5 ms·

I don't think it's realistic as a fuel for cars, but "worldwide transportation" means more than that. I suspect they're talking about container ships, tankers,

I don't think it's realistic as a fuel for cars, but "worldwide transportation" means more than that. I suspect they're talking about container ships, tankers, and such. Ammonia is easier to liquify than hydrogen, and is in many respects easier to handle. However, it's definitely not something you want to have a spill of at a gas station or in your garage, and for that reason, it probably won't have "consumer" uses. As far as industrial gasses go, it's certainly nowhere near the worst, and there's plenty of ammonia tankers on the roads today, but large spills do kill people every now and then.

aifooh7Keew6xoo 3y ago
It is certainly easier to liquefy, I can't argue that point.
justinclift 3y ago
Hmmm, "gas station filled with petrol that explodes" vs "gas station filled with hydrogen that explodes". Being near either one as it explodes would be bad, but I wonder which one looks more impressive movie-effects-wise? :)
- sfink 3y ago
  In my limited understanding, neither one really explodes. The petrol one would look like a huge impressive fireball that launches a big black mushroom cloud and then just burns like crazy. The hydrogen one, if the hydrogen is fairly pure, would be like a big faint blue wispy fireball, not all that impressive. If there were an oxidizer in the mix somehow, it would be rather more explosive.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Cool, thanks. :)
  - anon_cow1111 3y ago
    The issue with hydrogen is that it has a fairly wide combustion range (meaning the ratio of fuel/air that can burn), I can't remember the numbers but it's several times greater than other common fuels. The other issue with hydrogen is that the combustion happens VERY fast... if you ignite gasoline vapor/air in an open 5-gallon jug, you have a nice rocket that'll fly 50 feet or so. If you ignite hydrogen/air in the same jug, you have permanent hearing damage and shards of plastic embedded in you.
    - Taiwan_No_1 3y ago
      [dead]
  - amluto 3y ago
    If the hydrogen is fairly pure and the amount is question is small, then sure: combustion will happen at the hydrogen-air interface. If it mixes with air before ignition, then it can burn all a once, and Wikipedia informs me that “the limits of detonability of hydrogen in air are 18.3% to 59% by volume.”. Yes, it will literally detonate with supersonic flame velocity. I once got to watch some moderately crazy students fill an ordinary party balloon with a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen at ambient temperature and pressure. When it was ignited, the result was extremely impressive. No one was injured (because we were all warned to protect our ears and open our mouths and balloons don’t produce significant shrapnel), but the shock wave was not at all subtle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Why is having open mouths important?
      - adrianN 3y ago
        Less pressure on your eardrums if the shock wave reaches them from both sides.
        ben_w 3y ago
        Ah. So holding my eustachian tubes open (half way through a yawn) would also be a good idea?
    - sfink 3y ago
      My dad did this once. He drained the acid from a car battery and put it in a container with a narrow opening, then dropped in a bunch of zinc galvanized nails. Sulfuric acid + zinc = hydrogen gas. He then stretched balloons over the mouth of the container to inflate them, tied them up, and attached a strip of newspaper to the bottom. Finally, he lit the bottom of the newspaper on fire and let it go. Balloon floats up, makes pretty fireball. We ran into two problems. First, a number of the flames blew out on their way up. No fireball. Second, we ran out of balloons pretty fast. So he cast around for ideas, and decided to fall back on a box of condoms. They held a lot more hydrogen than the balloons. They were also equally likely to go out before blowing up. I always imagined them coming down on someone's lawn, causing no end of confusion. [DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! And if you're tempted, there's one thing I left out that's necessary for it to work properly, and the only thing I'll say about it is this warning: https://sciencenotes.org/add-acid-to-water-or-water-to-acid/ https://sciencenotes.org/add-acid-to-water-or-water-to-acid/ ]
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Hydrogen is way worse than gasoline or any hydrocarbon. It has to be stored at very high pressures and there’s no practical situation in which it doesn’t explode.
TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
Toyota have produced a prototype ammonia engine they claim is the end of the EV market.
- aaronbrethorst 3y ago
  Neat. I look forward to them rolling out a production model in 2043.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I look forward to them rolling it out downwind.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  They can keep making claims to cover up their complete bungling of their market position. As for the idea itself. Ammonia as fuel fails the first principle of safe design. It’s a poisonous gas. Using it as a fuel is a willingness to trade the safety of people for a cheaper fuel.
  - jackmott 3y ago
    [dead]
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    The move from cars to SUVs in America was so car manufacturers could skip emissions and safety requirements of cars on the technicality that SUVs are “light truck” chassis[1]. Dan Luu shows that those safety regulations are often a box ticking exercise for manufacturers except Volvo[2]. American stroad design is a particularly bad mix of street and road which is more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians than other designs. And the diesel emissions scandal so many car manufacturers were caught defrauding. “willingness to trade the safety of people for a cheaper X” is exactly what we should expect car companies (and companies in general) to do, because that’s what they’ve done so often though history. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo https://youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo “These stupid trucks are literally killing us” -NotJustBikes [2] https://danluu.com/car-safety/ https://danluu.com/car-safety/
keep_reading 3y ago
https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/engine/corrosion-of-conformity-toyota-takes-aim-at-evs-with-ammonia-engine/ https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/engine/corrosion-of-c...
alwayslikethis 3y ago
It is important to note that hydrogen, due to the small size of the molecule, is really hard to contain as a gas. Moreover, leaked hydrogen gas is an indirect but potent greenhouse gas via interfering with the degradation of existing methane in the atmosphere. If we leak enough hydrogen, we might not be helping the climate very much. I was once in a presentation which claimed formic acid to be a better alternative, but I'm not an expert in that field, so I can't comment on its merits.
- amluto 3y ago
  There were some recent articles suggesting that there may be enough natural hydrogen seeping out of the ground to supply all of humanity’s energy needs. It seems a bit unlikely that leakage of hydrogen from fuel systems would matter much in comparison.
  - nick222226 3y ago
    How about radon, is that fissible?
    - nukeman 3y ago
      No, it gives off alpha particles and gamma rays. Hypothetically, you could build a device to harvest that energy (along the lines of an RTG), but the energy density and conversion efficiency would be laughable, given the 3.8 day half-life and gaseous state.
    - amluto 3y ago
      To be clear, I’m saying enough hydrogen to power humanity chemically, not by fusion. Enough hydrogen to power humanity by fusion is readily available anywhere :)
ForgedEngine 3y ago
Use compressed air or NOx as oxidizers for delayed combustion in engines. Not only would it provide a means of storing energy for ICEs, but it would also eliminate pumping losses on the intake stroke.
idontwantthis 3y ago
I wonder if this process would be easy enough that “ammonia battery” plants would just synthesize on site when solar power is high. Like charging up a battery with no need to move anything. Or maybe a regional factory with short pipelines.

