ammonia-fan wrote:Hello 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
azreal60 wrote: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.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
ammonia-fan wrote:Hello 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
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.
While 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.
An 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.
ammonia-guy wrote:Hi 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.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:Anyone out there in Peak Oil land have anything new to report on this research?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests