[lorenzo]

Maybe it's not explored because it is not very efficient and because it's very expensive?

Synthetic diesel from coal and fischer-tropsched biomass-to-liquids are probably much cheaper.

Where are you going to get the primary energy from to do the electrolysis with to produce the ammonia?

>Nuke, wind, solar? That's all very expensive. (Biofuels are much cheaper).

>If you're going to use bioenergy as your primary energy, then why make the détour via ammonia at all, when you can just as well immediately turn the biomass you're using into ethanol and sundiesel?

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ammonia-fan', 'H')ello again--

I wasn't able to log in under my old screen name (ammonia-guy), so I re-registered as ammonia-fan.

Even though things have been quiet on this forum, the concept of ammonia as an energy-dense, clean burning fuel is steadily moving forward.

At this time, we all have the opportunity to comment on DOE's position and plans for ammonia. Here's the link. Let them know what you think. A-F

DOE Seeks Public Comment on Draft Paper on the 'Potential Roles of Ammonia in a Hydrogen Economy'
<http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5046.html>
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5046.html

[ammonia-fan]

Energy Spin--Good to hear from you.

Electrolyzers--As I recall you are correct, Norsk Hydro did not talk a lot about the specific energy consumption to produce H2 at the Argonne Ammonia meeting in October. As a rule of thumb, I've been using 40-45 kWh per kg of H2 produced. That pretty much applies to all commercial electrolyzers, water and alkaline. Since the energy content of a kg of H2 is only about 35 kWh, it's clearly not what you'd want to do if you were buying that electricity from the grid. Some good news, though--(1) GE is entering the elecrolyzer market in a fairly big way. Their efficiency is not claimed to be much higher than others, but their manufacturing approach is supposed to save a lot of money on the initial capital costs and maintenance costs, which are of course big factors in the cost of H2 (or ammonia) from renewables, and (2) some colleagues and I have been working on reducing the energy required to produce H2 from electrolysis, and we thing we can reduce it considerably (over half). More later, probably Oct-Nov. time frame.

Renewables-to-Ammonia Fertilizers--Funny you should ask. The big US ammonia producers are still dealing in NG or coal (still better, cleaner, and cheaper in the long run versus NG. However, the state of Minnesota is working on a wind-to-ammonia fertilizer demonstration. Their objective is not ammonia for fuel, but for fertilizer. They've got lots of wind resources in the Great Plains. (PS. They're currently planning to use a Norsk electrolyzer; the problem is the H2 to Ammonia conversion on that small a scale.) Mike Reese of the Univ of Minnesota will be reviewing this project in Portland OR at the end of July at HydroVision 2006.

As usual, you're right on target, E-S. Problems we face are acceptance of ammonia as a fuel , and getting producers (fossil and renewable) to recognize the fuel market (or for that matter, even an expanded US fertilizer market). A-F

[azreal60]

Can I get some clarification on what kind of ammonia exactly your proposing we burn and what kind are you proposing we store?

I ask because it sounds like your describing storing and transporting anhydrous liquid ammonia and burning it as anhydrous ammonia? Is that a correct statement about what your proposing?

I guess my skeptism on this is based not on my chemical knowledge, which is limited, but rather on my practical experience with ammonia. I work in the plant that is the second largest consumer of ammonia in the world. It's used because it's one of the best refrigeration liquids in the known universe, allowing you to take the temp down to what ever you want and it holds that temp easily. The main and in my mind lethal problem is the toxciity. I don't know anything about the ammonia type that the person a couple posts previous posted about, but anhydrous liquid ammonia is just about the most dangerous thing short of something radioactive I can think of for a living being to be around. Yes we use it in industrial things all the time. Ever heard the term industrial accident? It's termed that way because industry is supposed to be dangerous, and your hence warned about it.

If I am exposed to a tank of gas, probably worst case senario is I smell like gas, maybe I die because I didn't get enough oxygen. If anhydrous liquid ammonia get's out of it's coolant tank, and manages to get into the air out of even the smallest hole, it will literally go for the nearest water. If there is a human being that is closer than a puddle, that human being has about 20 seconds of pain followed by death. I kid you not, the last time we had a semi serious leak at the plant, one guy had his eyes burnt out of his head and the other guy just plain died, he didn't hold his breath fast enough. I am going to go talk to the powerplant (plant term, they handle all the really dangerous electrical and ammonia storage stuff on the plant) guys about this idea tommorrow, because I'm really curious about it. But from my experence of being around liquid ammonia, I would say the anhydrous stuff, you couldn't pay me money to buy a car that was supposed to run on that. Walking in a room where I know ammonia is used gives me the same feelings as walking in a nuclear powerplant does, actually, I would rather walk in the nuke plant. They are alot safer.



After all that, I'm still curious about it's possiblity of use as a fuel, as I have no idea if there are other ammonia types that could be used. I'm going to see what the guys at my plant think.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', '
')I don't know anything about the ammonia type that the person a couple posts previous posted about, but anhydrous liquid ammonia is just about the most dangerous thing short of something radioactive I can think of for a living being to be around. Yes we use it in industrial things all the time. Ever heard the term industrial accident? It's termed that way because industry is supposed to be dangerous, and your hence warned about it.

