PDA

View Full Version : Ammonia as a fuel in spark ignition and diesel engines



sdowney717
July 18th, 2010, 03:28 PM
look into anhydrous ammonia used as a fuel for cars and trucks. this can easily be done with regular gasoline and diesel engines.
Ammonia burns and does not have any Co2 carbon as an emissions and can be made from seawater.
It also pollutes much less smog and is cheaper than gasoline.

here are some links. This would work today to lesson our oil addictions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6HzP84KhoY&feature=player_embedded

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43995541

http://www.opednews.com/articles/American-Energy-Policy-Par-by-Paul-from-Potomac-100716-21.html

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/31/a-new-ammonia-powered-truck.html

http://freepressonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=52&SubSectionID=78&ArticleID=7612

I think this could be great. Every chemical has a risk.
If you take the time to look thru this and like it, email people who can tell someone who can help make it happen

poisonkiller
July 18th, 2010, 04:51 PM
Hmmm... If I am correct, then the formula for ammonia + oxygen reaction produces nitric oxide (NO). Since nitric oxide oxidises into nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the latter is a brown toxic gas, wouldn't we have an ever bigger problem in the long run (brown toxic smog, acid rain)?

MaxIBoy
July 18th, 2010, 05:17 PM
Ammonia is very, very toxic stuff-- the vapors can kill you far more effectively than gasoline vapors. Household ammonia is at very low concentrations, maybe a few percent by volume. If you tried to handle pure ammonia you'd need a special permit and some safety measures. A car crash might gas an entire city block.

Not to mention that when you combust ammonia, you get other toxic gases. If you use oxygen as the oxidizer, you get nitrous oxide, which is toxic. If you use bleach as an oxidizer, you get chlorine gas, which is outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

To be honest, although ammonia engines have apparently been used successfully in the past, I think this is all a bunch of impractical crankery.

sdowney717
July 18th, 2010, 06:30 PM
If gasoline was being proposed today as a new cheaper fuel source, it would also be dissed and frowned upon very heavily.

Combustion

The combustion of ammonia to nitrogen and water is exothermic:

4 NH3 + 3 O2 → 2 N2 + 6 H2O (g) (ΔHr = –1267.20 kJ/mol)

The standard enthalpy change of combustion, ΔHc, expressed per mole of ammonia and with condensation of the water formed, is –382.81 kJ/mol. Dinitrogen is the thermodynamic product of combustion: all nitrogen oxides are unstable with respect to nitrogen and oxygen, which is the principle behind the catalytic converter.

Nitric acid production here
However, nitrogen oxides can be formed as kinetic products in the presence of appropriate catalysts, a reaction of great industrial importance in the production of nitric acid:

4 NH3 + 5 O2 → 4 NO + 6 H2O

A subsequent reaction leads to water and N2O

The combustion of ammonia in air is very difficult in the absence of a catalyst (such as platinum gauze), as the temperature of the flame is usually lower than the ignition temperature of the ammonia-air mixture. The flammable range of ammonia in air is 16–25%.[20]


anyhow this first formula is what would happen in a car engine.

Marlonsm
July 18th, 2010, 06:40 PM
But the second reaction might also happen, the same way that burning diesel or petrol produces some CO instead of the usual CO2, the NH3 burn wouldn't be 100% complete.

And it wouldn't be nice to have NO2 in the air, as it might react with water and become H2SO4, sulfuric acid.

MaxIBoy
July 18th, 2010, 06:42 PM
According to that very same Wikipedia article, the net efficiency of ammonia as energy storage (remember it takes energy to synthesize ammonia, so it's not actually a *source* of power) is less than batteries. Also, as mentioned before, N2O (AKA "laughing gas") is very toxic-- it's no longer commonly used as an anesthetic because the lethal dose is dangerously close to the effective dose. If exposure to the fumes doesn't kill you, it *will* impair your ability to operate a car; long-term exposure can aggravate asthma and cause brain damage.

McRat
July 18th, 2010, 06:44 PM
Hydrogen Peroxide is even better. Just emits steam, nothing else.

But it's another fuel that kills easy.

If you had an ammonia tank leak, it would kill the occupants in a matter of seconds.

It is real nasty stuff.

tgalati4
July 18th, 2010, 08:21 PM
Hydrogen peroxide is a rocket fuel in high (95 to 99%) concentration. It is normally transported at 70% with 30% water to reduce the explosion hazard. If H202 spills onto the freeway, it could explosively react with the asphalt sending pea gravel as shrapnel in all directions.

At 3% it makes a decent mouthwash.

sdowney717
July 18th, 2010, 08:28 PM
http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_id=159

this is a PDF where Ammonia was presented as a fuel option in 2007

KiwiNZ
July 18th, 2010, 08:45 PM
On the surface its seems a good sustainable alternative but when you consider the quantities required to be around an average city it gets worry some. The add the fact that motor vehicles have this habit of coming together in accidents it becomes more so.

Ammonia as a viable sensible alternative? ...... No, dumb idea.

lisati
July 18th, 2010, 08:56 PM
On a lighter note, from someone who isn't well versed in chemistry: the release of Nitrous Oxide has the potential to get people laughing if released in suitable quantities in the event of an accident. The challenge would be to come up with a suitable failsafe system that would help avoid some of the previously mentioned negative effects.

Shining Arcanine
July 18th, 2010, 08:58 PM
Hmmm... If I am correct, then the formula for ammonia + oxygen reaction produces nitric oxide (NO). Since nitric oxide oxidises into nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the latter is a brown toxic gas, wouldn't we have an ever bigger problem in the long run (brown toxic smog, acid rain)?

That is exactly what I was thinking. Carbon dioxide emissions are not an issue, but emissions of toxic gases like nitric oxide would be an issue.

