news-re...
Ammonia for heavy trucks in Canada
www.ammoniaenergy.org/article...
Ammonia as a jet fuel
www.popularmechanics.com/flig...
www.ammoniaenergy.org/article...
WSJ on Hydrogen Projections
www.wsj.com/articles/major-en...
Colorado School of Mines
www.minesnewsroom.com/news/re...
Hydrogen boiler trial in Scotland
www.theguardian.com/environme...
#hydrogeninammonia #climatecrisis #actnow

[@9squares]

Yet another well researched presentation. You should be commended for all your work.

[@ethanwild3301]

Honesty!

[@buttonasas]

You can share the video or even support JHaT monetarily on Patreon :)

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Tim :-)

[@ethanwild3301]

@@JustHaveaThink I'm glad I found this great channel.

[@dipladonic]

This video leapfrogs the main problem that we have with hydrogen. Transporting the stuff isn't really an issue, creating green hydrogen in quantities big enough to make a difference is. The infrastructure deployed to generate and transport the renewable electricity to power the green hydrogen electrolysers is significant, whilst the electrolysers draw a huge amount of renewable power to make a relatively tiny amount of green hydrogen. The idea that green hydrogen will ever usefully mitigate the alleged man-made CO2 global warming emergency is a fallacy.

[@tylower]

Best eco-tech channel on KZbin. Bravo, sir.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks Ty. That's very kind feedback :-)

[@OwenEdwards97]

I love that these videos provide ideas for solutions. They make me feel inspired, informed and motivated rather than overwhelmed and helpless

[@MyKharli]

But don`t you think these days its all `ideas` with little actual roll out of anything ?

[@madsam0320]

Fast forward into the future. Robot 1: why do we still need humans? Robot 2: we still need them, for their wee.

[@custos3249]

Interesting. Never would've guessed we could go from hippie vans that smell like fries going down the road to semis that reek of old cat lady.

[@sesarman]

i assume you wont smell it after its burnt or the trace amounts in the exhaust will be filtered out, but not too sure.

[@lesliefranklin1870]

@Peter Hicks LOL!

[@billboyd4051]

Our vans didn't smell like fries, more like skunk.

[@TheOneWhoMightBe]

I've long been an advocate for Ammonia as either an Hydrogen carrier (if we really, really must), or as a direct fuel source itself. However, it still only makes sense once you have sufficient green energy sources to power the processes, otherwise it's little more than shuffling deckchairs, if not actually making things worse.

[@barnowl6807]

It would appear that one of the newer small atomic reactors, used on site, would solve the problem of supplying a lot of high temperature heat for the conversion process. Not more efficient but no carbon in the process.

[@robertwoodroffe123]

Thorium type !? Is

[@MrSiren52]

That was my thought as well. So-called green energy such as solar and wind are actually a net negative on the environment.

[@ronkirk5099]

Even if we just used these new Ammonia processes using green energy to produce agricultural fertilizer instead of using the Haber process, it would be a big plus for the environment. It is encouraging to hear about new chemical processes being developed to replace older energy inefficient and polluting methods. We need to attack the greenhouse gas problem on all fronts at once and quickly.

[@ricos1497]

But we have the technology to produce plentiful food anywhere in the world without industrialised ammonia-based fertilizer now. Surely removing its use over time would be better for the environment?

[@phildude2]

The progress of regenerative agriculture and hydroponics means the use of ammonia fertilisers could be redundant relatively soon.

[@jrb_sland5066]

@@ricos1497 ...What technology are you referring to? Using this tech, what is the effective cost per tonne for the usual staples such as rice, wheat & corn, compared to those products grown with ammonia fertilizer? If the production cost is higher, then your suggestion is a non-starter. Market forces are very, very real. Ask any American farmer who depends on his square km of monocropped corn fields to earn a living...

[@ricos1497]

@@jrb_sland5066 any American farmer using ammonia fertiliser on a monocrop field is going to very soon come up against the fact that they have zero workable soil. But then I don't expect the US to be leading the way when it comes to mature food production. Mainly because it's full of adolescent thinkers who believe that pseudo religious "market forces" are very, very real rather than a simple man made construct which can be just as easily manipulated by regulation and subsidy (Europe, to a degree) as it can be by vast political lobbying and wholesale ignorance of future cost. What you describe as market forces in agriculture is actually a huge political network steered by big agriculture, big food and chemical firms, with huge assistance from news outlets that scream from the rooftops at any suggestion that people - correctly, by any objective measure - might have to change their diets to save the planet. Market forces are only relevant if you ignore any physical outcomes, which means that they're not relevant. The market is just a tool, not a deity.

[@jrb_sland5066]

​@@ricos1497 ...I agree with your analysis in general. What you haven't solved is the problem of big ag dominating all its lesser parts - from the farmer's point of view, the market is very real, even if it is horribly distorted by powerful influences in the background. From the point of view, for example, of Nutrien (Formerly Agrium Inc. and PotashCorp), the task is simply to dominate "the market" to maximize profits. Big businesses have much more actual power than a single farmer. But would you suggest the collective farm approach that the Soviet Union used? Their systems of top-down management by distant bosses caused starvation in their country. Ditto for the Chinese some decades back. Open, free markets work better, especially for price discovery, even though they don't adhere to all the theoretical concepts underlying the word "free". This is a conundrum that is particularly stark in the American economy, where political influence is overtly available to elites since indirect bribery of politicians is legal {I refer to the 2011 "Citizens United" decision of SCOTUS}. Economist J. K. Galbraith discussed these issues in multiple books he wrote in the 1950s ~ 1980s wherein he pointed out that big American business practiced very similar "planned economy" techniques to those of the Soviet Union, which helped big business to dominate, while at the other end of the spectrum small farmers were entirely exposed to the brutal realities of open market practices. I have no solutions to offer, but we must at least begin with honest awareness of how things work. BTW, I object to the phrase "save the planet". Earth has been around for billions of years, and will exist billions of years into the future. If what you mean is "save humanity from its follies", I'd recommend saying so explicitly, which more clearly reveals the task at hand & motivates you to offer detailed fixes to the problems you perceive. Repeating platitudes is a lazy form of virtue signalling without practical merit. What " technology to produce plentiful food anywhere in the world " exists?

[@joecraven2034]

What a smart, concise overview of an important topic. Easy to understand and full of information without hype. I'll keep watching these. Thanks.

[@HerreNeas]

Awesome again Dave, thanks for keeping us all up to speed.

[@RikkerdHZ]

There's recently been a breakthrough in green ammonia production. Very promising stuff, especially since it seems to be very scallable. A fridge-sized ammonia plant can power a farmhouse and a bigger one a town. It's called the Monash ammonia project!

[@theredscourge]

he talks about the early stages of that in this video.

[@milesj6064]

This is a interesting subject, I had not heard of this so thank you for bringing it to my attention, you do a great job with your videos. As with all new technology, I don't see why we have to be one type of another and not use all these great forms of energy for the price point that they work best for. I am all for having a clean environment, so that means we use all the resources at our disposal to accomplish this.

[@xDanoss318x]

Direct Amonia Fuel Cells/ Ships/ Jet Engines sound hella interesting! Maybe worth a future video going more into detail?

[@janami-dharmam]

But how ammonia is made industrially today? From coal!!

[@xDanoss318x]

@@janami-dharmam have you watched the video?

