6 ms·

I am trying to get a good overview of how NH3 would work at scale as an energy carrier versus H2 or CH4. Any reason to speculate that one of them will dominate?

I am trying to get a good overview of how NH3 would work at scale as an energy carrier versus H2 or CH4. Any reason to speculate that one of them will dominate? Have you read any good overview?

legulere 4y ago
NH3 and CH4 both get produced with H2. H2 is difficult to transport in a lot of situations, so the idea is to transform it into NH3. For CH4 you need carbon capture which is energy intensive and only makes sense when you need the carbon like in chemical processes.
- markvdb 4y ago
  Thank you for your comment. I'm really looking for a more extensive overview, an extensively motivated educated guess. For example, catching CO2 might be done much more cheaply when burning CH4 at a power station. This might change the equation or not. There also seems to be quite a bit of evolution in reducing the price of carbon capture. [0][1] I seem goals of $30/ton for carbon capture and wonder what factors will change the equation... [0] https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/cheaper-carbon-capture-way https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/cheaper-carbon-capture-way [1] https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cssc.202101590 https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10....
  - himinlomax 4y ago
    > For example, catching CO2 might be done much more cheaply when burning CH4 at a power station There's something quite absurd about catching CO₂ at a power station. A more sensible source is at cement factories.
    - pfortuny 4y ago
      I guess he is trying to say: use existent gas stations and/or we might be able to capture all the CO2 therein. But I am not gp, obviously.
    - markvdb 4y ago
      I see a certain elegance rather than absurdity in closed cycle green energy storage. Whether H2, NH3, CH4 or something else, chances are that will require high quality CO2 sources. Both CO2 based electric power plants and cement factories look like excellent candidates. I find the simplicity of compressed CO2 energy storage [0] ten times more elegant, but I'll be happy with any progress towards scalable distributed abundant cheap energy storage.
  - idiocrat 4y ago
- tuatoru 4y ago
  I just read an estimate that said carbon adds 30% to the cost of producing the hydrogen alone (by electrolysis). If you can use smaller, simpler storage, transport, and consumption structures (for CH4 over H2), that have lower safety demands, then it may be a wash. And those caverns, pipes and gas turbines are already there. Admittedly they depreciate at 4% - 14%, so not there for all that long in the scheme of things, but they're there now. And the manufacturing and regulatory infrastructures and engineering knowledge are there now too. At global scale.
- bluGill 4y ago
  But NH3 is deadly. Household NH3 is 99% water and then you dilute it 16:1 to use, and still need windows open. CH4 is environmentally unfriendly, but you don't need nearly as much safety gear to work with it.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    The world produces and transports anhydrous ammonia in the millions of tons annually. There is plenty of experience with it. Its hazards are well known and well compensated for.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      The world also uses a lot more natural gas and despite uses less precautions. I work at John Deere, there are a lot of product ideas that never made it to the drawing board because someone came up with an accident scenario involving NH3. The stuff is not to be taken lightly. People who refuse to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets wear full protective gear when around it.
Tade0 4y ago
I haven't seen any good summary, but there's one new contender that needs to be mentioned: hydrogen peroxide. It doesn't burn, but oxidizes heavily whatever it touches, releasing energy in the process. Can also be used in fuel cells. In pure form it's even nastier than ammonia, but contrary to that chemical it's liquid at room temperature. Also it mixes well with water producing a less nasty solution. Energy density is low, but that is not a constraint for grid storage.
- jabl 4y ago
  From reading Ignition, a book about the development of liquid rocket fuels, there was quite a lot of research into using peroxide as an oxidizer. But turns out it's really hard to make it behave during storage.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    At above 50% it likes to become water, exothermically. It is routinely shipped in bottles at 30%.
tastyfreeze 4y ago
NH3 is easier to make into liquid. CH4 requires cryogenic temperature and high pressures to liquify. For that reason I think that NH3 will dominate in the long run. But, CH4 can be made passively from organic waste so it might eek out an edge. It would be interesting to see the energy cost breakdown for production, storage and transport of both. Methane already has a place in our energy economy. I speculate it will lead over NH3 for quite awhile.