RJARRRPCGP
July 18th, 2010, 09:08 PM
On a lighter note, from someone who isn't well versed in chemistry: the release of Nitrous Oxide has the potential to get people laughing if released in suitable quantities in the event of an accident.

OMG LOL-gas! But, recirculating that, back into the intake can increase combustion efficiency!

sdowney717
July 18th, 2010, 09:12 PM
they can design a system that will withstand a crash. Tanks can be made so tough that a train wreck wont break them open.
If a line ruptured, it could detect the full flow or have a vapor sensor and cut off the flow with a valve. They do a similar fuel pump inertial cut off switch with gasoline.

I am surprised that no one cares that there is no 'poisonous co2 emisions '
(Which the EPA has decided to regulate as harmful to human health) produced burning this fuel. So it would please the global warming and renewable resource crowd. All anhydrous ammonia is man made,

I dont think we will run out of oil, I just wonder if the price will become too high to bear for the majority. Could get cold in the house with oil heat.

McRat
July 18th, 2010, 09:19 PM
Nitrous (N20) is still used a lot in dentistry and racing. DON'T SNIFF THE RACING STUFF. They cut it with something to make you violently ill. When using it for racing, make sure you have a blowoff valve that is vented to the exterior of the car. We had some bottles get too hot in the tow vehicle and it's pretty exciting when you get one too hot. Just a normal closed interior will get one too hot.

This has been a public service announcement.

limestone
July 18th, 2010, 09:22 PM
aren't you a bit lost?? :D
anyway, I vote for the fuel-cell eletric car:) noting better than an eletric motor..

McRat
July 18th, 2010, 09:30 PM
Hi Jack!! :D

I vote for biodiesel. It's the hydrocarbon of the future, and the cheapest renewable liquid fuel.

Safe, powerful, and high yield. It is an answer that could be put in place with the existing technology and infrastructure. You would have more HP, and better mileage, and safer cars all in one shot.

Today a 100mpg common-rail diesel car can be built and sold for a less than a Prius. It's time to do it.

KiwiNZ
July 18th, 2010, 09:31 PM
I believe we need to take this opportunity to develop an alternative that has ZERO emissions and the lowest possible health impacts. Lets learn from history instead of repeating it.

It is not like we need an alternative tomorrow, next year. next decade, despite what you may read on the net or watch on the History or Discovery rubbish channels we do have quite some time.

koenn
July 18th, 2010, 09:35 PM
they can design a system that will withstand a crash. Tanks can be made so tough that a train wreck wont break them open.
If a line ruptured, it could detect the full flow or have a vapor sensor and cut off the flow with a valve. They do a similar fuel pump inertial cut off switch with gasoline.

I am surprised that no one cares that there is no 'poisonous co2 emisions '
(Which the EPA has decided to regulate as harmful to human health) produced burning this fuel. So it would please the global warming and renewable resource crowd. All anhydrous ammonia is man made,


CO2 emissions are a problem, but "solving" that by introducing other problems doesn't sound very sensible, to me.

Also, technology has been known to fail, no matter how 'fail-safe" the design. Ask the engineers who designed the Three Mile Island power plants or the guy in charge of the the BP drilling rig that's been spilling oil for months.

koenn
July 18th, 2010, 09:38 PM
It is not like we need an alternative tomorrow, next year. next decade, despite what you may read on the net or watch on the History or Discovery rubbish channels we do have quite some time.

source ?

McRat
July 18th, 2010, 09:42 PM
If it's a renewable bio-fuel it leave a very small net carbon footprint:

Plants consume CO2, use sunlight to create hydrocarbons, you burn the hydrocarbons and it releases the CO2 back.

Think of bio fuels as the battery that our scientists can't replicate yet. A battery is a way to transport horsepower.

DrMelon
July 18th, 2010, 09:47 PM
This is perhaps the worst alternative fuel idea I have ever seen. What next, shall we suggest Nitroglycerine?

sdowney717
July 18th, 2010, 10:01 PM
The only possible perfect non polluting, non environmentally solution would be solar cells and an electric motor. The sun at full power shines down a decent 1000 watts per square yard. We cant get very good efficiency from the cells yet, maxing out at 30% right now for an extremely expensive solution that many cant afford to buy. Ever hear of Henry Ford? Who made the auto possible for the majority. It is still the same old story.

Take the practical approach here, the governments of the world convinced by scientists that global warming caused by burning fossil fuels yet they offer no workable practical alternative, just a lot of scare mongering and ever more dreadful forecasts. Very negative view, makes you think we should all live in the pre industrial age again. Ever hear of peak oil, the world as you know it will cease to exist? type of forecasting?

anyhow, ammonia fuel still has a lot going for it, if you read the reports.

KiwiNZ
July 18th, 2010, 10:07 PM
Peak oil demand production will not be reached until at least mid 21st Century ( see graph) . Current "run out" scenarios are based on proven reserves meaning there is still a lot of reserves to be found, eg the great southern basin below New Zealand. New Oil fields are being found here each year.

We will move from Oil to other form of energy due to environmental concerns well before oil gets close to "running out"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

But of course the scary stuff makes great press and great TV for Cable and crap Channels. AKA the Second World War , sorry History Channel

KiwiNZ
July 18th, 2010, 10:11 PM
graph

MaxIBoy
July 18th, 2010, 10:24 PM
Yes, ammonia has plenty going for it, and so does nuclear power. You can get a fission plant under the hood of a car, no problem! And then you could drive it every day until you're dead.