[@janami-dharmam]

@@xDanoss318x Whatever source you use, you end up with lots of CO2. Ammonia production is not GREEN

[@tjampman]

@@janami-dharmam The point is that it could be green.

[@juanolotgn]

@@janami-dharmam Reported for incitation to violence via not watching the video

[@davidhicks4676]

I have only just come across your site - very interesting commentary and extremely well presented. A new technology we do have here in Australia is the capture of CO2 from emitters, processing using a our patent 'Annulus Core Reactor', to product a reactant solution of ammonia bicarbonate. We then further process this into add-value products for the agriculture, pharmaceutical, and other industries. Whilst still advancing and moving on from our 2nd pilot plant, already engineering confirmed along with independent analysis of by-product - 99.3 & 100%. We see it as exciting times to assist in both the transitioning period and also future negative carbon footprints.

[@DrinkingStar]

Great presentation of the pros and cons. I just subscribed because I want to learn more about hydrogen many different individuals such as you who use reputable sources for their info. As a result, I am a new subscriber.

[@TheHowtoDad]

informative as always! Thanks again for keep us up to date!

[@matthewdunstone4431]

I have dismissed hydrogen as a fuel source in the past, but thanks to this content, I can see that there may be a place for it in the future as ammonia. Thanks for the excellent video. I got a lot out of it.

[@BluegroperAuWeb]

Thank you our CSIRO are working on hydrogen production, converting it to ammonia to store and transport and converting it back to hydrogen at point of use. But as you outlined there is a possibility just to create ammonia and use that in a fuel cell! I think we will get there because there there has been a lot of good R&D!

[@dkrishna2313]

Great video. Concisely describes the state of industry and cuts through a lot of complexity. Thank you for the well-researched piece.

[@mbj__]

Very interesting! I hope you will release follow up videos on this subject as new info becomes available

[@colindavidson7071]

When I was a youngster, lo these many years ago, my father worked at a Wall's Ice Cream factory on the outskirts of Gloucester. They used large amounts of ammonia in industrial refrigerators (which I believe is a still-used technology). Through him I learned that there were civic contingency plans to evacuate half of the city, should a major ammonia leak occur. Yes, ammonia is hydrogen-dense and may by a good way of storing hydrogen, but another problem with it, besides the current lack of efficient, carbon-free industrial scale production technologies, is the not inconsiderable toxicity.

[@jimj2683]

Methanol is a much better alternative. Check out the Gumpert Nathalie fuel cell car.

[@ronmasters751]

So much better than the common breathless excitement about some new technology. Knowing the obstacles really helps.

[@ingemardavidquinterosimonp9761]

This was an excellent video, very informative and well produced. I have just encountered the channel, but you have gained a subscriber. I will start working on a project to replace steam reforming with green hydrogen in an ammonia plant. Thanks!

[@Mickeycuatropatas]

Thanks for your well-done presentation. NH3 is also a lifting gas with profit to be made in that area relative to helium, but at less than half the lifting power.

[@jackfraley9590]

Great video man!

[@patriot9455]

Different methods of storing and generating power or energy are exciting to watch.

[@billboyd4051]

When you're not cleaning up from a flood or fire.

[@alexalekos]

thanks for informing us about those niche and fresh tech news (we aren't seeing those in the media until years have passed)

[@eugeneleroux1842]

Thank you for such an informative and professionally well presented explanation.

[@DennisKapatos]

Did I miss it or was there no mention of the hazards associated with anhydrous ammonia? Although historically there haven't been many cases of accidents with ammonia, the dangers are worth mentioning. With a ammonia/hydrogen based economy I imagine trucks and pipelines would eventually carry it everywhere gasoline is distributed to now, so accidents are bound to occur. While it's true that the extremely strong odor would be a good warning to people who might be wandering near an ammonia leak, it may also be difficult to avoid in some cases. Confined areas would be a huge concern but they aren't the only risk. Normally anhydrous ammonia (100% pure ammonia) is lighter than air so it will tend to dissipate somewhat when outdoors, but in the presence of moisture (such as high relative humidity - looking at your Florida), liquefied anhydrous ammonia gas forms vapors that are heavier than air. In this case a leak or a spill could be extremely dangerous. Breathing in ammonia vapors would cause burning of the lungs and airways leading to extreme respiratory distress and eventually suffocation due to the body's attempt to defend itself - essentially, you end up drowning in your own mucous while your lungs, throat, and eyes burn in excruciating pain. Not pretty. This is why hazard training was needed at my previous employer where I worked near anhydrous ammonia, which was used as coolant for satellites etc.

[@dogcalledholden]

Could it be any worse than a petroleum spill?

[@GilmerJohn]

@@dogcalledholden Yes. I once lived about 1/4 mile away from a bottling plant (c. 1980) which had the refrigeration use ammonia. (Back then, most large "ice" plants used ammonia.

[@marnixdegrie9915]

100% agreed with your respons. The truth must be told about the potential dangerous issues. But if this issue is 100% considered during further exploration, the risks of an accident will be minimised. The advantages in energy storage compared with Hydrogen are to be taken very seriously!!

[@DennisKapatos]

@@marnixdegrie9915 I agree. Hydrogen economy - this is the way.

[@Newerasamearea]

Similar risk profile to petrol/gas fuels no? If that is an acceptable risk profile then I'd imagine ammonia is too provided adequate controls are in place.

[@busybraintinkering465]

Great presentation! Always a good time hearing you talk :) When it comes to good or bad hydrogen I strongly believe we as a population can't "go back". We will never go back to not manufacturing on industrial scale or not travelling the world until nature forces us to. So the only way forward is just that: Forward. If there is economic winning in developing clean hydrogen/ammonia production, it will be done. The same with carbon heavy production. I think the big question here is: Will "green" ammonia production be more profitable than trying to synthesize high energy density fossile fuel or battery solutions with good enough energy/weight ratio? If Yes, then ammonia will be the new "green" fuel. There will always be dirty methods to produce or refine energy, and until they're not profitable anymore, those methods will be used, so I welcome any chance or attempt to find some way to make fossile fuels economically obsolete.

[@millertas]

Always interesting to visit your weekly videos especially when Australia is mentioned. Thank You. As a permanent resident of that country it seems most noise come from the so (ironically) called "Silent Majority".

[@PapiCthulu2]

I appreciate your video presenting the shortcomings and potential of the processes.

[@monkeyfist.348]

A very timely video, I was just watching the head rep for the shipping industry in a discussion on a World Economic Forum video. It seems like the industry is looking to ammonia as a way to continue business as usual. It does look interesting, while it seemed clear from the discussion that the kind of investment needed, would price the industry out of insurability. Certain hazards from exposure to ammonia was also mentioned as a significant issue .

[@HermanWillems]

Problem is, when there is a solution to such problem but will destroy alot of business and setup new kind of businesses. The old industry WITH money won't let that happen so easily. And will resist untill they die. This is why they setup an hydrogen lobby in Europe to push for hydrogen for every things as the holy grail solution. Which it obviously from physics perspective isn't.

[@danielfranklin2344]

Really enjoyed this idea, I read the book The Alchemy of Air which does a great job of explaining the history behind the Haber-Bosch process.

