Help support TMP


"Ammonia—a renewable fuel made from sun, air, and...." Topic


18 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article


Featured Profile Article

Cheap Wood Trays

Useful for dice trays or carrying painting supplies around.


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


1,169 hits since 14 Jul 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0114 Jul 2018 10:14 p.m. PST

…. water—could power the globe without carbón.

"SYDNEY, BRISBANE, AND MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA—The ancient, arid landscapes of Australia are fertile ground for new growth, says Douglas MacFarlane, a chemist at Monash University in suburban Melbourne: vast forests of windmills and solar panels. More sunlight per square meter strikes the country than just about any other, and powerful winds buffet its south and west coasts. All told, Australia boasts a renewable energy potential of 25,000 gigawatts, one of the highest in the world and about four times the planet's installed electricity production capacity. Yet with a small population and few ways to store or export the energy, its renewable bounty is largely untapped…."
Msin page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Bowman15 Jul 2018 9:47 a.m. PST

This sounds interesting and has been talked about for the last decade. I'm no expert in this but a few questions:

According to my menial math skills it would take three molecules of water to make two molecules of ammonia. Isn't that an issue for the "arid landscapes of Australia"?

Also transporting ammonia (let alone the oxygen generated by the hydrolysis) in gas trucks isn't actually foolproof.

But at least no CO2 is generated.

Barin115 Jul 2018 11:25 a.m. PST

I wonder if this process can be scaled up.Typical ammonia production requires lots of methane and air separation.
Also, if you're burning ammonia you're getting NOx, and it is worse than C02

Martin From Canada15 Jul 2018 1:57 p.m. PST

Net Power out of Texas is working on a prototype "emission free" natural gas plant using the Allam Cycle.
link

There's the Sabatier reaction that will convert CO2 and 4H2 into CH4 and 2H2O that's a better fit with the Allam cycle plants.

*I put the emission free in scare quotes because outside of a few industrial processes and enhanced oil recovery, CO2 near worthless as an industrial gas. However, a carbon-tax could make sequestration worth it, I'm still leery about the concept.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP15 Jul 2018 2:25 p.m. PST

Bring back then horse and carriage.
What harm can some 3-4 billion horses cause.

Tango0115 Jul 2018 3:32 p.m. PST

Glad you find it interesting my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Bowman15 Jul 2018 4:31 p.m. PST

Also, if you're burning ammonia you're getting NOx, and it is worse than C02

I'm not sure. The combustion products depend on O2 content and catalytic converters present.

4 NH3 + 3 O2 —-> 2 N2 + 6 H2O is very clean

If you burn it just outdoors you utilize more oxygen and make nitric oxide. This is harmless and is not nitrogen dioxide NO2, which is a major pollutant. It's not a greenhouse gas but is still very bad in different ways from CO2.

4 NH3 + 5 O2 —> 4 NO + 6 H2O

Hope my formulas are OK. Someone will be along to correct me, I hope.

Bowman15 Jul 2018 4:41 p.m. PST

…..CO2 near worthless as an industrial gas.

Fire extinguishers?

Also, I just bought a Sodastream sparkling water machine. I love it but the CO2 refill cans can be expensive. Let's bottle the stuff and quite pumping it into the air.

Martin From Canada15 Jul 2018 6:11 p.m. PST

.CO2 near worthless as an industrial gas.

I would amend that statement to read: CO2 is near worthless as an industrial gas with the amount produced by this process when scaled up to a substantial portion of the grid, since it would overwhelm the supply. (we're looking at multiple orders of magnitude of oversupply relative to demand for industrial CO2)

Nick Bowler15 Jul 2018 6:40 p.m. PST

CO2 near worthless as an industrial gas -- most definitely not true! It is a critical component of life as we know it. link

Wilf1235816 Jul 2018 4:56 a.m. PST

In the UK there was a reported CO2 shortage, which is apparently manufactured as a by-product of the fertilizer industry. This affected the supply of beer and packaged meat, being used to extend shelf life. So quite important!

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP16 Jul 2018 6:05 a.m. PST

Jupp, Norway almost rioted because almost all our CO2 comes from 1 fertilizer plant. And because of cheap fertilizer coming from outside of Europe, several plants had started their production later than usual(apparently they only run production a few months a year) Add to that some technical difficulty and Norway was running out of CO2, several breweries had limited their production.
And C02 is also used in water treatment plants, so several cities in Norway threatened a ban on watering the gardens and if they ran out, water had to be boiled.

For several days the newspapers followed a ship brining CO2 to Norway, it was hailed as a saviour ship.

