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.justhaveath...
Help support this channels independence at
/ justhaveathink
Or with a donation via Paypal by clicking here
www.paypal.com...
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.buymeacoff...
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....
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...
Douglas MacFarlane Paper
www.cell.com/j...
Article in The Chemical Engineer magazine
www.thechemica...
Recharge Article : hydrogen on offshore platforms
www.rechargene...
EU Hydrogen Strategy
ec.europa.eu/c...
www.euractiv.c...
DESMOG article
www.desmogblog...
corporateeurop...
US DoE Investment in Hydrogen
cleantechnica....
Global Ammonia Market Trends
www.globenewsw...
Ammonia for heavy trucks in Canada
www.ammoniaene...
Ammonia as a jet fuel
www.popularmec...
www.ammoniaene...
WSJ on Hydrogen Projections
www.wsj.com/ar...
Colorado School of Mines
www.minesnewsr...
Hydrogen boiler trial in Scotland
www.theguardia...
#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.

[@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 ?

[@tylower]

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

[@JustHaveaThink]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@CasualClinkz]

My thoughts excactly. Combing this with making nuclear waste reusable, seems to be the best way to clean up pur emissions and stop using rare minerals that get other people exploited

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@HerreNeas]

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

[@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.

[@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?

[@ronmasters751]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@madsam0320]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@HazemHaddad-k3t]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@charlesbachand6884]

Nice video but NHHHF has the patents and working prototype for green production of NH3, Fuel Positive is the company .

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@omprasadpradhan2322]

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

[@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.

[@johnlavelle6053]

Really clear and well done presentation. As a drilling engineer in oil and gas I do feel that the author's bias only presents in use of "scam" after fossil fuels! The goal of hydrogen use right now should be to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The cheapest and quickest way to produce it is with existing technology and infrastructure using fossil fuels. The focus surely should not be a blanket anti-fossil-fuel stance but the implementation of Carbon Capture and Sequestration as quickly as possible to make ammonia a carbon neutral fuel.

[@mea15457]

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

[@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.

[@jackfraley9590]

Great video man!

[@alexalekos]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@harshdev753]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@dkrishna2313]

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

[@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.

[@danielhanawalt4998]

40 plus years ago I read an article in Popular Science magazine I think it was, about something the US Navy was doing with ammonia. Not sure I remember but it seems they were pumping the ammonia down tubes into the cooler water where it became liquid, then pumped it back to the surface where it became a gas or vapor. Pressurized it and pumped it through a turbine to generate electricity. Or something like that. Enjoy your videos very much. Lots of interesting things you talk about, and put in ways even I can understand.

[@user-tk1lf5hi6f]

That might have had to do with refrigeration. A lot of older RVs have refrigerators that use ammonia as the refrigerant. The Navy ship might have scaled that up big time for some purpose. Just a guess.

[@danielhanawalt4998]

@@user-tk1lf5hi6f Good guess I think. It seemed a bit impractical for supplying much energy needs for the planet, but for small scale applications.

[@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.

[@mbj__]

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

[@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

[@YuriSoul2222]

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

[@pelfis]

Dave Borlace, I was wondering if you have heard about the research of iron used as a fuel? In short the plan works like this. Burn iron to boil water and make electricity. The iron oxide is put in ships and sent to a place with abundent sunshine and have the oxide removed from the iron using sunlight. Sent it back and it starts all over. I thought it's a promising idea. Keep up the great work !

[@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?

[@behr121002]

Probably not the only one, but for my experience and money, JHAT is one the best sites for alternative energy issues, in terms of information and presentation. My hat is off to you--keep up the great work! (Definitely agree with Tom Christensen's view below--Dave should be commended for all his professional and exemplary work.)

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thank you. I really appreciate that feedback :-)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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".

[@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?

[@AlanRPaine]

I was reading in the Chemical Engineer about Methyl Cyclo Hexane being used as a hydrogen carrier. On releasing the hydrogen it would become methyl toluene and then presumably be returned to the starting point to be hydrogenated again. On the face of it it doesn't sound very promising but the inventors are very enthusiastic of course.