[@chrisgrant8376]

Very clear and informative, many thanks. I am editor of a magazine for more than 1500 large boat owners on inland waterways of Europe and am very interested in the future for driving these boats when old diesels become banned. Weight is not necessarily a problem on a 20-30m 60 ton barge so ammonia in tanks of would be a great solution. We often have 1000 to 2000 litres of diesel carried on board delivered by tanker at the start of the season. I will follow with interest. Thanks again.

[@omprasadpradhan2322]

Finally I found a channel that is genuinely fun to watch ,thanks good sir .

[@kennamorrison8564]

Thanks Dave! Being in Australia I've heard a bit about the CSIRO's and Monash's work on the green creation of ammonia but would love to know more about extracting energy from ammonia via fuel cells or other ways of using ammonia as a fuel, possibly by catalytic conversion to hydrogen and if that is a viable option on comparatively small scale applications such as trucks or even cars. I thought that CSIRO had something on that as well, or am I mistaken?

[@mea15457]

Would be a great comparison between methanol and ammonia as hydrogen carriers and potential risks

[@TG-lp9vi]

Great info Dave,,,thanks for all you efforts.

[@jmrumble]

That last reactor, the button cell one, sounds like it would work best as a node in a highly parallel process, maybe as part of a battery that stores the ammonia and the nitrogen/hydrogen/water by the fact of it being a reversible and presumably solid state process.

[@jaredrigdon3582]

Something I just happened to notice. In the reaction depicted @ 9:40, at high temperatures such as in a combustion engine the nitrogen would also oxidize to form NO2, N2O, NO3, and other nitrogen oxides. These are large contributors to acid rain as NO2 and other nitrogen oxides react with water in the air to form nitric acid.

[@shawnnoyes4620]

You can address with Selective Catalytic Reduction as well as gas plasma ignition in an internal combustion engine.

[@mike160543]

The best way to reduce NOX emissions is to mix some ammonia with the effluent gas and pass it over a catalyst.

[@Build_the_Future]

9:38 if you burn 4NH3 + 3O2 in a jet engine you will get NOx gas. Not just nitrogen and water. That's not good for the environment, and it's way worse than CO2

[@kwantator]

It is the jet engine itself produce NOx due to high temperature.

[@mosiprop]

True, yet jet engines burning hydrocarbons or hydrogen also produce NOx because of the high combustion temperature and presence of N2 in the air. I'm not sure NH3 combustion in a jet engine would emit more NOx.. it could be somewhat less, as Ammonia burns somewhat cooler in air than either jet fuel or hydrogen. An ammonia fuel cell powering the aircraft may be a worthwhile option. Studies have showed that reducing cruising speed and altitude can greatly reduce NOx and CO2 emissions, even with existing technology. Battery and/or fuel cell electric planes will be even cleaner, and will become practical as technology improves.

[@YodaWhat]

Fine, but you don't have enough O2 shown in your chemical equation to produce the NOx. The thing with jet engines is they have to use an excess of air to keep the combustion temperature down and prevent melting the engine, and that excess air is where the extra O2 comes from.

[@johnkesich8696]

Naively, it seems the process should be 4NH3 + 3O2 --> 2N2 + 6H2O Why would we get 4NH3 + 3O2 --> N2 + 2NOx + 4H2O + 2H2 Isn't the N2 bond the strongest bond in nature? Doesn't that imply nitrogen would favor bonding with itself rather than oxygen? What "goes wrong" to produce NOx? And is there a way to fix it?

[@carpenter3069]

I like acid so acid rain is a good thing, no?

[@luispedrero808]

great presentation. Congrats, well researched and referenced.

[@CrHeUs]

Hey mate, thanks for the continuous production of great content. I’m looking to get into environmental engineering; do you have any book suggestions for me and other potential world-changers to get familiarized to the topic? Cheers, keep up the good work!

[@nolan4339]

The best thing going for Ammonia, is that these systems do not need much in terms of complicated setup. In fact every farmer that is certified to handle chemicals could rig up a renewable energy plant, storage tank and be creating their own fuels and/or fertilizer and even be able to sell their excess.

[@philipandrew1626]

There is another element that we could attach Hydrogen energy carriers, that the worlds infrastructure is already in place to utilise. Its called Carbon. Even better you can keep attaching H and C into fairly large chains to achieve incredible energy densities. If only we could make the synthetic stuff economically, that way the Carbon inputs and outputs would balance and be neutral.

[@macrumpton]

So you burn this hydrocarbon and we get more carbon in the atmosphere. I'm missing the point I guess.

[@NeblogaiLT]

@@macrumpton Not more, if you use atmosphere carbon to make the hydrocarbon.

[@xchopp]

@@NeblogaiLT Well that wood be your problem (see what I did there?!).

[@philipandrew1626]

@@macrumpton yes but if the source of the carbon is biological then the carbon cycle makes it carbon neutral.

[@BeeGameDev]

Carbon neutral is good, not great, it's a stopgap measure. We need carbon negative solutions because the damage has already been done.

[@mattiafrancescobruni8318]

Nice video; it explain in nice details the processes discussed. It's not so easy from a science educated point of view to explain the frustration of the actual situation of the energy industry sector. We live in a ultra modern world, thinking for example about our phone, but what is going on behind the curtain is absolutely disgusting: burning gas for electricity, crushing uranium to boil water to Power turbine to get more electricity, the mentioned haber bosh process... All this things are terribly under developed, and it is sad to say, for political reasons.

[@artnarchist1392]

Love your work! Thanks for making these vids!

[@eclipsenow5431]

I wish those green-ammonia researches every success! However, as shifting off dirty transport fuels onto clean ones is a decadal process, we could ask ourselves why our cities require so many cars in the first place? What if we built not just energy efficient transport, but energy efficient cities that used less transport in the first place? New Urbanism is a movement that builds an attractive town square above a subway and surrounds that square with shops and services. It immediately becomes a vibrant human-focussed place of work, rest, and play. Unlike an oversized suburban Mega-mall which is a 20 minute drive away (plus parking time!), a local town square is a 5 minute walk away. Unlike a Mega-mall serving 300,000 people from suburbs scattered far and wide, a town square serves the local 15,000 people. Instead of being oversized and full of strangers, they are intimate and community creating. Loneliness is becoming a health epidemic up there with heart disease and cancer. Town squares solve loneliness while also encouraging walking and reducing obesity. There are many benefits. It decreases car use - and makes a car-free lifestyle viable. This has benefits for the poor. It decreases the size of our cities down to 20% or 10% of today's massive suburban sprawl. It decreases our carbon emissions, traffic jams, loneliness, environmental impact, and even the size of our waistlines! Studies and videos here. eclipsenow.wordpress.com/rezone/

[@bentullett6068]

Some of the city's in the UK are starting to remove cars from the city and replacing them with public transport and no vehicle zones. The local city to where I live in the UK, Birmingham, has been extending its tram system around parts of the city and only allowing certain vehicles on the roads like buses, delivery vehicles and taxi's. Its mad really as tram systems existed in all of our major UK cities up until the 1950's but were removed due to more car ownership and buses were cheaper to maintain.

[@johnm2879]

To evaluate any of these processes, we'd need solid estimates of there EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). How efficient are they? Hydrogen is generally in the 25% range of efficiency which is comparable to Internal Combustion Engines running on fossil fuels. Since producing enough energy from renewable source will be an extreme challenge post-fossil fuels, the efficiency of storage systems will be critical. Chemical batteries are probably 90+% efficient and if hydrogen or hydrogen ammonia is only 25%, then it is a non-starter for widespread applications regardless of its other positive characteristics. So, how efficient are these processes? What is their energy cost?