Barin116 Jul 2018 6:11 a.m. PST

Bowman, NO is an unstable oxide, and will oxidize further into so-called NOx, which is a mixture of nitrogen oxides. As there's plenty of oxygen in the air, you have NOx formation.
With catalyst you normally want to get more NO2 to make nitric acid.
These guys are claiming that they don't use catalyst, so they might get more NOx than NO2. Still, it seems there's a plenty of works on the subject, so NH3 might be feasible as fuel and with catalyst you can have low Nox, as shown here:
PDF link

And on Martin's diagram you have air separation, which is energy-consuming process, as it can be done with cryogenics or PSA…so it might end like "green" Tesla, which is not that green due to making abd recharging of batteries…
Bio-fuel ammonia or methane is highly contaminated, so you have to invest into gas treatment before sending it to turbine/burners, so all in all it might be the way, but we're somewhere in the beginning of it.

I've been working in Nitrogen/fertilizer industry years ago, even mid 90s it was clear that UK plants are not going to invest into modernization, as due to ecology regulations and general wear of the equipment it was easier to stop the production than to invest and then fight with competition from Eastern Europe…so there's your Co2 shortage. Another source is metallurgy (dirtier) and cryogenics (expensive) so import should stop your beer shortage ;)

Bowman16 Jul 2018 10:52 a.m. PST

I would amend that statement to read…..

No worries Martin. Just pulling your leg.

It is a critical component of life as we know it.

Crumpets and beer? Most definitely critical.

This affected the supply of beer

Add to that some technical difficulty and Norway was running out of CO2, several breweries had limited their production.

Are you talking about bottled beer? Surely you are not drinking massed produced beer that is artificially carbonated. Do you mean draught beer that needs CO2 to maintain the proper carbonation once the keg is tapped?

I also thought the holes in the crumpets came from CO2 naturally from the yeasts breaking down the flour. But the CO2 is added as a preservative during packaging. Understood.

Bowman, NO is an unstable oxide, and will oxidize further into so-called NOx, which is a mixture of nitrogen oxides. As there's plenty of oxygen in the air, you have NOx formation.

Yes, absolutely. But as I stated up above, burning the ammonia in a low oxygen environment produces the first reaction shown above. This results in the relatively inert gas N2 and water. Burning it at higher O2 levels produces NO which rapidly oxidizes into the NOx compounds as you have mentioned. As for how this is done (low O2 tension combustion), that's beyond me.

Of course, in the atmosphere, N2 is still converted to NOx compounds, but in small amounts. This takes a lot of energy to do so, but that comes in the form of lightning bolts.

N2 + O2 --> 2NO which then reacts with more O2 --> 2NO2

Mithmee16 Jul 2018 12:52 p.m. PST

Until you get a huge gas leak of it that ends up killing thousands.

link

link

Bowman16 Jul 2018 2:23 p.m. PST

Well, your two examples show 4 dead. But your point is well taken. Ammonia is not a nice product. And I believe I alluded to the transportation issues with my first post.

But ammonia health and safety issues pale with the mortality and morbidity rates of the coal industry. The ammonia deaths worldwide seem to be infinitesimal in contrast.

link

goragrad17 Jul 2018 11:51 p.m. PST

Those poor coal miners – better on the bread line than working for good money with the risks of death and injury.

After all being on the dole has no adverse health consequences.

As to NOx, that was the reason the local super clean coal fired power plant was closed – haze over the adjoining National Forest produced by the NOx from combustion. I suppose NOx created haze from non-carbon wouldn't be a problem, or that NOx from no-carbon fueled combustion has no adverse impacts.

As to ammonia, very nasty. Safe handling and storage would have significant costs. Looking at current statistics to evaluate the relative impacts compared to coal is disingenuous – scale ammonia production and usage as a fuel to the level of coal and then evaluate it.

Bowman18 Jul 2018 4:29 p.m. PST

Those poor coal miners – better on the bread line than working for good money with the risks of death and injury.

Did you shed the same tear for cartwrights, elevator operators, fletchers and milkmen? How about the people who designed, built, distributed and sold 8track and cassette players?

I suppose NOx created haze from non-carbon wouldn't be a problem, or that NOx from no-carbon fueled combustion has no adverse impacts.

Now who's being disingenuous? Do you read the OP all the way through?

As to ammonia, very nasty. Safe handling and storage would have significant costs. Looking at current statistics to evaluate the relative impacts compared to coal is disingenuous – scale ammonia production and usage as a fuel to the level of coal and then evaluate it.

Granted ammonia has no where near the use of coal. It may be a dud product after all. But safety? Really? Coal kills about 15,000 Americans per year. Deaths in China are about 300,000 per year. Call me when any alternative energy source comes anywhere close.

link

A nuclear disaster would possibly be the worst case scenario. Since Chernobyl in ‘86 it is estimated that maybe up to 6,000 people have died In the decade after. Quite a difference from coal.

Chernobyl: The Decade of Despair (Report). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1996

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.