The most serious problem with Ammonia as a fuel is that the energy density is too low. While it's better than even liquid hydrogen it's 30k BTU/gal, vs. 116 BTU/gal. It's not crazy. But, the ammonia is just an energy carrier.and it doesn't carry enough of it. You'd need three gallons of NH3 to do what 1 gallon of gasoline does. And you'd need to use energy from some form of grid power, to make the NH3 because unlike oil we don't just dig it out of the ground for next to nothing.
Well for those of you who don't know, it takes enormous amounts of energy to break the triple bond between nitrogens in N2. Where does this energy come from you ask? It comes from, you guessed it, fossil fuels. I'd rather drive around my 6 cylinder 2L engine, than use ammonia as fuel.
@yellowmetalcyborg But you could have a small engine AND run it on ammonia. Or..? Natural gas is used to make ammonia because it's cheap. Ammonia will really only make sense if and when hydrocarbons become more expensive than ammonia produced from something other than hydrocarbons, such as nuclear power. The same innovation and work ethic that goes into drilling more than a mile for gas could be applied to nuclear. It's really a question of what we WANT to do, not necessity, at least for now.
@sgrannel You're right. But in order to make ammonia, you need enormous amounts of energy, whether it be from nuclear or fossil fuels. You can use natural gas to make ammonia, but natural gas only supplies hydrogen needed for the synthesis to take place, not the energy. The energy is supplied by huge pumps in Haber plants that draw power from the grid. I am a supporter of nuclear energy BTW and I do think it's the future, but using a toxic gas to power cars is not a good idea.
@GreenNH3 Whether or not ammonia is made from fossil fuels and carbon containing substances is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the energy used to make ammonia is drawn from the GRID which means that many energy conversions took place from the initial energy source (even if it is renewable) to an electrical output. The Haber process itself is inefficient, it is not oriented towards storing energy into chemical potential energy. Other, more efficient alternatives exist.
@yellowmetalcyborg GreenNH3 does not use grid power, they are off grid and do not use haber process.. Haber uses steam reformation of carbon fuel. Did you even look at the GreenNH3 website ?
@GreenNH3 Do you know how ammonia is made?! There is no way around it; you use hydrogen produced from any source your heart desires (be it carbon or not) and combine the H2 with N2 from the air and pass the mixture over catalyst beds at high temperatures and pressures. The point is that you use ELECTRICITY to make NH3. In that case, why not charge some batteries or supercaps and run your car that way? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, the less energy conversions take place, the better.
Sorry your comment makes no sense. Combusting NH3 makes NOx regardless of stoichiometric amounts and/or catalytic converters. Changing the Fuel/Air ratio will only control how much NO in comparison to NOx is being produced.
It doesnt matter how many ways you look at it. Gas vehicles make NOx as a side reaction of atm N not a main product. Using ammonia will produce a lot of NOx.
So what exactly do you think you can do to prevent NOx emmisions?
so wouldnt burning ammonia produce NO as a by product from combustion which would oxidise to NO2. That would increase NOx emissions durastically. No wonder
Actually, less NO is made with ammonia than with gasoline, and engine-out emissions clean up at stoichiometric using an ordinary catalytic converter. We have other solutions, too. The real problem with replacing fossil fuels using ammonia, as with any of the alternative fuels is not emissions or getting the engine to work, it's "Where are you going to get that much of the fuel?"
One possible answer to "where to get the fuel?" is nuclear power. Nuclear reactors designed to produce high temperature heat can be used to make hydrogen, which can be used to make ammonia. Other energy sources might also be used to make ammonia or some other energy carrier, but these might not compare favorably on economic and watts per acre bases. Nuclear/ammonia technology can be brought up if oil gets too expensive. I now know that we will never be left without other options.
It makes N2 which is what our atmo already is, and water. The problem is it's 40k BTU/gal vs. 116 BTU/gal, you don't get the energy for free, and the technology isn't there.
0.0002kg (0.2g) of ammonia is enough to kill a human being in 1 cubic meter of air.. the inside of a car is about 2 cubic meters. Any accident that caused even the smallest perforation in the fuel lines would kill everybody in the car and likely anybody else involved in the accident.
But atleast their blackened shrivelled dehydrated remains would make great fertilzer.
I've been working with liquid anhydrous ammonia for 7 years, I've been exposed to the vapor momentarily and I can tell you it's not THAT bad. 0.2 grams of ammonia in a cubic meter of air is about 280 ppm by volume. Guinea pigs exposed to 170 ppm for several hours per day for weeks on end suffer discomfort but no damage. Any fuel has its dangers, but engineering considerations can minimize the dangers. Toxicity is not a fundamental limitation.