You seem not to understand that the exhaust coming out of the tailpipe will be very pure N2O, *which is toxic!* We're not talking about trace amounts of N2O, like you already get from low-quality fossil fuels. Assuming (though I don't know for sure) that the second reaction goes like this:
4NO+2H2O → 2H2O+2N2O+O2
we're talking about 40% concentration N2O gas (with 40% water and 20% oxygen gas.) If driving around with other cars on the road doesn't kill you, it will make you unable to operate a car and damage your brain over time. In addition to being toxic, it's also dangerously explosive and it causes acid rain. The high concentration of oxygen gas is also a worry; the exhaust is basically a cocktail of high-powered oxidizers which can corrode the engine (making it more likely to leak ammonia,) as well as corroding just about everything else, causing property damage and damage to the lungs, and making the whole thing even more explosive. You can't call this a zero-emission fuel because it's emitting non-trivial amounts of poison!

koenn
July 18th, 2010, 10:45 PM
Peak oil demand production will not be reached until at least mid 21st Century ( see graph) .

...

We will move from Oil to other form of energy due to environmental concerns well before oil gets close to "running out"


According to that graph, peak production will occur anywhere between 2021 and 2067, depending on what probability and expected growth you choose. 2021 is not "at least mid 21st century".

Also, according to the same graph and in all scenarios (except 0 growth), the production drops below today's level some time between 2030 and 2060. That's 20 to 50 years from now. Our children and grandchildren will have to have moved from oil to other forms of energy by then, or greatly reduce their energy needs, irrespective of environmental concerns.

KiwiNZ
July 18th, 2010, 10:49 PM
According to that graph, peak production will occur anywhere between 2021 and 2067, depending on what probability and expected growth you choose. 2021 is not "at least mid 21st century".

Also, according to the same graph and in all scenarios (except 0 growth), the production drops below today's level some time between 2030 and 2060. That's 20 to 50 years from now. Our children and grandchildren will have to have moved from oil to other forms of energy by then, or greatly reduce their energy needs, irrespective of environmental concerns.

Peak production does not mean run out . That means production has reached its peak.

koenn
July 18th, 2010, 10:56 PM
Peak production does not mean run out . That means production has reached its peak.

I know. And I quoted you saying production will not peak before the middle of the century ...

Shining Arcanine
July 18th, 2010, 11:31 PM
The only possible perfect non polluting, non environmentally solution would be solar cells and an electric motor. The sun at full power shines down a decent 1000 watts per square yard. We cant get very good efficiency from the cells yet, maxing out at 30% right now for an extremely expensive solution that many cant afford to buy. Ever hear of Henry Ford? Who made the auto possible for the majority. It is still the same old story.

Take the practical approach here, the governments of the world convinced by scientists that global warming caused by burning fossil fuels yet they offer no workable practical alternative, just a lot of scare mongering and ever more dreadful forecasts. Very negative view, makes you think we should all live in the pre industrial age again. Ever hear of peak oil, the world as you know it will cease to exist? type of forecasting?

anyhow, ammonia fuel still has a lot going for it, if you read the reports.

The governments of the world? By scientists? Those are some fairly bold claims. One, not all of the governments in the world are on-board with this global warming nonsense. Two, no scientists are on-board with it either. The concept of global warming was invented by politicians for politicians and those that they call scientists are really just people being paid huge sums of money to say what politicians want to hear.

If scientists were really behind this, there would be a few things involved:


Their names.
They need to hold degrees in a real physical science.
They need to apply the scientific method.


You need all of those things to even remotely claim that scientists were behind this, but you cannot and will never have them, because the scientific method would require statistical methodologies to be applied and such methodologies require millions of years of climate data. That would be the kind of data that they have been collecting for the past hundred years, except over the course of millions of years. Without that, it is impossible for a real scientist to claim that human beings are altering the planet's temperatures with any sort of reasonable confidence level. Anyone claiming otherwise is a charlatan, because making such a claim is the equivalent of claiming to have squared the circle. It simply cannot be done.

sdowney717
July 19th, 2010, 12:24 AM
You seem not to understand that the exhaust coming out of the tailpipe will be very pure N2O, *which is toxic!* We're not talking about trace amounts of N2O, like you already get from low-quality fossil fuels. Assuming (though I don't know for sure) that the second reaction goes like this:
4NO+2H2O → 2H2O+2N2O+O2

that reaction is for when they wish to produce nitric acid. Which I dont think is what is happening with the reaction when it is burned in a car.
The people who are testing and pushing this would have abandoned the idea if it was so toxic on the tailpipe emissions. .

sdowney717
July 19th, 2010, 12:30 AM
The governments of the world? By scientists? Those are some fairly bold claims. One, not all of the governments in the world are on-board with this global warming nonsense. Two, no scientists are on-board with it either. The concept of global warming was invented by politicians for politicians and those that they call scientists are really just people being paid huge sums of money to say what politicians want to hear.


Yeah, I dont believe co2 cause global warming.
But those in power do believe it.
The EPA is going to regulate co2 emissions and has classified it as hazardous to human health. They are doing this because they were convinced by scientists that AGW is real.That is absolutely a fact.
you can read it right here
Ammonia as a fuel does not have any carbon co2 not much comes out except water and air from the tailpipe.
The governments of the world, frankly I cant believe they are falling for it, the co2 thing, but ammonia as a fuel has a lot going for it in this regard.
Humans can make it from seawater and at a cheaper cost the gas. The co2 GW scare is high up in their minds and ammonia is a solution for them. Besides taking the pressures off the oil supply issues in the future.

The major U.N. summit on climate change opened Monday in Copenhagen, but the big environmental news was made across the Atlantic in Washington. In an afternoon press conference, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that the agency had finalized its finding that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, pose a threat to human health and welfare.

The ruling allows the EPA to begin regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, factories and major industrial polluters, although the precise details of that regulation have yet to be worked out. "The threat is real," said Jackson. "If we don't act to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the planet we will leave to the future will be very different than the one we know today."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946095,00.html#ixzz0u4zn0Hi1

Shining Arcanine
July 19th, 2010, 01:34 AM
Yeah, I dont believe co2 cause global warming.
But those in power do believe it.
The EPA is going to regulate co2 emissions and has classified it as hazardous to human health. They are doing this because they were convinced by scientists that AGW is real.That is absolutely a fact.
you can read it right here
Ammonia as a fuel does not have any carbon co2 not much comes out except water and air from the tailpipe.
The governments of the world, frankly I cant believe they are falling for it, the co2 thing, but ammonia as a fuel has a lot going for it in this regard.
Humans can make it from seawater and at a cheaper cost the gas. The co2 GW scare is high up in their minds and ammonia is a solution for them. Besides taking the pressures off the oil supply issues in the future.