[@kaitlyn__L]

I’m no organic chemist but my first thought is: I’ve heard plenty from organic chemist friends about how much of a PITA they are! Organic chemistry is far more delicate and thus harder to industrialise. Not impossible by any means but here the advantages don’t seem to outweigh the difficulties at a guess. That is to say, just going by my existing knowledge about those compounds, not having looked into the exact proposed process at all yet.

[@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.

[@YuriSoul2222]

You can, with persistence and faith you can!

[@deanz4065]

The perfect matchup for this type of technology would appear to be modular nuclear reactors. Specifically thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor. These reactors can produce much more than just electricity. They are an excellent source of high temperature industrial thermal energy. This thermal energy can be used to turn salt water into fresh water. Still, as steam, this freshwater could be combined with hydrogen. The hydrogen could also be more readily separated from the high-temperature steam. The reactor would also use the electricity necessary for what electrolysis is required and run the pumps for what compression is still needed. The system could change readily as necessary from producing electricity during high electric power to manufacturing and pumping fresh water, finally during the lowest energy times to manufacturing ammonia. A Thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor is much more green (is a much lower carbon emission footprint) than even the so-called greenest solar or wind technology. The cost per megawatt is significantly lower. It requires no additional energy storage in order to be effectively used (when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow) and significantly drives down the cost per megawatt. The power plant is used multi-functionally and can be kept running for maximum efficiency.

[@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.

[@Andrew-ep4kw]

First, I really enjoy this channel, it discusses realistic ideas for solutions to the fossil fuel issue. However, there are some serious drawbacks to using anhydrous ammonia as a fuel, mainly from a safety point. Ammonia must be kept in a pressurized vessel which adds weight to an airplane. I'm not sure if they could design a wing tank that could withstand the vapor pressure of ammonia. Ammonia is also caustic in its pure form and considered extremely hazardous, so any leaks could place passengers and ground crew at extreme risk. A tank failure or leak could flood the cabin with ammonia, killing everyone aboard.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Agreed Andrew. I would not personally want to fly in a plane running on ammonia jet fuel.

[@factnotfiction5915]

www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia/2007/Olson2_NH3.pdf see slides 40-45 The whole point of ammonia (vs hydrogen) is that like methane, its vapor pressure is relatively low. and yes, the pressures would be low enough for a lightweight wing tank.

[@factnotfiction5915]

@@JustHaveaThink I believe you have promoted the use of battery-powered planes (with a super-high power density, a lot of dead-weight, with potential for a high-power short-circuit), and hydrogen-powered planes (with a super-explosive fuel) and you are worried about a (presumably safety-licensed) ammonia engine for flight? I am not sure ammonia will make the safety cut, but I believe there is a good case it will. I am certainly open-minded enough to not state an opinion so devoid of fact, and so full of fear, about a technology that may come to pass.

[@factnotfiction5915]

@George Mann I am not an ammonia advocate. I merely prefer facts to old-wives tales when people opine about the dangers of ammonia.

[@ChrisNotTheKing]

@@factnotfiction5915 We've had decades of experience with explosions from hydrocarbon fuel tanks (including static electricity on fuel in/out), so yeah... let's not get too hand-wavy about "how much more" dangerous NH3 is until some proper engineering is put into it.

[@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.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Love CSIRO The circumstances under which they continue to succeed are not unlike the Monty Python sketch where bricks tied to the legs of a Channel Jumper, (ie more advanced than the traditional Swimmers), would add an "incentive to stay up in the air to avoid drowning".., aka "deregulation and privatisation".

[@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.

[@mike160543]

At last, a sensible analysis . Ammonia from electrolysis hydrogen is a very old technology, dating from before the second world war. There are several companies offering commercial sized ammonia processes based on green hydrogen. The only thing stopping their widespread adoption is the price of hydrogen. What is not addressed in this presentation is the fact that “green” ammonia could directly replace ammonia made from fossil fuels. There is a huge potential market for this ammonia as soon as it becomes cheaper than ammonia made from fossil fuels.