aifooh7Keew6xoo 3y ago

It is certainly easier to liquefy, I can't argue that point.

justinclift 3y ago

Hmmm, "gas station filled with petrol that explodes" vs "gas station filled with hydrogen that explodes". Being near either one as it explodes would be bad, but I wonder which one looks more impressive movie-effects-wise? :)

sfink 3y ago
In my limited understanding, neither one really explodes. The petrol one would look like a huge impressive fireball that launches a big black mushroom cloud and then just burns like crazy. The hydrogen one, if the hydrogen is fairly pure, would be like a big faint blue wispy fireball, not all that impressive. If there were an oxidizer in the mix somehow, it would be rather more explosive.
- justinclift 3y ago
  Cool, thanks. :)
- anon_cow1111 3y ago
  The issue with hydrogen is that it has a fairly wide combustion range (meaning the ratio of fuel/air that can burn), I can't remember the numbers but it's several times greater than other common fuels. The other issue with hydrogen is that the combustion happens VERY fast... if you ignite gasoline vapor/air in an open 5-gallon jug, you have a nice rocket that'll fly 50 feet or so. If you ignite hydrogen/air in the same jug, you have permanent hearing damage and shards of plastic embedded in you.
  - Taiwan_No_1 3y ago
    [dead]
- amluto 3y ago
  If the hydrogen is fairly pure and the amount is question is small, then sure: combustion will happen at the hydrogen-air interface. If it mixes with air before ignition, then it can burn all a once, and Wikipedia informs me that “the limits of detonability of hydrogen in air are 18.3% to 59% by volume.”. Yes, it will literally detonate with supersonic flame velocity. I once got to watch some moderately crazy students fill an ordinary party balloon with a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen at ambient temperature and pressure. When it was ignited, the result was extremely impressive. No one was injured (because we were all warned to protect our ears and open our mouths and balloons don’t produce significant shrapnel), but the shock wave was not at all subtle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Why is having open mouths important?
    - adrianN 3y ago
      Less pressure on your eardrums if the shock wave reaches them from both sides.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Ah. So holding my eustachian tubes open (half way through a yawn) would also be a good idea?
  - sfink 3y ago
    My dad did this once. He drained the acid from a car battery and put it in a container with a narrow opening, then dropped in a bunch of zinc galvanized nails. Sulfuric acid + zinc = hydrogen gas. He then stretched balloons over the mouth of the container to inflate them, tied them up, and attached a strip of newspaper to the bottom. Finally, he lit the bottom of the newspaper on fire and let it go. Balloon floats up, makes pretty fireball. We ran into two problems. First, a number of the flames blew out on their way up. No fireball. Second, we ran out of balloons pretty fast. So he cast around for ideas, and decided to fall back on a box of condoms. They held a lot more hydrogen than the balloons. They were also equally likely to go out before blowing up. I always imagined them coming down on someone's lawn, causing no end of confusion. [DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME! And if you're tempted, there's one thing I left out that's necessary for it to work properly, and the only thing I'll say about it is this warning: https://sciencenotes.org/add-acid-to-water-or-water-to-acid/ https://sciencenotes.org/add-acid-to-water-or-water-to-acid/ ]
colechristensen 3y ago
Hydrogen is way worse than gasoline or any hydrocarbon. It has to be stored at very high pressures and there’s no practical situation in which it doesn’t explode.