[@buttonasas]

I think 25% is plenty if we are talking about long-term storage. Especially if the charging is quick to turn on or off (the room temperature solution should be just so), it would be highly compatible with renewable energy sources. Losing 75% of the energy that is already _excess_ at peak hours doesn't sound too bad of a deal. Though, I wonder how much servicing the systems to support this need.

[@MrMakabar]

Solar is right now the cheapest way to produce electricity. So building huge arrays in some desert to create ammonia with two or three times the efficeny of some places closer to the poles, turning it into ammonia to transport it to those areas for energy usage, seems reasonable to me. Especially considering power lose with high volatge cables and the fact that you could store it at the destination easily. Also remeber that batteries are very expensive right now.

[@Cspacecat]

"To evaluate any of these processes, we'd need solid estimates of there EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). How efficient are they? Hydrogen is generally in the 25% range of efficiency which is comparable to Internal Combustion Engines running on fossil fuels." kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoWzpWZoob-MaZI

[@buttonasas]

@@MrMakabar Well, that sounds like a transport issue where you would need to invest a further large amount of the saved energy. Also tons and tons of infrastructure that needs maintenance. Other than that, I agree!

[@MrMakabar]

@@buttonasas Ammonia is used for fertiliser production at a massive scale right now. So transport we have ships and port infrastructure at most logical destinations right now and ports near deserts are faily common as well. The Middle East or Australia could be good places to start.

[@hanxhillman6769]

You do a great job explaining science keep up good work

[@dadisacek]

Your concent is alwas top-notch. Thank you for your hard work

[@MK-bd9vr]

Really a great video. Regarding the concern of the environmental associations: a reasonable CO2 price would make the fossil-based production of hydrogen and ammonia uneconomical, here one can hope that in the medium term more and more countries will establish an ambitious CO2 trade

[@kevinkelly7078]

CO2 trade is a market scam. Actual renewable energy is our future.

[@Sherry7070]

In the example with Ammonia in Jet engines, how do one avoid NOx due to high tempertures from the cumbustion (The hot section of the engine)?

[@Sherry7070]

Thanks! I'm happy with 75% less! 👍

[@lordsamich755]

It can be electrically or chemically split into Hydrogen and Nitrogen. It just solves the storage problems.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@robertlee6338 interesting. I had thought the aviation industry would be more interested in using this to enable lightweight electrification via fuel cells. Didn’t know there was this much research into just burning the ammonia in the turbofan.

[@nicolasruiz6976]

@@robertlee6338 blending fuels? That clearly makes things more complex (thinking of the "mandate"). How bad is it with just Ammonia? And how about IC engines?

[@viniciusdias3814]

Thank you for this fantastic video! Congratulations from Brazil!

[@harshdev753]

I am listening to you for the first time , You are doing a great job. Kudos !!! Keep growing.

[@adam-g7crq]

I can see the potential for this in heavy transport, for grid storage I remember the liquid air battery video from earlier in the year you posted as a better option, I suppose there's room for manoeuvre for both technologies

[@robmcilroy1894]

I too like the liquid air approach. It uses existing technology . It doesn't require any form of chemical processing,conversion. It would be only applicable for static installations. So doesn't answer the heavy transport question. Hydrogen split from water used in existing infrastructure is a great idea for this. Which could be done at a liquid air plant , I think it would be compatible, pressurisation tanks ,cooling etc, liquid air tanks and liquid hydrogen tanks. Which is exactly as you said, we need to look at all options and develop them . Hydrogen would also be safer than ammonia. Could ships split hydrogen from sea water using solar? My guess it would lead to slower steaming as the amount of panels surface area needed would be large, which imo could be a good thing. Futures so bright 😎

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Adam. Yes, I think at this stage we need all technologies being developed and tested as fast as possible. If we end up with a combination of various solutions, all of which have their own unique advantages then we'll be spreading the risk over a wider area, which is probably no bad thing.

[@mrbizi5652]

@@JustHaveaThink yes but key take away from this video is that Ammonia is easier to transport than Hydrogen. So in that case, we should all drive in that direction as it’s more efficient and sustainable solutions require efficiency, no?

[@mrbizi5652]

@@Jay...777 add a link so we can review please

[@fortruegood8591]

@@robmcilroy1894 Yes. Multiple options need to be considered aptly and appropriately in order to diversify the risks involved as what pointed out.

[@aerime]

Have a look at the Hazer process that is currently being developed in Australia. The process converts methane into hydrogen and graphite without giving off CO2 as a byproduct. It is pretty interesting

[@zber9043]

Interesting. It’s a greenish process because only generates 50% of CO2 of steam methane reforming techniques.

[@davidclarke3489]

Brilliant. I've watched four presentations now. All excellent.

[@carlrehnberg4581]

Superb summup of the current state of affairs. It is also something that is warm at my heart since we at Mantlepower Geothermal is planning for a geothermal plant producing hydrogen/ammonia/fertilizer, through one of the processes mentioned in here.

[@occhams1]

I've been working in reversible fuel cells for several decades now and did my first work on ammonia in SOFCs in the early 2000's. The problem isn't technology - it's cost and regulation. Without a tax on carbon, it's cheaper - always - to make it from natural gas. Without changes in regulation, its only valuable as an industrial product. There are some very real safety concerns with an ammonia 'accident' in a city, for example. But to address the seasonal storage challenge (the January-June capacity factor problem), Ammonia has some real appeal.

[@HermanWillems]

What do you have against regular LFP batteries everywhere? I guess ammonia sounds good for small and medium size ships. (Large needs to have small nuclear plant)

[@occhams1]

Technology wise, self-discharge rates and low energy density make LFPs unlikely for grid level storage, particularly on the seasonal scale. I believe both are practically insurmountable. Yes, there will always be demo products and people will keep trying. They should. But I don't believe LFPs will be widely adopted. Ammonia, in this context as a storage medium, is easy to make and easy to unmake. That's the biggest advantage. The problem with reversible hydrocarbon storage is the proclivity of carbon to bond to itself - in essence making coal - in one or more steps of processing. Solids plug pipes. Nitrogen doesn't do that.

[@jimlofts5433]

that won't make it cheaper just all hydrogen will be at the most expensive price - consumer pays + the electricity needed will also drive up prices

[@johnnycarson67]

If it makes you feel any safer more people die from the chemical compound h2o then any other chemical combination

[@sourcecreator2222]

@@occhams1 which process would you say is the best for "easy to make/unmake" ammonia? OP presented several methods in his video... thanks

[@340wbymag]

I was an ammonia refrigeration engineer for 22 years and my experience tells me that people are terrified of ammonia. Barely detectable amounts can lead people to panic. It is silly, but it's true. That alone tells me that it will never become commonly used by the public to power cars or airplanes on a large scale. The "people-are-afraid factor" will forever limit its use.

[@340wbymag]

@@paul-gs4be As I said, I worked with it for twenty-two years. I helped to train firemen and emergency responders. I have myself dealt with leaks many times. I know well how much it takes.

[@kaitlyn__L]

Indeed. It’s funny just how wildly different similar levels of risk can be regarded by the public. For instance we barely see people worrying about “what if the lithium cell in my smartwatch bursts while I sleep”. Or “what if my gas tank explodes while I’m driving”.