I am trying to get a good overview of how NH3 would work at scale as an energy carrier versus H2 or CH4. Any reason to speculate that one of them will dominate? Have you read any good overview?

legulere 4y ago

NH3 and CH4 both get produced with H2. H2 is difficult to transport in a lot of situations, so the idea is to transform it into NH3. For CH4 you need carbon capture which is energy intensive and only makes sense when you need the carbon like in chemical processes.

markvdb 4y ago
Thank you for your comment. I'm really looking for a more extensive overview, an extensively motivated educated guess. For example, catching CO2 might be done much more cheaply when burning CH4 at a power station. This might change the equation or not. There also seems to be quite a bit of evolution in reducing the price of carbon capture. [0][1] I seem goals of $30/ton for carbon capture and wonder what factors will change the equation... [0] https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/cheaper-carbon-capture-way https://www.pnnl.gov/news-media/cheaper-carbon-capture-way [1] https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cssc.202101590 https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10....
- himinlomax 4y ago
  > For example, catching CO2 might be done much more cheaply when burning CH4 at a power station There's something quite absurd about catching CO₂ at a power station. A more sensible source is at cement factories.
  - pfortuny 4y ago
    I guess he is trying to say: use existent gas stations and/or we might be able to capture all the CO2 therein. But I am not gp, obviously.
  - markvdb 4y ago
    I see a certain elegance rather than absurdity in closed cycle green energy storage. Whether H2, NH3, CH4 or something else, chances are that will require high quality CO2 sources. Both CO2 based electric power plants and cement factories look like excellent candidates. I find the simplicity of compressed CO2 energy storage [0] ten times more elegant, but I'll be happy with any progress towards scalable distributed abundant cheap energy storage.
- idiocrat 4y ago
tuatoru 4y ago
I just read an estimate that said carbon adds 30% to the cost of producing the hydrogen alone (by electrolysis). If you can use smaller, simpler storage, transport, and consumption structures (for CH4 over H2), that have lower safety demands, then it may be a wash. And those caverns, pipes and gas turbines are already there. Admittedly they depreciate at 4% - 14%, so not there for all that long in the scheme of things, but they're there now. And the manufacturing and regulatory infrastructures and engineering knowledge are there now too. At global scale.
bluGill 4y ago
But NH3 is deadly. Household NH3 is 99% water and then you dilute it 16:1 to use, and still need windows open. CH4 is environmentally unfriendly, but you don't need nearly as much safety gear to work with it.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  The world produces and transports anhydrous ammonia in the millions of tons annually. There is plenty of experience with it. Its hazards are well known and well compensated for.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    The world also uses a lot more natural gas and despite uses less precautions. I work at John Deere, there are a lot of product ideas that never made it to the drawing board because someone came up with an accident scenario involving NH3. The stuff is not to be taken lightly. People who refuse to wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets wear full protective gear when around it.

Tade0 4y ago

I haven't seen any good summary, but there's one new contender that needs to be mentioned: hydrogen peroxide. It doesn't burn, but oxidizes heavily whatever it touches, releasing energy in the process. Can also be used in fuel cells. In pure form it's even nastier than ammonia, but contrary to that chemical it's liquid at room temperature. Also it mixes well with water producing a less nasty solution. Energy density is low, but that is not a constraint for grid storage.

jabl 4y ago
From reading Ignition, a book about the development of liquid rocket fuels, there was quite a lot of research into using peroxide as an oxidizer. But turns out it's really hard to make it behave during storage.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  At above 50% it likes to become water, exothermically. It is routinely shipped in bottles at 30%.

tastyfreeze 4y ago

NH3 is easier to make into liquid. CH4 requires cryogenic temperature and high pressures to liquify. For that reason I think that NH3 will dominate in the long run. But, CH4 can be made passively from organic waste so it might eek out an edge. It would be interesting to see the energy cost breakdown for production, storage and transport of both. Methane already has a place in our energy economy. I speculate it will lead over NH3 for quite awhile.