I don't know much about how Greg Vezina's vehicle works, or what he is doing to get the ammonia to burn. This is his vehicle, not mine. My laboratory engine runs on ammonia with gasoline with the same thermal efficiencies or better, than when running on gasoline only. When designed to purpose the ammonia fueled engine can be about 1.5x more efficient than those in use today. There will be an advantage even when ammonia costs the same per unit of energy. 1 Gallon gasoline = 14 pounds of ammonia.
True. Ammonia can be made from methane at about 70% conversion efficiency. But there can still be a substantial fossil fuel savings obtained by running on ammonia/gasoline at the 8:1 knock limit fuel mix (mostly gasoline). In that case the main effects are increased overall efficiency and smaller engine for the same power output. Ammonia puts the energy of stranded methane into liquid form. I agree that some other energy source, such as nuclear, is required for ammonia to replace oil completely.
Natural gas is problematic, too. Its price fluctuates and at one point in 2008 ammonia was going for $1200 per ton (2000 pounds), which is $8.33 per gallon gasoline equivalent. Ammonia has gone as low as $245 per ton in 2003, which is $1.70 per gallon gasoline equivalent. The fertilizer industry will have to switch to another energy source, and when it does, then ammonia can find another use as a truly "green" fuel.
The most serious problem with Ammonia as a fuel is that the energy density is too low. While it's better than even liquid hydrogen it's 30k BTU/gal, vs. 116 BTU/gal. It's not crazy. But, the ammonia is just an energy carrier.and it doesn't carry enough of it. You'd need three gallons of NH3 to do what 1 gallon of gasoline does. And you'd need to use energy from some form of grid power, to make the NH3 because unlike oil we don't just dig it out of the ground for next to nothing.
Tatarize 1 month ago
How is ammonia made?
Well for those of you who don't know, it takes enormous amounts of energy to break the triple bond between nitrogens in N2. Where does this energy come from you ask? It comes from, you guessed it, fossil fuels. I'd rather drive around my 6 cylinder 2L engine, than use ammonia as fuel.
yellowmetalcyborg 5 months ago
@yellowmetalcyborg But you could have a small engine AND run it on ammonia. Or..? Natural gas is used to make ammonia because it's cheap. Ammonia will really only make sense if and when hydrocarbons become more expensive than ammonia produced from something other than hydrocarbons, such as nuclear power. The same innovation and work ethic that goes into drilling more than a mile for gas could be applied to nuclear. It's really a question of what we WANT to do, not necessity, at least for now.
sgrannel 5 months ago
@sgrannel You're right. But in order to make ammonia, you need enormous amounts of energy, whether it be from nuclear or fossil fuels. You can use natural gas to make ammonia, but natural gas only supplies hydrogen needed for the synthesis to take place, not the energy. The energy is supplied by huge pumps in Haber plants that draw power from the grid. I am a supporter of nuclear energy BTW and I do think it's the future, but using a toxic gas to power cars is not a good idea.
yellowmetalcyborg 5 months ago
@yellowmetalcyborg Pls see GreenNH3.com , they make NH3 from other than carbon.
GreenNH3 3 months ago
@GreenNH3 Whether or not ammonia is made from fossil fuels and carbon containing substances is irrelevant. The bottom line is that the energy used to make ammonia is drawn from the GRID which means that many energy conversions took place from the initial energy source (even if it is renewable) to an electrical output. The Haber process itself is inefficient, it is not oriented towards storing energy into chemical potential energy. Other, more efficient alternatives exist.
yellowmetalcyborg 3 months ago
@yellowmetalcyborg GreenNH3 does not use grid power, they are off grid and do not use haber process.. Haber uses steam reformation of carbon fuel. Did you even look at the GreenNH3 website ?
GreenNH3 2 months ago
@GreenNH3 Do you know how ammonia is made?! There is no way around it; you use hydrogen produced from any source your heart desires (be it carbon or not) and combine the H2 with N2 from the air and pass the mixture over catalyst beds at high temperatures and pressures. The point is that you use ELECTRICITY to make NH3. In that case, why not charge some batteries or supercaps and run your car that way? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, the less energy conversions take place, the better.
yellowmetalcyborg 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
facebook.com /photo.php?fbid=10150258642901571&set=a.10150257601801571.318805.194572276570&type=1&theater&pid=7857177&id=194572276570
re: $2 a gallon NH3 from the VCM Solar Seawater Distillation Economy: "Oil for plastics, Ammonia for cars"
PerfectMemoryRight1 6 months ago
We'll see in 50 years. Or maybe 100 years from now.