Scientists have nothing to do with it. The people that do have something to do with it are the same people that would consider dihydrogen monoxide to be a hazardous substance. Dihydrogen monoxide has killed more people in the past year than carbon dioxide has since Adam and Eve. Despite that, only a lunatic would want to classify it as a hazardous substance. You can read all about it at the following site:

http://www.dhmo.org/

sdowney717
July 19th, 2010, 01:42 AM
acute water poisoning has definitely killed some people over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Government scientists need to look into this, write your congressman!

"Artist Andy Warhol died from a cardiac arrhythmia. His family sued the hospital, claiming the arrhythmia was a result of water intoxication"
well what do you know about that. too much of even something good CAN BE BAD FOR YOU.

Shining Arcanine
July 19th, 2010, 01:46 AM
acute water poisoning has definitely killed some people over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Government scientists need to look into this, write your congressman!

"Artist Andy Warhol died from a cardiac arrhythmia. His family sued the hospital, claiming the arrhythmia was a result of water intoxication"
well what do you know about that. too much of even something good CAN BE BAD FOR YOU.

In that case, is there anything that does not merit classification as a hazardous substance?

sdowney717
July 19th, 2010, 01:58 AM
governments can just sap the joy out of living.
Now they want to tax soda as bad for you.
And what about rice and potatoes, a lot of starch which your body breaks down straight to sugar, just like a soda.
You name it they will find a way to bleed you dry.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2001013,00.html

Shining Arcanine
July 19th, 2010, 02:07 AM
governments can just sap the joy out of living.
Now they want to tax soda as bad for you.
And what about rice and potatoes, a lot of starch which your body breaks down straight to sugar, just like a soda.
You name it they will find a way to bleed you dry.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2001013,00.html

Taxing soda might be a step in the right direction. At the same time, it might be better to just outlaw things rather than place taxes on them. Otherwise, the act of trying to eliminate usage of something does not reach its logical conclusion.

linux18
July 19th, 2010, 02:07 AM
CO2 is not the cause of global warming, that idea is correlational at best ( temperature is going up, co2 is going up, therefore co2 causes temperature increases ) and as I learned from a statistics class correlation does not equal causation. In addition, this ignores the fact that co2 levels were once 20x higher than they are today ( by the way 20 times higher = .6% concentration, still very far below the 2% toxicity level and 4% dangerousness level and the 8% deadly level ) and what about plants? wuouldn't an increase in their scarcest "food" source cause them to photosynthesize more and create an equilibrium effect?

Now on to the ammonia, almost everyone has pasted their combustion formula wrong ( trust me, my uncle is a chemist and I sent an e-mail confirming this )

RARELY:

2(NH3) + 2(O2) = N20 + 3(H2O)

VERY RARELY:

2(NH3) + 3(O2) = N2 + 03 + 3(H2O)

PREFERRED:

4(NH3) + 3(O2) = 2(N2) + 6(H2O)

However, as temperature increases the first one becomes more common.
Now, catalytic converters can already handle this kind of load, and just like modern cars you can breathe the exhaust and die long before you need to concern yourself that the nitrogen emissions will become a problem. smog is mostly a solved problem with catalytic conversion but the fuel value of ammonia leaves a lot to be desired ( 9690 BTU/lb = 1/2 BTU value of gasoline ) Finally, ammonia is a gas that has an immediate health danger level of 500 ppm, one twenty gallon tank would pose an immediate danger to a whole city block.


One last thing I just remembered, aren't all fossil fuels technically biofuels as well, we all learned in whatever class that oil comes from the decayed plant and animal matter from millions of years past which would make oil an indirect source of solar and geothermal power. We've been rolling green for years!

cascade9
July 19th, 2010, 02:13 AM
The only possible perfect non polluting, non environmentally solution would be solar cells and an electric motor.

Umm...that is not 'non-polluting'. There is enegy input to make the solar cells, the motors, batteries, etc. Not to mention the road upkeep.

'Non-polluting' is very, very hard to achive. If you wanted to push things, its pretty much impossible (Dont forget methane is a greenhouse gas, and we all produce that.....yes, even the ladies :P)


I believe we need to take this opportunity to develop an alternative that has ZERO emissions and the lowest possible health impacts.

Well, like I said above...But 'low' emissions is possible.


governments can just sap the joy out of living.
Now they want to tax soda as bad for you.
And what about rice and potatoes, a lot of starch which your body breaks down straight to sugar, just like a soda.

How about this- we all get bicycles. Low emissions, and maybe the western world can ride its butt from 'bleugh' to 'beautiful' into the bargin! Win/Win! :lolflag:

jpkotta
July 19th, 2010, 02:16 AM
they can design a system that will withstand a crash. Tanks can be made so tough that a train wreck wont break them open.
If a line ruptured, it could detect the full flow or have a vapor sensor and cut off the flow with a valve. They do a similar fuel pump inertial cut off switch with gasoline.

I am surprised that no one cares that there is no 'poisonous co2 emisions '
(Which the EPA has decided to regulate as harmful to human health) produced burning this fuel. So it would please the global warming and renewable resource crowd. All anhydrous ammonia is man made,

I dont think we will run out of oil, I just wonder if the price will become too high to bear for the majority. Could get cold in the house with oil heat.