[@TheWareek]

@@kaitlyn__L very much a case of that risk i have grown used to excepting, and which ones I have not. But having large amounts of ammonia in far more places does bring up the question of what happens when several thousands of liters of ammonia is spilt, and it does cause raspatory problems.

[@surferdude4487]

Doesn't amonia become a highly toxic gas when released into the atmosphere?

[@340wbymag]

@@surferdude4487 It is not toxic like a poison. However, it is caustic and can damage your skin and eyes if it is in a concentrated form. If you get into a cloud of ammonia what happens is that your body reacts by closing off your airway in your throat and it will not allow you to inhale. You will automatically exhale in a giant cough and then suffocate, but that would require a strong concentration. It is very painful. I have worked in concentrations that were far, WAY far above OSHA standards.

[@YouChube3]

Quickly becoming my favourite out of 1000+ channels. 🙏 very grateful

[@jimmorrison2746]

What a pleasure to hear an expert talking .

[@arrowpinoy2]

I appreciate the strive for objectivity and multiple perspectives in these videos, therefore I would have expected mention of the health hazards of direct Ammonia exposure. This is much higher than for the fuels Ammonia is proposed to replace (Jet, Diesel, Bunker Fuel, etc.) and will need new design/engineered safeguards for the new applications/scales. Would like to see a similar video on Methanol at some point with its own health exposure issues, though the exposure concentrations need to be a few times more than for Ammonia. It starts getting quite interesting when you compare these two and the places they have the most strength in.

[@jimurrata6785]

@Daniel Meyers "Combustion" doesn't mean carbon. It means oxidation (chlorine, fluorine, etc...count) in an exothermic reaction. There's no carbon consumed or released with oxy-hydrogen. Pure water (and heat) are the only products. If we are looking to create electricity, we need to look at ways to do so directly, without wasting energy as heat, motion, friction etc... The laws of thermodynamics nibble or gorge at the margins otherwise.

[@jimurrata6785]

@Daniel Meyers I'm reading the whole thread. I'm also reading a lot more of Mr. Mann's claims throughout these comments. 😅 I may be pedantic, but I'm not wrong. You're the one who's posted without 'context'

[@Kevin_Street]

Very good point, Joseph Fallurin. I don't know about methanol, but whatever medium we choose for energy storage WILL leak into the environment. Wastage and accidents always happen. That's something that needs to be considered.

[@jimurrata6785]

@Daniel Meyers And I've been burning stuff for 60 years... Methanol is no answer. It's not nearly energy dense enough at 19.7 MJ/kg. Hell, in an ICE you need to meter twice as much as gasoline, and it's incredibly corrosive. But petro-shills will push, because they know the only were going to meet our energy needs _today_ with methanol, is to use methane for feedstock.

[@jimurrata6785]

@Daniel Meyers So, in your freshly minted graduate mind, what energy storage method does have enough density without catastrophic environmental consequences? (No, I'm not being a wiseass) a LOT of things have changed in the past half century. Fortunately for my sake, not thermodynamics.

[@bartroberts1514]

Upgrading ammonia to carbamide (urea) packs even more energy into the molecule, and produces a nontoxic material that stores solid at room temperature, can be transported in liquid form easily, doesn't explode or burn, and can quickly generate either ammonia or hydrogen to use as fuel. It ought be noted both urea and ammonia are highly useful in other applications than energy, so making more of these materials has significant marginal advantage. Will we be seeing urea-powered aircraft and ships in future?

[@MrTkharris]

Also, urea production uses CO2 and ammonia, so urea plants are often co-located with ammonia plants, using the ammonia while also recapturing the ammonia plant's waste CO2.

[@Kevin_Street]

This sounds interesting! I guess it would reduce efficiency by adding another step to the process, but it might be more realistic than using ammonia. It would be intriguing indeed if we ended up with a hydrogen and pee powered economy.

[@ChuckWortman]

@@Kevin_Street well with 5 billion people, there's certainly no lack of suppliers!

[@TheZaffi69]

And... If we keep the reaction we end with artificial oil, which lead us to carbon capture use and storage fuelled. All nice the issue is also that most of the sources (as of today) of renewable are disperse so we either have to transport the hydrogen to factories or loose energy through the net, perhaps going DC instead of AC? it seems we will need to rethink all over again....

[@bartroberts1514]

@@TheZaffi69 Excellent point. Using wood wastes (slash from forests and stover from farms) and biomass animal wastes (from farms and sewage) allows extraction of VOCs (for example by eutectic salt flash pyrolysis) that can by zeolite chemistry be combined with ammonia products to form aviation and marine biofuel, biodiesel, synthetic gasoline and the like. With small "biomass appliances" to draw electricity from the grid for "Power-to-Biofuel" storage of excess grid production when demand is otherwise low and variable sources like wind and solar are peaking, it should be feasible to create solid and liquid fuels cleanly while disposing of organic wastes, solving two species of problems and displacing fossil fuels securely and locally. There are patents for devices that could in principle deliver these results, while also sequestering carbon as biochar.

[@stefankirstein2277]

Very informative presentation I just found today, thank you for that! My question: Are you aware of any efforts using photochemistry to produce ammonia or other fuels? I think production of light in almost any wavelength, including UV, has become very cheap because of the LED technique, so it is worthwhile to (re-)think such a route.

[@adrianloder9172]

Excellent video I found it very interesting 👍

[@Alessandro-1977]

Just curious, what is the benefit of ammonia over other bio-fuels like methanol, for example, that is liquid at ambient conditions and more energy dense, as well ?

[@leroyessel9132]

Gaseous hydrogen produced underground from abandoned or active oil, gas or coal fields leaves all air pollution underground and catalytically extracted "clear" hydrogen can be produced lower than the cost of cheap natural gas or $0.25 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent ($0.25 Kilogram). Compressed hydrogen at 10,000 PSI is carried onboard cars, trucks and trains. Diesel engines can be retrofitted and fueled by 100% hydrogen. Soon internal combustion engines will also be converted to be fueled by hydrogen.

[@CafeElectric]

Thank you for fluffy the introduction. In support of the truth, any discussion of storage must include real efficiency values for each step! Having watched this video, I am still completely unable to evaluate if ammonia storage has any hope of being efficient.

[@corgraveland4874]

Thanks Dave Borlace, for sharing well developed thoughts and ideas embedded in scientific literature and common practice among chemical industry. It also makes me very enthusiastic and creates some additional ideas. If find time will get in touch with you electronically. Thanks 👍👌

[@sum1sw]

Very well done sir, thank you so much. 4:23 steam reforming is at high temperature, but it is not at high pressure. In fact the lower the pressure, the higher the conversion is. That follows the principle of Le Chatelier

[@daveramsay8598]

All good analysis and overview. The dependence on ammonia for agricultural needs should not be underestimated. Currently nations like Trinidad and Tobago are significant players converting abundant gas supplies into fertiliser that is shipped globally. The investment, scale and time taken to replace with renewables will be large and long. It inevitably will have to occur. The scale should not be underestimated though and global food production depends upon fertiliser or the world starves, using ammonia as a fuel is a good idea and hopefully bears fruit. Personally I think stand alone solutions that use hydrogen or ammonia to displace the need for expensive battery technology are the way to go, removing households from the grid for both electricity and space heating where possible and reducing the demand on the generation and transmission infrastructure to allow it more flexibility to supply homes unable to self generate or that are only partially self supporting. I also think we need to move to intra day trading of electricity so homes can provide excess energy at peak times at a fair price to support the overall system and provide a return for those able to invest in distributed self generation. Why pay ridiculous sums to French and Chinese companies to build nuclear when we could pay the same or less money to enterprising Brits to invest in home generation, storage and supply systems that would be more reliable and less risky without transmission losses. That said I am in favour of the Rolls Royce initiative yo design build and install small nuclear reactors close to demand centres hopefully using waste heat for horticulture or space heating.

