4 ms·
It's all about trade-offs. It may be worth the trouble for space craft, and that may open up aircraft applications, or we may have hydro-something in airplanes
by csours 4y ago
It's all about trade-offs. It may be worth the trouble for space craft, and that may open up aircraft applications, or we may have hydro-something in airplanes instead of hydro-carbons - Ammonia (hydrogen+nitrogen), Magnesium Hydride, etc.
- amelius 4y ago> or we may have hydro-something in airplanes instead of hydro-carbons - Ammonia (hydrogen+nitrogen) Nitrogen in many forms (including ammonia) is bad news for natural ecosystems. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/09/nitrogen-the-environmental-crisis-you-havent-heard-of-yet/ https://news.mongabay.com/2021/09/nitrogen-the-environmental...
- csours 4y agoSo is gasoline, but our main problem with gasoline is the carbon dioxide that is created when you burn it. The products of ammonia hydrolysis (or any other chemical reaction that releases energy) are N2 (same as atmospheric nitrogen) and water. Yes, if we leak ammonia, that is very very bad. Ammonia is also an immediate, serious, and acute irritant. Any significant ammonia leak is dangerous to human health.
- Valgrim 4y agoUsing ammonia as fuel doesn't "just" release n2, it also release a lot of nitrogen oxides, which are significantly more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2, contribute to the formation of smog and acid rain, and destroy tropospheric ozone.
- csours 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust_fluid There are problems with every idea. I was not suggesting that we should just burn ammonia. Even if I was, there is no way I was outlining a whole solution in a short internet comment.