Ammonia is horrible stuff. Of course you can make tanks effectively rupture-proof, but they will be so heavy so as to be impractical. So you will end up with rupturable tanks, and stuff like this will happen frequently:
http://www.rkmc.com/Minot_North_Dakota_Train_Derailment.htm

Shining Arcanine
July 19th, 2010, 02:48 AM
CO2 is not the cause of global warming, that idea is correlational at best ( temperature is going up, co2 is going up, therefore co2 causes temperature increases ) and as I learned from a statistics class correlation does not equal causation. In addition, this ignores the fact that co2 levels were once 20x higher than they are today ( by the way 20 times higher = .6% concentration, still very far below the 2% toxicity level and 4% dangerousness level and the 8% deadly level ) and what about plants? wuouldn't an increase in their scarcest "food" source cause them to photosynthesize more and create an equilibrium effect?

Now on to the ammonia, almost everyone has pasted their combustion formula wrong ( trust me, my uncle is a chemist and I sent an e-mail confirming this )

RARELY:

2(NH3) + 2(O2) = N20 + 3(H2O)

VERY RARELY:

2(NH3) + 3(O2) = N2 + 03 + 3(H2O)

PREFERRED:

4(NH3) + 3(O2) = 2(N2) + 6(H2O)

However, as temperature increases the first one becomes more common.
Now, catalytic converters can already handle this kind of load, and just like modern cars you can breathe the exhaust and die long before you need to concern yourself that the nitrogen emissions will become a problem. smog is mostly a solved problem with catalytic conversion but the fuel value of ammonia leaves a lot to be desired ( 9690 BTU/lb = 1/2 BTU value of gasoline ) Finally, ammonia is a gas that has an immediate health danger level of 500 ppm, one twenty gallon tank would pose an immediate danger to a whole city block.


One last thing I just remembered, aren't all fossil fuels technically biofuels as well, we all learned in whatever class that oil comes from the decayed plant and animal matter from millions of years past which would make oil an indirect source of solar and geothermal power. We've been rolling green for years!

Combustion engines do not operate at standard temperature and pressure. They operate at temperatures of something on the order of 400 Kelvin and at pressures ten times greater than atmospheric pressure. Send your uncle an email asking which reactions dominate under those conditions. He will likely confirm what everyone here is telling you.

McRat
July 19th, 2010, 03:56 AM
I have a cylinder pressure testing system for our race engines. Pressures exceed 250 times atmospheric, combustion temps are more than 4000 deg F briefly. Exhaust temps in normal production diesels can be 1350 F.

linux18
July 19th, 2010, 04:16 AM
Combustion engines do not operate at standard temperature and pressure. They operate at temperatures of something on the order of 400 Kelvin and at pressures ten times greater than atmospheric pressure. Send your uncle an email asking which reactions dominate under those conditions. He will likely confirm what everyone here is telling you.





Did you not read the line after the PREFERED code "However, as temperature increases the first one becomes more common." that kind of explains it right there, or can you not understand the formula?

linux18
July 19th, 2010, 04:17 AM
ignore this

sdowney717
July 20th, 2010, 01:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqH69TLNTU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqH69TLNTU&feature=related

couple of vids talking some more about oil supply, the price of carbon, and NH3 as a fuel.
Personally I dont think this 'solution' for an alternative fuel will go away.

Paqman
July 20th, 2010, 01:37 PM
They operate at temperatures of something on the order of 400 Kelvin

Er, that's not actually that hot. It's about 300K outside my office right now. 400K is about what you make a cup of tea or coffee with.

LowSky
July 20th, 2010, 02:29 PM
Solar, wind, ocean currents and geothermal is what we should be looking to create energy. Not toxic chemicals that have tendency to explode or create even worse toxic gases when heated.

We should be replacing batteries with capacitors.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jun2006/bw20060628_655501.htm
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392803

sdowney717
July 20th, 2010, 03:13 PM
I think batteries are a great idea which still is not very workable for the average user. World may not have enough lithium to make all the car batteries needed.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/cars-transportation/lithium-batteries-electric-cars-460209

or not

http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-dont-believe-lithium-shortage-hype

Gasoline is explosive and releases toxic vapors. Yet we use it all the time.
When hydrogen was all the rage, storage of compressed hydrogen turned out to be a nasty problem. Tanks had to be left vented to the air so your filled up tank would deplete over a couple weeks to half full. And they can make safe storage tanks that dont rupture out of exotic stuff like carbon fiber.
Ammonia is not vented and stores at 150 PSI
Solar, wind, geothermal are useful for stationary power, but when you got to move, that stuff wont work.

Paqman
July 20th, 2010, 03:40 PM
I think batteries are a great idea which still is not very workable for the average user. World may not have enough lithium to make all the car batteries needed.

Energy densities of batteries have risen incredibly fast over the last couple of decades. They're now becoming quite practical for vehicles. The solution to the problem of the weird metals needed for current batteries is likely to be plastic batts, but that's still an emerging technology.


Solar, wind, geothermal are useful for stationary power, but when you got to move, that stuff wont work.

The obvious solution being to store the energy as electricity.

lordyosch
July 20th, 2010, 04:06 PM
We all need big sails on our cars....

Ammonia as a useful car fuel is a terrible idea and there have been some bs comments in this thread!

1. CO2 is NOT toxic -it is a greenhouse gas though (no debate here, pure physics fact)
2. Ammonia is corrosive, even small eye contact can lead to serious consequences.leaks will happen!
3. NO2 IS toxic. Also the cause of photochemical smog.

The enthalpy of combustion for 1 mole of ammonia (to form N2 and H2O) is about a quarter of the enthalpy of combustion of octane (major component in petrol)

Just because something CAN be burned as a fuel doesn't mean it should be.


I'm in no way a crude oil or nothing man, just the ammonia idea is so far from being a winner.

Jay

jerenept
July 20th, 2010, 04:13 PM
Energy densities of batteries have risen incredibly fast over the last couple of decades. They're now becoming quite practical for vehicles. The solution to the problem of the weird metals needed for current batteries is likely to be plastic batts, but that's still an emerging technology.