[@skierpage]

Huh? All these low-carbon fuels require massive amounts of renewable electricity. It makes no sense to use "standalone solutions" to remove houses and businesses from a grid overflowing at times with cheap renewable electricity. There's no scenario where it's cheaper for them to make and store their own fuel locally, and it's not obvious that it would be less expensive to distribute fuel to them than to improve local electrical distribution; when everyone has a BEV and heat pumps, they will use them to smooth out electric demand which makes transmission and distribution easier. As Michael Liebreich of Bloomberg NEF says, leave green hydrogen for the parts electrification can't reach. CleanTechnica had a good article "Is Hydrogen The Best Option To Replace Natural Gas In The Home? Looking At The Numbers" debunking the idea of home hydrogen.

[@daveramsay8598]

@@skierpage the Achilles heal of home storage is the expensive battery. Hydrogen will be expensive to distribute due to its issues and if NG infrastructure is to be used suggests switching overnight.... unlikely and expensive to trash all the gas boilers and fires. I also thing hydrogen will not be good to replace my nice log effect gas fire due to water saturating my flue and having condensate running back down - corrosion. I like the idea of storing a gas over summer from excess hydrogen or ammonia to use it for electricity and heat in the winter for a standalone system. I would think storage would be less expensive than batteries and have 100% capacity over its life unlike batteries which will die. I have a 55 deg slope on a south facing roof in Scotland so ideal for inroof solar. My problem is winter will be low generation due to weather. In Scotland there is already too much wind in winter as the government paid £69 million in Jan Feb 2020 to wind farms NOT to dispatch electricity.... £10 per person and increasing fast. This gets added to my bill with electricity already 15p (18 us cents) per kWh. Gas is 2.5p per kWh. A 6 to 1 difference. Electricity will increase in price due to building wind farms and nuclear plant. This makes domestic generation attractive (and natural gas). Renewable electricity prices are making modern western economies uncompetitive and introducing fuel poverty to older people on low pensions and low income people. I see a future with small distributed generation feeding back into the grid reducing grid losses and expensive upgrades to grids which will reduce electricuty prices through competition and reduced cost of infrastructure.

[@daveramsay8598]

@@skierpage I would say from my analysis on costs I am looking at a 12 to 15 year pay back on going off grid at current fuel prices. This is economic though most people will not be able to afford a £25k upfront cost.

[@skierpage]

@@daveramsay8598 Don't install your own storage then, battery or otherwise. The cheapest new generation is utility-scale wind and solar (maybe not, the latter in Scotland), go read the latest Lazard levelized cost of energy report; so why will the transition make western economies uncompetitive? Sounds like your have electric price regulation issues.

[@daveramsay8598]

@@skierpage energy as an input to manufacturing is key to competitiveness in energy intensive manufacturing process, cheap energy is the steroids to develop an economy, that is what hydrocarbons provided for 100 years and whhbghe green b.s. is denying developing countries access to cheap energy to develop. Your argument that large scale is cheaper is not correct. If it was I would not be able to attain payback. If i can get payback in c. 10 years then it is very economic for me to invest and that calculation is only based on me displacing the energy I buy from the electricity and gas grid. If I factor in a smart sales back into the grid for peak electricity similar to Australia I could attain payback in closer to 5-6 years taking into account my savings and my sales stream. I would make c. £2.5 k and save £2k. What government is not doing is putting the incentive to homeowners to invest in domestic generation and supply. Where I am I am not allowed to install a small wind turbine generator. I calculate that a 250 to 400 watt unit would significantly change the winter situation where solar is inadequate for me. Of course if home owners did this then large scale wind farms would become less needed and the subsidy we are forced to pay would be a big burden on government so I believe this is why we are blocked from this technology. A small wind turbine would reduce my payback by c. 2 years.

[@redmerreiffers]

Wouldn't burning NH3 in gasturbines cause lots of NOx ?

[@Herr_U]

At "low" temperature - no, at high temperature - yes. This is btw also one of the reasons why running gas turbines as peakers are a bad idea (as baseload operation there is minimal NOx, at ramping temperatures there are a lot of NOx produced (due to the nitrogen in the atmosphere and the excess temperature used to increase activity)). (The standard mitigations techniques revolve around either feeding a nitrogen deprived atmosphere (ie: oxygen, or oxygen/CO2 mixes) or lowering the peak temperature (by injecting steam for instance)). If burning the hydrogen when it has been "cracked" from the nitrogen it is "only" the atmospheric nitogren you have to contend with (see above parenthesis)

[@scottanderson2518]

@@Herr_U Solving the NOx emissions of NH3 fired turbines will need to be addressed. As with fossil fuel powered turbines, ingenious control and staged mixing of air and fuel in the combustors would probably be used to lower combustion temps. Smaller fossil fired peakers typically do not have post-combustion controls. Larger fossil fuels baseload generation usually has significant post-combustion NOx emission controls, which coincidentally most commonly uses ammonia in a process called Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).

[@Verifraudreports]

yes

[@BANKO007]

Absolutely and one of the reasons, among many others, to keep ammonia well away from combustion for energy generation.

[@laxtose]

@@Herr_U Lowering the temperature if combustion to lower NOx defeats the purpose of a combustion engine. Higher temperature equals higher efficiency.

[@user-cs4in1sm1j]

very well explained. thank you for your help!

[@hondmilodoggo]

The problem with hydrogen is the energy loss in production and use. Currently, there are three ways to produce hydrogen, it can be produced from methane (just burning methane is more energy efficient and this method creates huge amounts of CO2), it can be produced by leading electricity through water (about 30% energy loss) and the most modern way, membrane separation (about 20% energy loss). The last method is the most popular. And as said in this video, you have to cool or pressurize it (30% energy loss). The most modern way of using hydrogen is by using a membrane that instantly turns it into electricity (the reverse process of membrane separation). This results in yet another energy loss of about 20%. You could also just burn it. I am not sure about the rendement of burning it but since most engines burning fossil fuels have a rendement that's usually not higher than 30% I think the membrane method is more efficient. All these things considered you lose about 70% of the energy you put into producing and using hydrogen. And after all, this isn't energy production, it is just energy storage and transportation. And most energy used to produce hydrogen is produced by fossil fuels. There are however projects running to produce hydrogen using sunlight. This may make hydrogen a better energy source.

[@fiable262626]

The price of electricity can vary a lot when there is a lack of storage or supply response, these changes in cost can help make up for the lower efficiency. Batteries are better in the shorter day or week scale but longer than this they become less useful.

[@hondmilodoggo]

But gasoline does the same. Although not for longer than a year.

[@fiable262626]

@@hondmilodoggo gasoline and other similar fuels are both excellent for storage and reliably produced from under ground sources. But you wouldn’t want to make gasoline with your spare electricity.

[@hondmilodoggo]

@@fiable262626 That's true. Besides, it isn't renewable. I just wanted to mention it.