[@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.

[@rantsulla]

This is fantastic! I live in Finland and I already have 20 solar panels producing more than half of my annual consumption for my house. I also have the problem that I produce excess energy during summer, but none during Dec-Jan. If I could store my excess energy into a nitrogen tank during summer, and use it during winter through my reversible nitrogen fuel cell, then I would only need 30 panels more and I would be self-sufficient on electricity and would contribute to "Save The World". WOW - Where and when can I buy this nitrogen fuel cell equipment?

[@jb-xc4oh]

Nowhere....besides you could never afford to pay for one anyway.

[@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...

[@rickrys2729]

Certainly some hope that we can make and use green ammonia. Ammonia is also a great refrigerant but it's hazards seem to have led to its demise although chlorofluorocarbons also have negative environmental effects. It would also be possible to react hydrogen to methane and even synthesize gasoline or diesel fuels. These chemical pathways also have significant efficiency issues. The competition for storing electric power including chemical storage is certainly relevant and fascinating to the largely unsolved grid energy storage problem, but great to see so many options.

[@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

[@viniciusdias3814]

Thank you for this fantastic video! Congratulations from Brazil!

[@cosmicbuddhi8029]

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

[@billboyd4051]

Water.

[@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.

[@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.

[@jimmorrison2746]

What a pleasure to hear an expert talking .

[@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.

[@gregcorker2193]

Fantastic information; especially when the energy density of ammonia (as compared to lithium-based batteries) was explained.

[@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

[@YouChube3]

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

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

Unless I missed something, neither the video nor the comments said what the round-trip energy efficiency is, going from N2+H2O to NH3 and back again. That's what's ultimately going to determine whether this can out-compete hydrogen.

[@lordgarion514]

Not really. Hydrogen is also expensive to store for any length of time, and it's almost impossible to stop it from leaking out. And hydrogen doesn't play nice with lots of materials, shortening their lifespans. Overall it could be quite a bit less efficient than hydrogen, and still be cheaper long term.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

@@lordgarion514 Possibly. But as I said, I still haven't seen any quantitative comparison-not from you, not from Dave, not from anyone else.

[@rupert7565]

www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/round-trip-efficiency-of-ammonia-as-a-renewable-energy-transportation-media/

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

@@rupert7565 Don't just pass me a damned link. Have some respect for my time. Tell me something about what it says. Just a synopsis will do, as long as it's accurate.

[@rupert7565]

@@ronaldgarrison8478 29 to 50% depending on application. there is a graph that show the relevant info.

[@PhilipBarkes]

An addendum about ammonia safety risks and mitigation measures would round out the topic well.

[@mr1enrollment]

title should read: Hydrogen energy storage (AS) AMMONIA

[@PapiCthulu2]

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

[@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.

[@warwickwestonwrigful]

I'd like to hear more about Amonia energy, I understand that making Amonia can be greatly increased by introducing hemp into the high temperature high pressure vat.

[@sudeeptaghosh]

Irrespective of the source of energy to produce NH3, it remains to be very complicated compared to few solar panels or wind mills and big battery storages. this system already being scaled.this is simple & effective solution.

[@carpenter3069]

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.

[@ronkirk5099]

I agree. I can see this as a new, cleaner method of producing Ammonia fertilizer, but not as a fuel source.

[@FlorentHenry]

I independently came to the same conclusion as you. Europe is massively financing "green" hydrogen production but it doesn't mean that it will be the largest part of the Hydrogen market. It however fuels the hype around Hydrogen and favorises its use to the detriment of more energy efficient solutions. Too bad your video doesn't show a table comparing the global efficiency of the proposed systems versus known systems (like hydro storage) or even better, the calculated maximum efficiency physics allows. Great content though, thanks for caring.