The obvious solution being to store the energy as electricity.

Storing as electricity is very inefficient. For example, a lot of energy is lost in the generators as heat and friction. About 10-20% of the enregy of the coal in the power station is actually utilized.

sdowney717
July 20th, 2010, 05:02 PM
"We can take the ammonia out of a tank and put it into an engine and burn it, and the only by-product of burning the ammonia is water vapor," said Lewis. "The octane rating of gasoline is typically 87 to 93. Ammonia is up around 170 to 180 octane so it has a lot of energy potential in it. But it doesn't have a lot of BTUs per cubic foot."


well someone is severely misinformed.
http://smokyhollow.blogspot.com/2007/06/could-anhydrous-ammonia-be-fuel-of.html
who to believe those pushing ammonia as a fuel, and says it burns clean, or those who say it make nitric acid and noxious no2 gases

http://www.rasoenterprises.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:ammonia&catid=42:fuels&Itemid=53

google search anhydrous ammonia fuel

Paqman
July 20th, 2010, 05:04 PM
Storing as electricity is very inefficient. For example, a lot of energy is lost in the generators as heat and friction. About 10-20% of the enregy of the coal in the power station is actually utilized.

Modern generators get over 90%, which is very, very, very good. Ever seen the efficiency of an internal combustion engine? You're looking at maybe 20%, if you're lucky.

As for propulsion, a modern AC motor is about as efficient as it gets. Plus it's small, light, rugged, extremely reliable, maintenance-free and can turn unwanted kinetic energy back into "fuel" during braking. Electric propulsion is just unbelievably awesome.

The problem with electric propulsion in cars is energy density, not efficiency. For vehicles where that isn't an issue (eg: trains) it became the standard form of propulsion decades ago, and has become a very mature technology.

sdowney717
July 20th, 2010, 05:09 PM
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia/2008/Reese_2008.pdf

http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia/2008/Reese_2008.pdf

Hot rodding with ammonia showing a conversion with some good pictures.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/hotrodding-anhydrous-ammonia-10692.html

Ric_NYC
July 20th, 2010, 06:01 PM
Amazing.

sdowney717
July 20th, 2010, 06:29 PM
What if our hydrogen future is within our grasp right now?

It is.

The one pollution free, hydrogen-based renewable fuel we could begin using today on a large scale is anhydrous ammonia, one of the most commonly synthesized chemical compounds on the planet. Anhydrous ammonia is already used worldwide as fertilizer for its nitrogen content, and delivered by a well-established and safe infrastructure. Due to its hydrogen content, anhydrous ammonia (NH3) can be used in both gas and diesel internal combustion engines with minor modifications, can be used in direct ammonia fuel cells, and can provide hydrogen feedstock for standard hydrogen fuel cells.


http://peakoil.blogspot.com/2008/09/ammonia-fuelthe-other-hydrogen-future.html

blur xc
July 20th, 2010, 07:49 PM
Modern generators get over 90%, which is very, very, very good. Ever seen the efficiency of an internal combustion engine? You're looking at maybe 20%, if you're lucky.

As for propulsion, a modern AC motor is about as efficient as it gets. Plus it's small, light, rugged, extremely reliable, maintenance-free and can turn unwanted kinetic energy back into "fuel" during braking. Electric propulsion is just unbelievably awesome.

The problem with electric propulsion in cars is energy density, not efficiency. For vehicles where that isn't an issue (eg: trains) it became the standard form of propulsion decades ago, and has become a very mature technology.

Not to get too deep into this debate- but your 90% efficient generator is only one small step in the chain to actually getting a car to drive down the road. First- you need to spin the gererator, and if you are burning a fuel to do that, you are getting nowhere- but for the sake of this conversation- let's say it's a wind turbine, only negative affect is the noise (not that bad), and the killing of birds.

So you generate the electricity- then you have to transport it to the car somehow. How much of that energy is lost in the power lines? What's the efficiency of the transformer stepping it down to my house voltage? Then, I have to turn what's left of that electrical energy into chemical energy (battery), and that's not that efficient. then I need to, as demadn requires, turn it back into electrical energy (another loss) and hten run it to a motor, through a controller (another loss) and then turn it into kinetic energy. After that, the car is subject to all the same frictional losses (maybe not all - but many of the same) as my internal cumbustion engine vehicle. You could save some by generating power locally, but still, there are a lot of losses in the loop.

The internal combustion engine is one really inefficent (but convienient and practical) step, where the electric car (as long as the energy is not generated by burning some kind of fuel, which by far most still is) is a bunch of more efficient steps.

I've not found any biased information that clearly spells out what the ACTUAL energy efficency of an elecric car is. It still may be a bit higher than an IC engine, but as expecive as they are, and throw in the environmental impact of manufacturing large li-ion batteries- I dunno...

As it stands now, imo, electric cars are a joke. I'm seeing the new Nissan Leaf (?) commercials on tv now, and all I can think is how much that would just raise my electric bill, which is already absurdly expensive, and in a state (california) where our grid is already pretty near maxed out and runs by burning fuel- just doesn't make sense.

I think local power generation and geothermal power would be the most logical, practical, and workable solutiona available to us NOW. Why can't all new construction be required to have a geothermal heating and cooling systen, solor water heater, and wind + solar panels? I can't imagine it would add that much to the cost of a $300k house being built in the US. That would be my dream, if I could only afford to retrofit my house...

BM

Paqman
July 21st, 2010, 01:05 PM
The internal combustion engine is one really inefficent (but convienient and practical) step, where the electric car (as long as the energy is not generated by burning some kind of fuel, which by far most still is) is a bunch of more efficient steps.


If you're going to tally all the energy losses in the infrastructure of the electric car, you have to do the same for the petrol one. The amount of energy expended in getting oil out of the ground, refining, processing, transporting and storing it is large.