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago

Toyota have produced a prototype ammonia engine they claim is the end of the EV market.

aaronbrethorst 3y ago
Neat. I look forward to them rolling out a production model in 2043.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  I look forward to them rolling it out downwind.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
They can keep making claims to cover up their complete bungling of their market position. As for the idea itself. Ammonia as fuel fails the first principle of safe design. It’s a poisonous gas. Using it as a fuel is a willingness to trade the safety of people for a cheaper fuel.
- jackmott 3y ago
  [dead]
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  The move from cars to SUVs in America was so car manufacturers could skip emissions and safety requirements of cars on the technicality that SUVs are “light truck” chassis[1]. Dan Luu shows that those safety regulations are often a box ticking exercise for manufacturers except Volvo[2]. American stroad design is a particularly bad mix of street and road which is more dangerous for drivers and pedestrians than other designs. And the diesel emissions scandal so many car manufacturers were caught defrauding. “willingness to trade the safety of people for a cheaper X” is exactly what we should expect car companies (and companies in general) to do, because that’s what they’ve done so often though history. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo https://youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo “These stupid trucks are literally killing us” -NotJustBikes [2] https://danluu.com/car-safety/ https://danluu.com/car-safety/

keep_reading 3y ago

https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/engine/corrosion-of-conformity-toyota-takes-aim-at-evs-with-ammonia-engine/ https://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/engine/corrosion-of-c...

alwayslikethis 3y ago

It is important to note that hydrogen, due to the small size of the molecule, is really hard to contain as a gas. Moreover, leaked hydrogen gas is an indirect but potent greenhouse gas via interfering with the degradation of existing methane in the atmosphere. If we leak enough hydrogen, we might not be helping the climate very much. I was once in a presentation which claimed formic acid to be a better alternative, but I'm not an expert in that field, so I can't comment on its merits.

amluto 3y ago
There were some recent articles suggesting that there may be enough natural hydrogen seeping out of the ground to supply all of humanity’s energy needs. It seems a bit unlikely that leakage of hydrogen from fuel systems would matter much in comparison.
- nick222226 3y ago
  How about radon, is that fissible?
  - nukeman 3y ago
    No, it gives off alpha particles and gamma rays. Hypothetically, you could build a device to harvest that energy (along the lines of an RTG), but the energy density and conversion efficiency would be laughable, given the 3.8 day half-life and gaseous state.
  - amluto 3y ago
    To be clear, I’m saying enough hydrogen to power humanity chemically, not by fusion. Enough hydrogen to power humanity by fusion is readily available anywhere :)

ForgedEngine 3y ago

Use compressed air or NOx as oxidizers for delayed combustion in engines. Not only would it provide a means of storing energy for ICEs, but it would also eliminate pumping losses on the intake stroke.

idontwantthis 3y ago

I wonder if this process would be easy enough that “ammonia battery” plants would just synthesize on site when solar power is high. Like charging up a battery with no need to move anything. Or maybe a regional factory with short pipelines.