[kolm]

(Ammonia as energy carrier for traffic)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ammonia-fan', 'H')ello again--
At this time, we all have the opportunity to comment on DOE's position and plans for ammonia. Here's the link. Let them know what you think. A-F

[ammonia-fan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an I get some clarification on what kind of ammonia exactly your proposing we burn and what kind are you proposing we store?

[ammonia-fan]

Kolm wrote

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hile the assumed efficiencies seem not too bad, there is one issue about ammonia I am sceptical about. NO2 is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 300 times that of CO2, according to the IPCC. I have no idea whether one can guarantee extremely low levels of NOx production during combustion or reduction in fuel cell, which would be needed in order not to further boost global warming.

DOE's report seems not to mention this problem (sounds like they carefully avoid to mention global warming at all ); however it would be an important issue imho.

[ammonia-fan]

Oh, I almost forgot.

The Danes have taken a pretty thorough look at the safety issues involved with anhydrous ammonia as a transportation fuel.

The RISO report is at http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/SYS/syspdf/ris-r-1504.pdf

I'll quote from the conclusions...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n overall conclusion is that the hazards in relation to ammonia need to be (and probably can be) controlled by a combination of technical and regulatory options. The most important additional requirements are:
• Advanced safety systems in the vehicle
• Additional technical measures and regulations are required to avoid releases in maintenance workshop and unauthorised maintenance on the fuel system.
• Road transport in refrigerated form
• Sufficient safety zones between refuelling stations and residential or otherwise public areas.

When these measures are applied, the use of ammonia as a transport fuel would be no more dangerous than currently used fuels (using current practice).
It should be emphasised, that this study does not exclude any accidents where the release of ammonia from a car will kill a driver, passenger or other individuals, but is expected that this will happen no more often, than that people are killed by burning gasoline or LPG. The acceptance of ammonia will not be based on the results of numerical risk analysis, but will also be influenced by the public’s perception of the threats of ammonia, and people tend to be more horrified by toxic substances than by fires. This public perception cannot and should not be ignored or dismissed.

[azreal60]

I think the last part of that quote should be looked at very carefully when assessing this tech. I agree that what they proposed is indeed your best bet for safely working with ammonia. In fact, the accident i described would have indeed been prevented had the person in question not attempted to maintain an undrained ammonia storage tank. The leak in question was rather large, rather than a medium sized leak. I may have over estimated the toxcity in terms of killing people. But I definately have to point out two things. One, ammonia is still hugely more dangerous than almost anything else on that list you have. The second is the public perception part of that is definately not something you want to mess with. I honestly would much rather deal with biodiesel than this, even though I do agree it has some potential in terms of a fuel. I just don't think anyone but people working in an industrial setting will really want to use this. If you can overcome that, then maybe.

[solidammonia]

A large number of the posts critical of ammonia are based on the undeniable toxic properties. If the specter, in the public mind, of clouds of ammonia escaping from a hypothetical car wreck in an underground garage or a filling station catastrophe could be fully addressed, then the ammonia economy proposals could be addressed on objective issues (cost, ease of transition, feasibility of sustainable production etc.). I am with a group that is working on developing use of guanidine (CN3H5) and guanidine/urea mixtures ( non-explosive, low flammability, low melting point solids ) as means of safely storing ammonia. The ammonia is released as needed when the solid fuels are combined with hot water (recovered from the exhaust of the fuel cell or IC engine) in the presence of a catalyst. The fuel is carbon neutral because the carbon released is equal to the amount consumed during synthesis of the compound. In case of an accident, only the small amount of ammonia gas between the guanidine/water reactor and the engine has the potential for release, effectively addressing the safety issues. The status of our work, the business aspects of the use of ammonia as a fuel, and some comments from the DOE on ammonia were nicely covered in the June 2006 issue of Oregon Business Magazine. This article can be read online (at least until the end of June) at:

http://www.oregonbusiness.com/.docs/act ... 6/pg/10003

or go to the main page (http://www.oregonbusiness.com/) and click on the article:

"Oregon startup bets on ammonia to deliver clean energy..."

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of Oregon Sustainable Energy.

Feel free to contact me with any more detailed questions, or get a more detailed report from the State of Oregon Sustainability website at:

http://www.sustainableoregon.net/docume ... Energy.pdf

thanks

[Dan998]

HI Ya, did anyone ever hear of Hyfuel
There was a great article back in 1980 called.
Somebody doesn't like Hy-fuel
Its about a hydrogen powered car developed in the 70s.
It ran on hydrogen and ammonia.
As you know, hydrogen can be explosive.
Gerald Schaflander made the hydrogen non flammable.
He used hydrogen made from solar power and combined it with ammonia which was put in a synthesizer to create the hydrogen fuel. (Hyfuel)
The main problem - that of storage - was overcome with the discovery of a liquid hydride suitable for pumping straight into the petrol tank of a normal car.