[@kaitlyn__L]

Yeah, it’s more about the economics than the physics, this video. As the physics goes, I’m only in favour of using hydrogen for reactions that aren’t currently practical to electrify like steel production, and for long term energy storage when batteries and co can’t keep up. For instance to replace emergency generators’ fuel in hospitals and the like. But proposals like burning hydrogen in our homes because we already have gas going to homes, with the idea being the hydrogen will come from wind power in Scotland, makes absolutely no sense compared to using heat pumps, especially since you’d need a new boiler for the hydrogen anyway. Just install a heat pump for the heating and hot water at that stage. Not to mention there’s plenty of homes built in the last couple of decades with no gas supply because of electrification being the plan for a while. I can see the appeal in making conversion easier for existing houses but existing boilers are only rated for 5% or 10% hydrogen, not 100%. So in the short term, mixing in the maximal green hydrogen, I can see the value in that. But if we’re replacing systems anyway, given there’s already electrical connections to the homes too, I don’t see why hydrogen should be preferred there. And, as it stands, there’s grants for electrifying your heating (with resistive or pumped heat) in nations currently suggesting hydrogen could heat millions of homes, so hopefully it is only the short term option they have in mind. Now, with some of these direct solar to hydrogen systems we’ve seen in the news lately, that might change the efficiency scale. If the hydrogen only came from electrolysis, it was obviously better to use the electricity live instead of pointlessly converting it whenever you could. But if the hydrogen bypasses the inefficiencies in the solar cells and the turbines, there’s a chance hydrogen’s efficiency could become higher, in nations with enough annual sunlight to power it. So in that regard, I could understand governments hedging their bets somewhat on which direction to go, especially since electrical grids and gas grids are both already extant, so there’s almost no opportunity cost in sitting on the fence about this. And that’s all fine in my book, just so long as they use it to stay flexible and focus on actually improving efficiency and carbon, vs buying too much into any one system or energy source. After all, hydrogen is easy to export and to build up surpluses of even when it’s relatively inefficient from electrolysers, if the energy would otherwise be curtailed. Stockpiled to use in winter months or sold to other nations. So in that sense it doesn’t necessarily have to compete with electrification at all. Like I mentioned at the start of my comment. But there certainly seems to be economic interests in trying to get hydrogen to replace electrification in sometimes-inappropriate places. Planes makes sense because they’re so weight sensitive, as are large trucks, but cars? Trains? Those make less sense. Trains can be directly electrified, but more recently they’re also carrying batteries for sections of route that would previously have required a bi-mode train switch on the diesel genny for. There are some proposals that hydrogen could be an option for entirely un-electrified routes with difficult terrain, as opposed to batteries, due to being able to carry more and weigh less, but I’m dubious about that personally. I think partial electrification and batteries seem better at first blush. But there may be a minority of train lines where it really is the most efficient way. (Plus, again, direct solar separation could upend these calculations altogether.) It’s all about tradeoffs, really. There are no outright solutions, everything has tradeoffs. We’ve got to have a plurality of energy sources and storage options, based on the specific requirements of each country/industry/etc. Just as we’ll always have pumped hydro as well as batteries, we’ll also always have hydrogen used for at least some things. Best to be able to use it to replace carbon heavy things, but not to be overly reliant on being able to use hydrogen and solely hydrogen either, lest we do end up in a “new oil” scenario. One great advantage of renewables and electrification is how they’re allowing many nations to have energy independence. So inadvertently tethering ourselves to buying hydrogen for all forms of energy from sun-rich nations would just end up emulating oil barons. But conversely, resisting hydrogen when it is actually the appropriate solution would also be shortsighted, as we do need to move quickly in decarbonising.

