Regarding the weight of ammonia vs hydrogen, it seems like you need to factor in the weight of the storage vessel for the different cases, and the weight and energy for the cryogenic equipment for the liquefied hydrogen. Given that transport of LNG by ship is practical, and nobody transports natural gas in ships in a gaseous state, my guess is high pressure-ambient temperature maritime fueling with hydrogen is impractical. But I'm a chemical engineer, not a mechanical engineer. And two minutes of Googling didn't yield the scaling law for this problem.
Dissociation of the ammonia on board would be the solution, using H2 as feed for fuel cells. Couple this with a green ammonia production and transport, you have a true zero emission supply chain and energy source (providing you can dissociate the ammonia in a green way also!).
Thank you for the good content! I have a question: is storage of gaseous H2 at 700 bar possible in only one tank (as a ship fuel)? Because if not, and if many tanks are needed, the size of the actual fuel storage system must be used to compare storage volume required by different fuels, not only the volume occupied by the fuel itself!
I don't think it could be possible, too much pressure. FC trucks feature several carbon fiber bottles to storage H2 at 700/350 bar. Anyway, that's a very good question; it seems that tanks weigh has to be taken in account (even for Ammonia).
IIUC Ammonia ICE names NOx but a catalytic converter might fix that (I’m not sure if it can deal with 100% of the NOx). I’m not sure about an ammonia fuel cell.
I love this video, but I have to ask why ammonia is shown cheaper than hydrogen, when we're seeking to become zero-emissions, so we need green hydrogen itself to make green ammonia. So, shouldn't ammonia be at least as expensive? I prefer hydrogen over all other options for these reasons: . Zero-emissions . The fact that hydrogen is more standard, while ammonia is only likey to be used for ships, whereas hydrogen is to be used by ships and also transported by those very ships to fuel electricity grids and road vehicles and aeroplanes. Ammonia is only for ships, but using the common fuel of all trades would simplify things greatly. . Cost Tell me, how does the short range of hydrogen ships affect them compared to ammonia? Can't they refuel? They seem more able than the steam ships that used to run on coal. If stopping a lot affects the economy, then I must say that some aspects of global trade are worth sacrificing for the welfare of humanity on land, and the economic damage from climate change is worse than that from expensive shipping.
Hydrogen used in ammonia production is produced very close to ammonia production factory, but hydrogen used as fuel has probably been shipped a long distance. as can be seen here, hydrogen is hard to transport thus expensive if not local.
If ammonia is required, don't burn it, run it through a fuel cell. But tbh I think that Hydrogen will be the solution when extreme energy density is required and also no risk for toxic leakage from ammonia tanks since Hydrogen is a safe gas, unlike the deadly vapors from ammonia
Hydrogen is not a safe gas. It destroys metal components (via hydrogen embrittlement) in tanks, pipes, pumps. It will leak through the metal cracks, and through most standard gasket materials. Worst of all, hydrogen has a very broad flammability range - 4 percent to 74 percent concentration in air. In short, this "safe" gas is actually an explosive hazard and should be kept away from the general public.
Just curious, what is the benefit of ammonia over other bio-fuels like methanol, for example ? Is it by chance that a methanol fuel cell more difficult than an ammonia one ?
@@uni4rm it' s even better for methanol, that is a simple alcohol liquid at atmospheric pressure, that we still produce at a rate about 10% in volume of petroleum
Most Marine engineers today are quite fed up today with pressures at work. Reasons 1) Covid, 2) Written rest hours are a joke 3) Continuous change in technology and complications thereof with smart sales people introducing these latest technologies. High time solutions like thorium powered nuclear energy etc. are introduced which have a long proven record & maybe.e.g......something like transatlantic winches to pull cargo.....
Hey thanks for the content. I am actually working on a project to induce ammonia and hydrogen both as fuel on a vessel for high speeds in a catamaran. I would be requiring your help. Please do leave a reply. Thanks
The speculation that the cost of green hydrogen will be as cheap as 2.5p/kWh by 2025 is too ambitious. There are too many things competing for renewable energy in the drive to curtail co2 emissions that hydrogen production may not be so much a priority. Besides, a much cheaper alternatives to electrolysis has to be found for green hydrogen to be competitive in terms of cost. I assume that unfortunately there will still be a lot of reliance on blue hydrogen for a long time after 2025.
Regarding the weight of ammonia vs hydrogen, it seems like you need to factor in the weight of the storage vessel for the different cases, and the weight and energy for the cryogenic equipment for the liquefied hydrogen. Given that transport of LNG by ship is practical, and nobody transports natural gas in ships in a gaseous state, my guess is high pressure-ambient temperature maritime fueling with hydrogen is impractical. But I'm a chemical engineer, not a mechanical engineer. And two minutes of Googling didn't yield the scaling law for this problem.
Hi, solid presentation. However it has now aged a little as technology is improving fast in the sector. Any updated presentation? Thank you
Thanks for a trustworthy comparison.