Gerald Schaflander developed the technology.
I have the article that I would love for people to read.
Its a PDF file.
I'm curious to get people's opinion on the technology.
Here's some of what it says in the article.
Car owners might wonder how difficult it would be to convert their present engines to hydrogen fuel.
Schaflander's experiments show that it can be accomplished in a few hours.
The process involves removing the gasoline tank and installing a new tank capable of holding the slightly heavier Hydrogen hydride mixture.
A Cracker would be positioned in front of the car next to the motor to convert the ammonia like Hyfuel into a gas mainly composed of Hydrogen.
This would flow into a new carburetor to which a fuel regulator is attached.
Certain other solenoid valves and vacuum and pressure switches would be wired in the car.
The Hydrogen powered vehicle would then be ready to roll.

[solidammonia]

I Googled the name "Gerald Schaflander" and found only references to his being indicted along with his partner for investment fraud, in conjunction with an energy company that he started. I would not put much faith in reports on "hydrogen storage breakthroughs" unless the details are revealed and do not require the repeal of the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
This may fall into the same categories are magic catalysts that separate hydrogen from water without any input energy or the 250 mpg engine modifications.


thanks

[Dan998]

Forget the fraud.
When you read the article you will see how Schaflander was betrayed by people who worked for the oil companies.
The article goes into detail what happened.
Schaflander produced hydrogen fuel that would have been 59 cents a gallon.
The Oil companies freaked when they heard this.
The Oil companies tried to buy out Schaflander's company.
But he refused.
This guy had honor.
Schaflander passed away in 1995 but his partner Stephen Wright is still alive.
All I say to you is, read the article.
Send me an email at Dan6054@yahoo.com
I'll send you the article.

[Dan998]

Gerald Schaflander: Hy-Fuel - solar-produced hydrogen turned into liquid fuel

This is in the 1970s. Gerald Schaflander, with the Solar Electrlc Power Corporation of Culver City, California, and with financial help from some friends, built a pilot production facility in Menlo Park, California.
Schaflander had developed Gallium Aluminum Arsenide/Gallium Arsenide solar cells and was producing hydrogen with the cells' output, which was then chemically turned into a liquid fuel.
The fuel could be utilized in cars or trucks. It was not used as a liquid but as hydrogen gas, by cracking it and feeding the recovered hydrogen gas through a special carburetor.

Schaflander was harrassed by oil company inspired opposition, including quite "official" opposition such as the post office, and the company essentially driven out of business. The whole story is described in a very detailed article that was published in October 1980 in The Nation.
Somebody doesn't like Hy-fuel

[Dan998]

To read the article, Somebody doesn't like Hyfuel.
I found a site that has the entire article.
Here's the link.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory% ... iquid_fuel

It should take your right to the article.
If it doesn't,
Scroll down all the way to the bottom.
Then scroll up like 10 percent of the way and you should see
Gerald Schaflander: Hy-Fuel - solar-produced hydrogen turned into liquid fuel
The article is right below that.

[Dan998]

Go to this website. http://gregvezina.com
Watch the video on the website. This guy created a fuel called Hydrofuel which ran on ammonia and alittle nitrogen in the early 80s.

[TorrKing]

Nice, now we can just pee on the tank. Have a party and order everyone to pee on the tank, let it sour for a week or two and then go driving! That's sustainable for ya!

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ammonia-guy', 'H')i Folks, EnergySpin in particular for starting this off.

I'm a total newcomer to these internet discussion forums, but I joined this one just to be able to comment on your discussion.

First, the topic is absolutely relevant, important, and timely. I work at a DOE national lab (yes, one of those crazy researchers) and I "discovered" ammonia as a direct fuel and/or hydrogen carrier about a year ago. Our lab was working with DOE HQ on ways to get hydrogen (pressurized gas or LH) from point A to point B safely, efficiently, and inexpensively. Of course, the answer is "good luck", with the fatal flaw being the very low gravimetric energy density of hydrogen, coupled with the energy penalty from having liquify the hydrogen or to compress the hydrogen to 5,000 to 10,000 psi for automotive use. Bossell and Eliasson (Europeans) cover this problem in significant detail in their report. In one case, they estimate that an 18-wheel tanker truck carrying pressurized hydrogen will only be able to deliver to a fueling station the equivalent of 300 to 400 gallons of gasoline. For DOE's model fueling station (1500 kg hydrogen per day), that would take 4-5 tanker trucks a day. It didn't take me long to figure out that ammonia as a carrier is a much simpler and more elegant answer.

So, last October I was attending the meeting in Iowa that ESpin mentions (Norm Olson and Ted Hollinger). Much momentum for ammonia as a direct fuel or hydrogen carrier came out of that meeting. There was a group of ammonia activists formed from the participants of that meeting and the group has been working together every since, adding numerous ammonia "believers" along the way. We're up to nearly 100 engineers, scientists, analysts, and industrialists at this point. We're planning an Ammonia Fuel II meeting in Chicago for this coming October.

I'm going to end this here and then send out a second message with some direct comments in response to points raised by other contributors. Since this is my first time, I don't want to lose what I've already written.

[kolm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Anyone out there in Peak Oil land have anything new to report on this research?