I've never seen any figures on how much energy it takes all through the supply chain it takes to move a vehicle a given distance, i'd be really interested to see that.

handy
July 21st, 2010, 01:59 PM
I've only skimmed through this thread, so please forgive me if I am restating something below?

I read an amazing piece of information recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem

It gave me some more hope for our future.

Algal oil really looks like it is going to be the next BIG thing with regards to the growing human populations energy needs. It is carbon neutral in itself too.

The Real Dave
July 21st, 2010, 03:09 PM
Personally I reckon the futures electric, cars being powered by batteries. There have already been many successful designs and machines created, so actually running a car on electricity isn't the problem anymore. They're even more fun to drive thanks to the instantaneous torque delivered by the motors.

Nissan have a concept due to be released next year offering a 100mile range, and the ability to easily exceed motorway speeds with 5 passengers onboard. All while returning a crazy 367MPG.

The problem is charging it. America and parts of Europe with 110V power supplies would take 16hours to recharge the car. At 220V, it takes 4 hours. But at the 480V your local power station is running, you can charge it in 26 minutes. Still slower than filling a car with petrol though.

The electricity charging the cars would need to be provided greenly, so investment in renewable power is needed. Many countries, Ireland being a great example, could produced excess power through wind farms both on and offshore (Ireland could produce somewhere around twice the national consumption). But Ireland isn't producing anywhere near that, due to poor infrastructure, and a lazy government.



On a side note, I've signed up to get my power from Airtricity, meaning that 70% of the power I use is "traceable" back to Irish wind farms. I no longer feel guilty for leaving my servers on 24/7 ;)

Keith_K
July 21st, 2010, 03:31 PM
When hydrogen was all the rage, storage of compressed hydrogen turned out to be a nasty problem. Tanks had to be left vented to the air so your filled up tank would deplete over a couple weeks to half full. And they can make safe storage tanks that dont rupture out of exotic stuff like carbon fiber.

There are also other solutions for hydrogen storage (http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm) that have been ignored. I'm a fan of the idea of hydrogen power. But the problem is that once its here, hydrogen can be made cheaply and easily so there is no monopoly in it for the 'masters of the universe'.

handy
July 21st, 2010, 04:20 PM
When the US military (which runs at between 60 and 75 million barrels of oil a year, much of this on jet powered planes) has stated that it intends to be running on 50% algal oil by 2016, that really means something to the whole world.

Automotive electric & hydrogen technology are far more complex, difficult & expensive technologies than using oil produced from algae to run technology that already exists in a well developed form, & which has an extremely well developed supply infrastructure.

It really does look like we will be seeing in the not too distant future a world running mostly on diesel engined vehicles that don't stink/pollute our air much at all. The fuel itself is carbon neutral which means a hell of a lot. It can also be produced quickly & from sea water, mucky water & fresh water.

The US military can now produce it for $3/US gallon now & have stated that they are on track for it to cost $2/gal & is headed towards costing less than $1/gal.

Another benefit is that unlike farms based on producing ethanol, algal oil does not threaten food supplies.

This one is a winner. :D

inobe
July 21st, 2010, 04:27 PM
hydrogen power plants, electric cars, or hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles to eliminate batteries.

i don't get it, GM produced these vehicles years ago and no one rolled with it.

The Real Dave
July 21st, 2010, 05:33 PM
When the US military (which runs at between 60 and 75 million barrels of oil a year, much of this on jet powered planes) has stated that it intends to be running on 50% algal oil by 2016, that really means something to the whole world.

Automotive electric & hydrogen technology are far more complex, difficult & expensive technologies than using oil produced from algae to run technology that already exists in a well developed form, & which has an extremely well developed supply infrastructure.

It really does look like we will be seeing in the not too distant future a world running mostly on diesel engined vehicles that don't stink/pollute our air much at all. The fuel itself is carbon neutral which means a hell of a lot. It can also be produced quickly & from sea water, mucky water & fresh water.

The US military can now produce it for $3/US gallon now & have stated that they are on track for it to cost $2/gal & is headed towards costing less than $1/gal.

Another benefit is that unlike farms based on producing ethanol, algal oil does not threaten food supplies.

This one is a winner. :D

Sounds good :) Whats the cost of a gallon of petrol, or regular diesel in America?

McRat
July 21st, 2010, 06:39 PM
There are also other solutions for hydrogen storage (http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm) that have been ignored. I'm a fan of the idea of hydrogen power. But the problem is that once its here, hydrogen can be made cheaply and easily so there is no monopoly in it for the 'masters of the universe'.

Dirty little secret:

Hydrogen you buy for fuel is >90% from fossil fuel sources.

Making it from water is very expensive when priced by $ per BTU. It's done with electricity, which is mainly made by burning fossil fuels.

Urban Legend dictates that hydrogen is made from water, but they completely ignore how strong that chemical bond is. It's one of the stronger bonds known. Kind of like making charcoal from carbon dioxide. Sure, you could do it. But there are better solutions.

blur xc
July 21st, 2010, 07:14 PM
Sounds good :) Whats the cost of a gallon of petrol, or regular diesel in America?

In my neck of the woods (Souther California) fuel, diesel and gas is around $3 - $3.50 / gal, but I don't keep up on the latest/ best prices. Also, as little as I normally drive in a week- I go a while between fill-ups- even in my crappy mpg SUV.

found this - http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

BM

blur xc
July 21st, 2010, 07:18 PM
I've never seen any figures on how much energy it takes all through the supply chain it takes to move a vehicle a given distance, i'd be really interested to see that.

Me too.

Toss in the environmental impacts of mass producing huge li-ion batteries, and the hazards w/ one rupturing in the case of an accident.

Either way, it's all still moot if the electricity is generated by burning million of barrels of oil or tons of coal.