Dissociation of the ammonia on board would be the solution, using H2 as feed for fuel cells. Couple this with a green ammonia production and transport, you have a true zero emission supply chain and energy source (providing you can dissociate the ammonia in a green way also!).
this is a very interesting talk.
There might be one minor error on pp 20: Total Storage Mass should be in tonnes, instead of kg.
Great presentation.
The airline industry got some even bigger challenges ahead then.
Thank you for the good content! I have a question:
is storage of gaseous H2 at 700 bar possible in only one tank (as a ship fuel)? Because if not, and if many tanks are needed, the size of the actual fuel storage system must be used to compare storage volume required by different fuels, not only the volume occupied by the fuel itself!
I don't think it could be possible, too much pressure. FC trucks feature several carbon fiber bottles to storage H2 at 700/350 bar.
Anyway, that's a very good question; it seems that tanks weigh has to be taken in account (even for Ammonia).
please clarify the impact of cold temps on this process is it appropriate for use at high lattitudes like navigating the northwestpassage
Does the ammonia fuel cell emmit nox? Did I get it correctly?
IIUC Ammonia ICE names NOx but a catalytic converter might fix that (I’m not sure if it can deal with 100% of the NOx). I’m not sure about an ammonia fuel cell.
Not if you use a fuel cell
If NH3 is fully chemically reduced you get N2 and H20. Not sure if there is any chance of slip or incomplete reactions
I love this video, but I have to ask why ammonia is shown cheaper than hydrogen, when we're seeking to become zero-emissions, so we need green hydrogen itself to make green ammonia. So, shouldn't ammonia be at least as expensive?
I prefer hydrogen over all other options for these reasons:
. Zero-emissions
. The fact that hydrogen is more standard, while ammonia is only likey to be used for ships, whereas hydrogen is to be used by ships and also transported by those very ships to fuel electricity grids and road vehicles and aeroplanes. Ammonia is only for ships, but using the common fuel of all trades would simplify things greatly.
. Cost
Tell me, how does the short range of hydrogen ships affect them compared to ammonia? Can't they refuel? They seem more able than the steam ships that used to run on coal.
If stopping a lot affects the economy, then I must say that some aspects of global trade are worth sacrificing for the welfare of humanity on land, and the economic damage from climate change is worse than that from expensive shipping.
NH3 can be liquified at -33 degree Celsius whereas H2 liquified at -253 degree Celius.
Hydrogen used in ammonia production is produced very close to ammonia production factory, but hydrogen used as fuel has probably been shipped a long distance. as can be seen here, hydrogen is hard to transport thus expensive if not local.
because it's cheaper to produce ammonia rather than purifying and storing hydrogen
If ammonia is required, don't burn it, run it through a fuel cell.
But tbh I think that Hydrogen will be the solution when extreme energy density is required and also no risk for toxic leakage from ammonia tanks since Hydrogen is a safe gas, unlike the deadly vapors from ammonia
Fuel cells are much better for this reason but the price is very high because it uses platinum
Hydrogen is not a safe gas. It destroys metal components (via hydrogen embrittlement) in tanks, pipes, pumps. It will leak through the metal cracks, and through most standard gasket materials. Worst of all, hydrogen has a very broad flammability range - 4 percent to 74 percent concentration in air. In short, this "safe" gas is actually an explosive hazard and should be kept away from the general public.
Just curious, what is the benefit of ammonia over other bio-fuels like methanol, for example ? Is it by chance that a methanol fuel cell more difficult than an ammonia one ?
energy density
@@saltymonke3682 Energy density of methanol is (slightly) higher than ammonia. And it is liquid at atm pressure
@@Alessandro-1977 yea but you'll have CO2 emission
ammonia transport and infrastructure already exists.
@@uni4rm it' s even better for methanol, that is a simple alcohol liquid at atmospheric pressure, that we still produce at a rate about 10% in volume of petroleum
Most Marine engineers today are quite fed up today with pressures at work.
Reasons 1) Covid, 2) Written rest hours are a joke 3) Continuous change in technology and complications thereof with smart sales people introducing these latest technologies.
High time solutions like thorium powered nuclear energy etc. are introduced which have a long proven record & maybe.e.g......something like transatlantic winches to pull cargo.....
Lets skip to the good part: 15:41
Hey thanks for the content. I am actually working on a project to induce ammonia and hydrogen both as fuel on a vessel for high speeds in a catamaran. I would be requiring your help. Please do leave a reply. Thanks
I think synthetic diesel is the real solution.
The speculation that the cost of green hydrogen will be as cheap as 2.5p/kWh by 2025 is too ambitious. There are too many things competing for renewable energy in the drive to curtail co2 emissions that hydrogen production may not be so much a priority. Besides, a much cheaper alternatives to electrolysis has to be found for green hydrogen to be competitive in terms of cost. I assume that unfortunately there will still be a lot of reliance on blue hydrogen for a long time after 2025.
Hydrogen for light duty vehicles makes zero sense.
babukutty idicalla Gmail