We know petroleum doesn't last forever. Seems the solution to the problem is here, to a certain degree. The problem's just gotta develop first.
nazi8per 1 year ago
@nazi8per Scientific American says peak 2014. What fuel do you plan to use? Pls See GreenNH3.com
GreenNH3 3 months ago
Sorry your comment makes no sense. Combusting NH3 makes NOx regardless of stoichiometric amounts and/or catalytic converters. Changing the Fuel/Air ratio will only control how much NO in comparison to NOx is being produced.
It doesnt matter how many ways you look at it. Gas vehicles make NOx as a side reaction of atm N not a main product. Using ammonia will produce a lot of NOx.
So what exactly do you think you can do to prevent NOx emmisions?
redneckchemtech 2 years ago
so wouldnt burning ammonia produce NO as a by product from combustion which would oxidise to NO2. That would increase NOx emissions durastically. No wonder
redneckchemtech 2 years ago
Actually, less NO is made with ammonia than with gasoline, and engine-out emissions clean up at stoichiometric using an ordinary catalytic converter. We have other solutions, too. The real problem with replacing fossil fuels using ammonia, as with any of the alternative fuels is not emissions or getting the engine to work, it's "Where are you going to get that much of the fuel?"
sgrannel 2 years ago
One possible answer to "where to get the fuel?" is nuclear power. Nuclear reactors designed to produce high temperature heat can be used to make hydrogen, which can be used to make ammonia. Other energy sources might also be used to make ammonia or some other energy carrier, but these might not compare favorably on economic and watts per acre bases. Nuclear/ammonia technology can be brought up if oil gets too expensive. I now know that we will never be left without other options.
sgrannel 2 years ago
@redneckchemtech Typically no.
4 NH3 + 3 O2 → 2 N2 + 6 H2O
It makes N2 which is what our atmo already is, and water. The problem is it's 40k BTU/gal vs. 116 BTU/gal, you don't get the energy for free, and the technology isn't there.
Tatarize 1 month ago
I wouldn't drive this car.
0.0002kg (0.2g) of ammonia is enough to kill a human being in 1 cubic meter of air.. the inside of a car is about 2 cubic meters. Any accident that caused even the smallest perforation in the fuel lines would kill everybody in the car and likely anybody else involved in the accident.
But atleast their blackened shrivelled dehydrated remains would make great fertilzer.
unillenium 2 years ago
I've been working with liquid anhydrous ammonia for 7 years, I've been exposed to the vapor momentarily and I can tell you it's not THAT bad. 0.2 grams of ammonia in a cubic meter of air is about 280 ppm by volume. Guinea pigs exposed to 170 ppm for several hours per day for weeks on end suffer discomfort but no damage. Any fuel has its dangers, but engineering considerations can minimize the dangers. Toxicity is not a fundamental limitation.
sgrannel 2 years ago 3
So.. how many miles per pound does
the thing get? And how much does ammonia
cost per pound? Because the bottom line
is still how many dollars per mile it takes
to run the thing.
Wholesale (factory) prices seem to be in the
low hundreds of dollars per ton, delivered.
but I don't know what the energy content of ammonia is.
goedjn 4 years ago
I don't know much about how Greg Vezina's vehicle works, or what he is doing to get the ammonia to burn. This is his vehicle, not mine. My laboratory engine runs on ammonia with gasoline with the same thermal efficiencies or better, than when running on gasoline only. When designed to purpose the ammonia fueled engine can be about 1.5x more efficient than those in use today. There will be an advantage even when ammonia costs the same per unit of energy. 1 Gallon gasoline = 14 pounds of ammonia.
sgrannel 4 years ago
I wish my car was powered by ammonia
guitarhero2x 4 years ago 2
Nearly all current ammonia is produced wastefully from natural gas.
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
True. Ammonia can be made from methane at about 70% conversion efficiency. But there can still be a substantial fossil fuel savings obtained by running on ammonia/gasoline at the 8:1 knock limit fuel mix (mostly gasoline). In that case the main effects are increased overall efficiency and smaller engine for the same power output. Ammonia puts the energy of stranded methane into liquid form. I agree that some other energy source, such as nuclear, is required for ammonia to replace oil completely.
sgrannel 4 years ago
Natural gas is problematic, too. Its price fluctuates and at one point in 2008 ammonia was going for $1200 per ton (2000 pounds), which is $8.33 per gallon gasoline equivalent. Ammonia has gone as low as $245 per ton in 2003, which is $1.70 per gallon gasoline equivalent. The fertilizer industry will have to switch to another energy source, and when it does, then ammonia can find another use as a truly "green" fuel.
sgrannel 3 years ago