[@FlorentHenry]

@@kaitlyn__L I agree, context is super important to chose the best option. I foresee very few cases where hydrogen might be a good idea (compression, liquefaction or bonding (like ammonia) requires energy that will be all or mostly wasted, making global efficiency quite poor). Durability of equipment in contact with Hydrogen isn't obvious either; might require frequent maintenance or complex materials that also puts a toll on efficiency. Burning hydrogen in homes is nonsense, heat pumps are a much better choice (until we don't need heating anymore haha) - also distribution network couldn't handle pure hydrogen, explosion hazard might be increased too in case of leak? I agree on trains. However, is it worth developing hydrogen trains for very few corner cases (if they exist)? Finally, years of consulting taught me that any temporary solution that more or less does the trick just stays forever. Putting in place Hydrogen because it's slightly better than the current solution might put the return on investment (CO2-wise, who cares about money when your future is uncertain?) so far in the future that it's better to take more time to do much better. Also, people might get confused and think hydrogen is great and solves the problem where it was meant as a temporary fix. So, huge risk of problem displacement again. Those are the main points I wanted to address. Thanks for your reaction, much more would need to be discussed; too bad EU politicians are mostly ill-informed on that topic.

[@49andrew]

You've repeated something that really annoys me at 6:43 when talking about the source of energy for generating ammonia. "Renewable energy from wind and solar". I would love it if you would say "zero carbon emission energy" - a technology-agnostic phrase - whenever you talk about the energy sources. The energy sources are a separate discussion, though I have to say directly that I want your list to include advanced nuclear fission. In another note, methane is a good hydrogen carrier as well., and many developed countries have methane distribution infrastructure in place. Manufacturing methane from CO2 scrubbed from the atmosphere would at least not add CO2 as long as the energy driving the process is zero carbon emission.

[@petersilva037]

as someone living where electricity comes 98% from hydro-electric dams... I need to say: Me too. While you can correctly state that solar energy powers the water cycle, It's a bit of a stretch, and I think hydro power should be included in the renewables basket.

[@samuraibeaver7502]

I am a full supporter for this technology. Aside from its Intermediate power problem solution it also provides diversification of supply for ammonia for fertiliser and other industrial processes increasing global equity.

[@jimrobcoyle]

I ran an ammonia freezer facility. Management of the Emergency Response with every local governmental entity will kill this idea.

[@stuartsaunders3238]

Self driving HGEV will be much safer than the old biodegradable variety lp gas tanker crash Perhaps if the chance of an accident or NH3 emission, automatic ignition could eliminate the risk of poisoning / suffocation, if chance of such accident can be reduced to near zero - a few extra ics at a buck a pop could provide multiple redundancy for self driving, to reduce chances of accident by 1, 2 or more orders of magnitude.

[@deathbyproxy2]

I have to say. It is a pleasure listening to someone who with an apparent unbiased opinion, except on the side of saving us form a disastrous future. Provides us with an intellectual digest that allows for consumption of relevant information. I look forward to hearing your deliver a thought provoking insight to all maters. I have been struggling lately with the massive expense of printer ink! and know it is not on the same scale as Carbon footprints from heavy industry but it bewilders me the cost and ecological implications. I cannot understand for the life of me how companies are allowed to implement software that allows exemption of free use of a product and the wholesale perversion of ink supply that is more expensive than gold? What are your thoughts?

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Iain. Thanks for your feedback. I agree completely about printer ink. That could be an idea for a future video :-)

[@MarcoNierop]

Why all this complexity and waste of energy when you can put the energy directly into batteries with hardly any energy loss?.. There are batteries that can store energy for long periods, like REDOX flow batteries, which are cheap and relatively energy efficient.. For shorter cycles, I have high hopes for the Liquid Metal batteries of Ambri.com.. litterly dirt cheap, maintenance free, very safe, no AC required, no fire suppression required, no degradation, very long life... NEC will start field testing with these in 2021. But for intercontinental shipping and that aircraft engine, Amonia might be interesting, but I think we have a long way to go before we see this in practical applications like that... But for us city dwellers and car commuters, batteries are the best solution to get rid of fossil fuels, and soon the cheapest option to get around Ambri.com and maybe some other alternative batteries might be worth an episode, David?