[@LG123ABC]

You should probably mention how toxic and corrosive ammonia is. I've worked with ammonia in an agricultural setting and believe me when I tell you that when you get hit with even a whiff of ammonia gas you definitely know it.

[@factnotfiction5915]

nh3car.com/FAQ1.htm Not that bad. Also, let's not compare the release of a 131,000 L tanker railcar spill with that of a few liters from a single car. Let me tell you that when you get hit with an explosion from methane, the people attending your funeral definitely know it. * www.foxnews.com/us/major-explosion-in-baltimore-adults-and-children-trapped-reports-say * www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48894648

[@JustHaveaThink]

Yes. Absolutely a very toxic gas to humans. That would be one of the main safety challenges.

[@OldF1000]

@@factnotfiction5915 I can tell you never been around it. If it is not that bad why did i need to wear a air pack and hazmat suit to fix small leaks in ammonia refrigeration systems. Worked with ammonia refrigeration for over 30 years Trust me you would not want to be near a milliliter spill with out a gas mask rated for it.

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@OldF1000 I accept caution, I don't accept the fear people are expressing. I don't know ammonia is any safer than gasoline/propane/methane/hydrogen vehicles, but I also don't know it is less safe - and despite your experience with ammonia in refrigeration, you don't either. Just have a think on what ammonia tank a car might have. Probably very similar to the ones for propane/methane/hydrogen vehicles - resistant to rupture, or slow leaks in a crash - so I believe at first order ammonia is as safe as the others. Now compare the 2 crashes as a first responder: detection - in a hydrogen vehicle you may not be able to detect a leak if any; in a propane/methane vehicle you probably can; in an ammonia vehicle you definitely can. rescue with fire - in a propane/methane vehicle the vehicle can burst into flames at any time; ammonia is difficult to burn outside the engine, so extremely unlikely - which vehicle represents an easier situation for the first responder? rescue with explosion - in a propane/methane - and certainly hydrogen - vehicle, the vehicle can explode at any time; simple impossible with ammonia - which vehicle represents an easier situation for the first responder? The lack of fire or explosive capability makes ammonia attractive, and it has been used in the past without droves of people dying. Belgium even used ammonia for a passenger bus system! (they preferred petrol due to cost and other conveniences, but they didn't quit it because they had masses of gassed passengers).

[@OldF1000]

@@factnotfiction5915 Here is some facts for you kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2PGgad7fdGmipY

[@Daniel-qr6sx]

I Love your videos, down to earth and on point

[@GSimpsonOAM]

Ammonia was used as a fuel in buses in Belgium in 1940. Ideally the combustion results in nitrogen and water but the reality is nitrous oxides are produced. Energy density is 1/3 that of diesel so fuel tank will need to be 3 times as large to get the same range. At least it is more than twice the energy density of hydrogen. I found it amusing the video compared energy density of hydrogen to Lithium ion batteries as that is rather a low bar to set. My experience with ammonia is as a refrigerant. The plant I supervise has 20,000kg of it. Ammonia is about 8 times more expensive than LPG (where I am anyway) with half the energy density so as a fuel is 16 times more expensive.

[@Furiends]

Grid scale hydrogen fuel cells represent a cost effective way to deal with fast changes in demand and deal with lapses in power from renewables due to seasonal fluctuation. Households should only have a battery large enough to get through the mean energy usage day of the year. If we solve this will batteries instead of hydrogen that means at least doubling capacity and in many places there can be lapses of over a week which means 7x battery capacity. There's a reason the existing grid is demand based. On the good days you could charge up hydrogen or pumped storage and then on the bad days used that storage. Of course that process is not 100% efficient which requires energy generate to be overspeced but wind and solar is far cheaper than batteries even if the hydrogen conversion done with hydrolysis and fuel cells this system could still work and probably cheaper than the current natural gas plants. So the overarching point is we can be doing hydrogen right now. Later we can improve costs for with something like ammonia which also has potential in transportation.

[@Furiends]

@@Jay...777 I'll be taking a peak

[@pikkuraami]

Good video again. 👍 On that technology, it is good if production of nitrogen fertilizers become cleaner. As a energy storage to be used in energy production or transport sector, not so much. First of all, infrastructure to use ammonia as a fuel just isn't there. You can create and transport ammonia sure, but to use it as a fuel just can't be done at the moment. Secondly, methane (as in synthetic, biogas etc. renewables) has very similar, well known processes in all phases. So it is better just because all needed infrastructure is already there and built. All that is needed is to ramp up production and get those processes to same cost level with natural gas. Which can be done by carbon taxes on use and giving those revenues to sustainable methane producers as subsidies. Third, emissions from ammonia would be NOx gases because of temperatures involved.

[@nolan4339]

First, I don't think it is too difficult to convert diesel vehicles to use ammonia. Such vehicles have been made in the past. But using it for traditional passenger vehicles is not where the market would be anyway. It would be for long-haul trucks, planes, ships and perhaps farm equipment. And while NOx is a concern when burning ammonia as a fuel, we generally already know how to reduce it to safe levels because typical fuel combustion also generates NOx. It should also be highly reduced if it is Fuel Cells that process it, which is the preferred way to utilize it. Yes methane is a great energy carrier, likely superior to ammonia, but you would have to supply a carbon source to create it synthetically, which will require extra infrastructure through carbon capture, which ammonia does not need.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

You wouldn't necessarily get NOx; it would depend on the manner in which you oxidized the hydrogen. Electrochemical approaches, for example, would be NOx-free.

[@anders21karlsson]

Excellent video as always. Thank you..

[@sivabalankaniapan6275]

Thank you so much, this is such an awesome eye-opening of the hydrogen fuel concept and the benefit for the future sustainability of the power industry.

[@stevesmith-sb2df]

It makes sense for heavy long distance vehicles. For the consumer grade daily driver, batteries are sufficient. Thanks for the video.

[@fortruegood8591]

Yes. For the time being, even I think and feel the same thing. It's better option and choice.

[@ricksauermilch5225]

depends on the consumer. When I lived in the desert in Texas I never left the property unless it was 100 mile round trip, that was the closest actual store/gas station. Not everyone lives in Portland or whatever.

[@JustNow42]

Why not combine H with Carbon, it is really familiar in several variations and liquid in some forms. Of course the carbondioxid must come from the athmosphere so that it is carbon neutral.

[@FrancescoDiMauro]

there's not that much carbon in the atmosphere, funnily enough

[@jimgraham6722]

The best source of CO2 is seawater, 40 times concentration in atmosphere and electrochemical processes to extract have already been developed. Seawater in turn of course is efficient at absorbing and concentrating CO2 from atmosphere.

[@petersilva037]

you mean to make Methane? CH4? ... Methane is a potent GHG. So if it leaks, that's a huge problem. If it doesn't leak, once you get the H back at the send, you end up with free 'C' hanging around, which tends to turn into CO2... not helpful.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@petersilva037 Hi Peter, Not methane, liquid fuels, specifically JP8 (C31H48 or there abouts) jet and diesel fuel. Process has been developed but not yet fully commercialised. Proponents expect fuel made this way will compare well in cost to fuels like Jet A made from fossil fuels noting a. need to transition from these and b. that local just in time production could offset extraction, shipping, refining and storage costs associated with fossil fuel.