BM

Exodist
July 21st, 2010, 08:00 PM
Hmmm... If I am correct, then the formula for ammonia + oxygen reaction produces nitric oxide (NO). Since nitric oxide oxidises into nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and the latter is a brown toxic gas, wouldn't we have an ever bigger problem in the long run (brown toxic smog, acid rain)?
Ditto..

Wouldnt want to be on the street when that car drove by.. Bye Bye Lungs!

Paqman
July 21st, 2010, 08:19 PM
Either way, it's all still moot if the electricity is generated by burning million of barrels of oil or tons of coal.


Bring on the tokamaks!



On a side note, I've signed up to get my power from Airtricity, meaning that 70% of the power I use is "traceable" back to Irish wind farms. I no longer feel guilty for leaving my servers on 24/7 ;)

I've been getting our electricity from 100% renewables for a few years now. I still try and keep our usage down (if only to keep the bills down), but i'm not half as anal about it as I would be if we were still using dirty power.

KiwiNZ
July 21st, 2010, 08:26 PM
Oil and its related products will still be in use when the current membership of this Forum are due to retire from the work force.

That is based on the Found Reserves we know in the ground today. And without reopening past capped wells that stopped production due to old production methods ,that is said to add a considerable amount to reserves dues to improves extraction technologies.

Tomorrow we will find more as we will next week and next month and next year.

Add to this the addition of alternative fueled vehicles we will be running a mix a Fossil and Alternative Fueled for a very long time to come.

Keith_K
July 21st, 2010, 09:38 PM
Dirty little secret:

Hydrogen you buy for fuel is >90% from fossil fuel sources.

Making it from water is very expensive when priced by $ per BTU. It's done with electricity, which is mainly made by burning fossil fuels.

Urban Legend dictates that hydrogen is made from water, but they completely ignore how strong that chemical bond is. It's one of the stronger bonds known. Kind of like making charcoal from carbon dioxide. Sure, you could do it. But there are better solutions.
lol..your setting behind a computer that is probably 10x more powerful than the combined computers it took to land the first man on the moon, telling me how prohibitive hydrogen is to produce when a kid with a 9v battery, a cup of salt water and a test tube can produce it in just a few moments and make it go 'pop'. While it's true that there is a long way between the kid and mass production, I believe that it will be easier and cheaper than you can imagine to produce it. Last year GE cut the cost by 60% (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/2936846) and other work has been perfected in the photo-catalytic methods that takes no power (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/03/breakthrough-producing-hydrogen-water-sunlight.php) but as with many things, you have to more or less go all in on it due to the production and infrastructure requirements before you will see any difference. I can visualize how the masters could lose control of it very easily because it is a whole lot different than refining oil.

Paqman
July 21st, 2010, 11:03 PM
Add to this the addition of alternative fueled vehicles we will be running a mix a Fossil and Alternative Fueled for a very long time to come.

Of course, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there's going to be a massive switch overnight.

Just look at rail and maritime, they switched to electric propulsion way back, but there are still plenty of them driving their electric motors with diesel generators. That powertrain in a car would be called a series hybrid. It's not a new idea at all, it's just new to find it in a car.

The choice of exactly what mix of combustion engines/generators and electric motors to use depends on the application. Recent technical advances and the political climate means that there are now more options for cars than previously, but that doesn't mean that combustion-only powertrains are no longer a viable option.

MasterNetra
July 21st, 2010, 11:45 PM
What about all this talk about Nuclear? I wonder when will we be able to get Nuclear Powered cars? :p Yea thats a disaster waitin to happen. :p

handy
July 22nd, 2010, 12:46 AM
What about all this talk about Nuclear? I wonder when will we be able to get Nuclear Powered cars? :p Yea thats a disaster waitin to happen. :p

Humanity has proven itself to be incredibly stupid & to be very slow learners; surely we aren't THAT stupid!!

Chronon
July 22nd, 2010, 01:20 AM
CO2 is not the cause of global warming, that idea is correlational at best ( temperature is going up, co2 is going up, therefore co2 causes temperature increases ) and as I learned from a statistics class correlation does not equal causation. In addition, this ignores the fact that co2 levels were once 20x higher than they are today ( by the way 20 times higher = .6% concentration, still very far below the 2% toxicity level and 4% dangerousness level and the 8% deadly level ) and what about plants? wuouldn't an increase in their scarcest "food" source cause them to photosynthesize more and create an equilibrium effect?
Well, you can never actually prove any sort of causation. We can only observe extremely high levels of correlation and use (or not) a causal model to describe the correlation. Causality and determinism can be properties of our models of reality, but are not necessarily properties of reality itself. However, in the presence of a correlation you shouldn't assert that a causal relationship does not exist. You cannot really demonstrate that either.


One last thing I just remembered, aren't all fossil fuels technically biofuels as well, we all learned in whatever class that oil comes from the decayed plant and animal matter from millions of years past which would make oil an indirect source of solar and geothermal power. We've been rolling green for years!
Yes, but you're being a bit glib. Those fossil fuels have not been part of the present carbon cycle. We are currently injecting primordial carbon into the present biosphere at a considerable rate (100x as much as annual volcanic emissions). Biofuels consist of hydrocarbon chains produced using carbon present in the present biosphere.

Shining Arcanine
July 22nd, 2010, 04:06 AM
Did you not read the line after the PREFERED code "However, as temperature increases the first one becomes more common." that kind of explains it right there, or can you not understand the formula?

I read it. Your own post implies what I said, yet you keep going on about using Ammonia as a fuel despite that. Are you unable to understand the implications of your own post?

Paqman
July 22nd, 2010, 06:27 AM
Humanity has proven itself to be incredibly stupid & to be very slow learners; surely we aren't THAT stupid!!

No, we pretty much are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon). There was a time when nuclear power was expected to be eventually powering pretty much everything. Besides cars, there were plans for nuclear trains and aircraft too.