[@hi-gf5yl]

redox flow batteries, imo, seem to have a limited place, if any, in the future of grid storage; I'm placing my bets on molten salt and other thermal energy storage tech such as liquid air batteries. These technologies can take advantage of heat pumps, which are extremely efficient machines, to make up for the losses in converting electricity to heat instead of directly charging batteries, which makes their efficiencies not much lower than batteries; heat pumps have a coefficient of performance instead of efficiency rating because they can move more heat than if the electricity inputted were directly converted into heat using resistive heating. Some thermal energy storage efficiencies are higher compared to redox flow batteries, which is why I think redox flow and other batteries with efficiencies comparable to thermal energy storage are probably dead ends as thermal energy storage also has much higher volumetric energy densities. Liquid metal will probably play a role during peak demand periods due to their fast discharge rate, but they face competition from lithium ion for this spot which is more developed and has already been deployed. Additionally, other technologies besides batteries may be appropriate for peak demand as energy storage of any type does not have to start up like traditional peaker plants and therefore can be more responsive, and the increased responsiveness of batteries may not be beneficial enough to offset their higher costs, in some cases.

[@MarcoNierop]

@@hi-gf5yl I don't know if molten salt and liquid air batteries are the future.. Storing that heat or super cold air for prolonged periods of time seems cumbersome to me.. Molten salt is used in those solar heliostatic power plants (field of mirrors converting the suns heat to a small area in a tower where the salt is melted ) probably it will be a mix of all of these techniques.. Redox Flow batteries are cheap and already deployed in several places in the world. Tesla has of course its Megapacks with Lithium Ion cells.. but the heat management, fire supression system, BMS systems and dergadation, will make them at some point the less attractive.. Storing the 'charged' liquids of a flow battery is easy and can be scaled quite easy as well. Heat pumps are quite efficient, true, but if this technique is able to melt salt? I really doubt that.. a Heat pump transfers and concentrates energy that is already present, it gathers heat from a source and concentrate it bringing the temperature higher in a certain volume, for homes it uses sources like the earth, water or the air.. What source do you have in mind for a heatpump to melt salt?.. Maybe in Iceland its possible using volcanic heat, but other than that I have a hard time to figure out where the heatpump in my area would source its energy to melt salt (500 degrees celcius or something)

[@JustHaveaThink]

We'll be assessing Ambri in the New Year :-)

[@hi-gf5yl]

@@MarcoNierop After some reading, I found that there are designs for molten salt storage that can use argon or nitrogen gas as the working fluid/refrigerant. In one design I found, ambient air was used as the heat source.* How it worked was that the argon gas was under ambient temperature and pressure and then was compressed by a compressor and is transported to a molten salt store where it releases its heat. It then enters an expander that expands the gas until it becomes a liquid while also decreasing its temperature and pressure. As the liquid/gas vapor enters the cold store, it boils and removes energy from the particulate inside, which can be anything such as liquid hydrocarbons. It then leaves the store and is heated back to ambient temperatures and its pressure increases to ambient. The temperature limit of heat pumps is really dependent on the boiling temperature of the refrigerant as once the heat source is lower in temperature than the boiling point of the fluid, no more heat can be transferred or at least not as efficiently as if it were at the temp of the boiling point. Since nitrogen and argon gas are stable elements, their boiling points are super low which allows the temperature differential to be much larger than other commonly used refrigerants. *The heat source, to my understanding, is the cold store, which starts out as the same temperature as the ambient air but is eventually cooled down to around -160C (for when argon is used as the working fluid. nitrogen is probably similar.). On the other side, the heat storage containing the molten salt can reach 500C, but keep in mind that while molten salt is the most energy efficient, it isn't the only thing that can be used in the heat sink. After some research I'd take back my bets on thermal energy storage dominating because I did not account for local climate conditions, which can make it unfeasible in some places. Like you said, the future is likely mixed energy storage tech.