[@JustNow42]

@@petersilva037 well hou almost got it. Not necessary CH4 may be something liquid, it does not leak. And of course the Carbon return to where you got it, that is ok. Less usefull (= useless) would be to get it from a carbon driven process. And it is not that difficult to get CO2 out of the air.

[@geordiew2162]

Brilliant !! So much better than getting to 70 Kel. Happy hollidays

[@carpenter3069]

Excellent work Dave. What about salvaging energy that is currently going to waste, for example a hydro dam in an area with records amount of rainfall. Rather than just letting the water go through an overspill, energy can be produced and stored as ammonia - maybe the price of food would become too low, or farmers could make more profit.

[@davidhill5798]

I can only wish I had the intelligence, energy and insight to imagine, research, write and produce material of this caliber. The bottom line I took away from this is that burning NH3 is not fundamentally different than burning CH4. I would expect that there is probably not as much efficiency in one form or another, but the concept is that they are similar. This episode could be reframed as finding an efficient and fast method of converting CO2 + H2 into CH4 + O2..., essentially reversing our current coal fired economy, but using N2 instead.

[@tomschroeyens6789]

That's not really right what you are saying. NH3 is a good and safe way to store and transport hydrogen. This hydrogen can be used in fuel cells to produce electricity. The only current problems are hydrogen and ammonia production but this can be archieved with renewable resources also.

[@sourcecreator2222]

You can, with persistence and faith you can!

[@elonmask50]

Merry Christmas Dave, I love the idea of storing hydrogen as Ammonia, but leaks out in the real world could be very bad.

[@carltaylor4942]

Ammonia itself is an extremely dangerous substance. If you breathe in a lungful, that's the end for you.

[@scottanderson2518]

I was hoping someone would bring this point up. Risk of ammonia release from storage and transport is highly regulated situation. NH3 is deadly at a relatively low dose: IDLH is 300 ppm (Immediate Danger to Life and Health, US NIOSH and CDC)

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@scottanderson2518 nh3car.com/FAQ1.htm Not that bad. Also, let's not compare the release of a 131,000 L tanker railcar spill with that of a few liters from a single car.

[@gtranquilla]

@@carltaylor4942 - a lung full is not required.....for permanent damage or even death. And ammonia is most often heavily diluted with water to reduce the danger level. Several ice rink workers in Fernie BC were killed by an ammonia link a couple of years ago. Anhydrous ammonia is extremely dangerous and even explosive in air mix if there is a spark. CO2 in the atmosphere becomes a non-issue in comparison to a sudden anhydrous ammonia leak...

[@gtranquilla]

@@scottanderson2518 - far more highly regulated versus all other liquid fuels...

[@yggdrasil9039]

Fantastic clear explanation of the current options for H2 economy. I just wonder though if the Haber-Bosch process can somehow be powered by renewables, which gets the best of both worlds - low CO2 emissions and far higher speed than the Monash process.

[@FerraPizza]

This is a great presentation of the work that's being done to fix the problems we've created..

[@cosmicbuddhi8029]

What element does Mother Nature use most as a storage stabliser for Hydrogen? I'd go with that one!

[@billboyd4051]

Water.

[@donbrutcher4501]

The problem with using hydrogen as a fuel for combustion is in what happens in combustion. The high temperatures and pressures necessary for internal combustion engines will cause oxides of nitrogen released to the atmosphere resulting in acid rain.

[@scottanderson2518]

NOx is also a precursor of Ozone pollution...

[@skierpage]

Right, so hydrogen in a fuel cell where batteries don't work, and use electricity directly in more efficient heat pumps instead of burning hydrogen for heat. Some suppliers of equipment that burns natural gas (turbines, cookers, etc.) are hyping the idea of running a mix of hydrogen with natural gas through their products, but that's greenwashing.

[@donbrutcher4501]

@@skierpage If those who use hydrogen in internal combustion engines keep the peak cylinder pressures down with lower compression ratios, like the automotive industry did in the 70s, oxides of nitrogen may be sufficiently low. Mixing hydrogen with natural gas for combustion? Maybe a useful temporary band aid , but not a long term fix.

[@donbrutcher4501]

@TF C True. Hydrogen may work as a temporary supplement to gasoline or diesel, (hydrogenate?) similar to how ethanol (oxygenate) supplements gasoline. Might also serve as an intermediate step along the technology curve.

[@fieldlab4]

Very good. I have long believed ammonia should be researched. Green ammonia and ammonium (NH4) are interesting. There are even biological processes which can supply ammonia. A problem with burning it is the potential to create nitrous oxides. It will be interesting to know more about techniques which avoid that.

[@johanneslundvoll2555]

Hey! Im really loving your content! And i was wondering if you could try to do an episode on Norway? Either hydrogen, CCS, transition from oil, renewables etc. Im norwegian myself, and would really love an episode on my country (obviously). I do believe that 98% of our energy is renewable, but we still have a coal power plant located in Svalbard. Loved the episode on hydrogen in Australia

[@pennyoflaherty1345]

I’m glad You liked that episode of Hydrogen in Australia, I only wish we had a more unified dedicated Federal Government committed to climate change as outlook is too slow by 2050 Goal line - unlike Europe tackling the problem now in V A S I T Y our trickling bk door will make us the Laughing Stock @ G7 coming up. Everyone is bringing their Advance Planning to Summit, can Australia really * ADVANCE ITS AFFAIRS.? Or SpinDoctor ?!

[@mr1enrollment]

title should read: Hydrogen energy storage (AS) AMMONIA

[@human_isomer]

So much pondering of how hydrogen can be transported, and it's so easy- just use oxidan! It can be easily generated from hydrogen and air, and the process doesn't use energy - it's even generating energy! Vast amounts! Then the oxidan can be liquefied very easily, it doesn't need high pressures but only the ambient air to cool. After that it can be transported in tanks or through pipes, and at the end, the hydrogen can be easily restored by a simple electrochemical process. Problem solved! *cough ok, don't take that for serious... ;)

[@alberto211393]

lol hydrogen oxide through pipes? hmm, wonder what magical molecule that might be XD

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Hydrogen: See my Twitter page under the same name as this comment to see just some of what this world is doing with Hydrogen and Hydrogen technologies.

[@richschneider5488]

Very informative, thank you.

[@andres14142]

The main problem with Ammonia synthesis is that the rate determining step is the dissociation of the N2 molecule on the surface of the catalyst. The energy requiered to dissociate N2 is quite high, therefore the energy input will be high. Without the dissociation of an N2 molecule no NH3 can be formed. One alternative that is being explored is using Plasma catalysis as energy source to activate the N2 and cause the dissociation.

[@joaquinguelfi6682]

Hi. According to google. "Exposure to high concentrations of ammonia in air causes immediate burning of the eyes, nose, throat and respiratory tract and can result in blindness, lung damage or death." What about that part of ammonia?

[@petertownsend252]

Like this: chicago.cbslocal.com/2019/04/25/ammonia-spill-beach-park/

[@joaquinguelfi6682]

@@petertownsend252 that's comforting.

[@factnotfiction5915]

nh3car.com/FAQ1.htm Not that bad. Also, let's not compare the release of a 131,000 L tanker railcar spill with that of a few liters from a single car.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Yes. It is a very toxic gas. That's why it is never exposed to the open air in it's production or transportation.

[@phillipsusi1791]

@@factnotfiction5915 It didn't all spill. A few liters of liquid ammonia will expand into a large cloud of toxic gas.