Does Toyota Know Something That We Don’t?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2024
- The 2044 Toyota Prius might just be powered by… ammonia. Ammonia is combustible, and holds promise as a relatively low-effort way to decarbonize the internal combustion engine - but the devil’s in the details. Join George as he discovers at least one detail by burning stuff in his basement.
Note: the model piston we used in this video shows air and fuel entering the cylinder together. This design was prevalent in engines until roughly the 1990s. These days, air and fuel enter separately. The combustion process and piston movement are the same!
#AmmoniaEngine
You might also like other Reactions videos:
How Do Hydrogen Fuel Cells Work?
• How Do Hydrogen Fuel C...
But HOW Does Carbon Dioxide Trap Heat?
• But HOW Does Carbon Di...
Why Are Electronic Vehicle Fires So Hard to Put Out?
• Why Are Electric Vehic...
The End of Haber Bosch
• The End of Haber Bosch
The War Against Antibiotic Resistance
• The Antibiotic Resista...
Credits:
Executive Producer:
Matthew Radcliff
Producers:
Elaine Seward
Andrew Sobey
Darren Weaver
Writer:
George Zaidan
Host:
George Zaidan
Scientific Consultants:
Agustin Valera-Medina Ph.D.
Michelle Boucher, Ph.D.
Leila Duman, Ph.D.
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Reactions is a production of the American Chemical Society.
© 2023 American Chemical Society. All rights reserved.
Sources:
docs.google.com/document/d/1H... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ตัวอย่างภาพยนตร์ Venom: The Last Dance [Official - Sub Thai]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DHPjvAwmnRE/mqdefault.jpg)
Like any fuel, ammonia has emissions. Super interesting piece on the difference between doing ammonia properly vs. getting it wrong that goes into a lot of detail on emissions:
engineering.princeton.edu/news/2023/11/07/ammonia-fuel-offers-great-benefits-demands-careful-action
As the kids are wont to say, "That's just burning fossil fuels with extra steps."
It's all about the claim of non-carbon tail pipe emissions. It's a yarn hippy scientist like to spin to get government grant dollars. @@rockets4kids
The properties of ammonia, eg, vaporizes at an extremely low temperature and it's toxicity at relatively low concentrations effectively makes in to the "poor Man's" poison gas terrorist weapon. This is an inherently profoundly bad idea.
1. Too much pointless gesticulation
2. What is the purpose of background music? It only irritates and significantly complicates the perception of your story. Did you do it just because it was possible?
3. You microphone seems to be broken - the volume varies from low to high. Or maybe it's because of background music?
Bottom line: impossible to watch for more than 3 minutes. Voting down.
You're not a real chemist, are you?
My friend used to work on ammonia referigeration in food storage, and supermarkets. He used to joke that if there was a leak you could find it easily by just looking for the dead customers.
funny i keep hearing joke about people dropping out due to ammonia leak but haven't come across real news about ammonia killing people
Yea, tell me about it. I first learned about ammonia as a refrigerant when there was an industrial accident (ammonia leak) at a turkey processing plant where a relative worked.
@@larrybav No joke, no fun, not friendly to life, and not suitable for any kind of fuel either, but the climate kooks are proposing electric military vehicles now. If depopulation is the goal then I suppose they are brilliant..
@@larrybav
The irony is that you can suppress ammonia vapours by turning on the fire sprinklers and letting water absorb it.
@@cezarcatalin1406 is this ironic?
I used to work in an ice cream factory and the refrigerant used was ammonia, The refrigerant lines were painted a bright yellow and railing was use to protect exposed lines.
I was warned that if one of these lines broke it is unlikely that anyone in the area would be able to get out alive. Having smelled low concentrations of Ammonia when maintenance was being done on one of the compressors I believe it.
Do you believe that your chances of survival would have been higher had the same amount of gasoline (which could potentially erupt into an explosive fireball) had been the refrigerant?
Now imagine 10-15 gallons of your refrigerant dissipating - vs the same going up in a fireball - again, you're more likely to survive a well-publicized ammonia leak out of your car's fuel tank, than an sudden explosive fireball.
Car fires in a twin-garage could be interesting, with two full tanks of ammonia in their fuel tanks
Perhaps we shouldn't worry about the negatives until we know if the idea even works. The first place Toyota and GAC have put an Ammonia Engine into is a Container Ship. Batteries are never going to work for shipping, maybe this works? Here's a fun fact - Cruise Ships in Europe put more sulphur into the air than all the passenger cars on the Continent combined do. And that's just Cruise Ships, not Goods Transporters.
My fridge never leaked; but an apartment building was nearly evacuated due to Air/Conditioning leak(good times).
Gasoline kills via fireball. Ammonia can cause instant death in relatively low concentrations, think a single burst tank in a shared garage, by acting as a rapid CNS depressant. Also, it will burn your nasal cavities, make a strong caustic hydroxide on your wet skin and smells horrendeus.
As much as I love it as a fuel (there's already a guy running a car with it), it's not viable for mass production.
Yes I love the smell of nitric acid in the morning. The various nitrogen oxides also give an irreplaceable orange glow to the air.
Hypergolic propellants always have such a nice warm glow! 😂
no you are more comfortable with lithium fire
That's along the lines of "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning". lol (from the 1979 movie "Apocalypse Now")
@@BillAnt It smells like Victory!
But, if you smell that faintly fishy ammonia smell of hydrazine you better run upwind fast.
Rotten eggs is Hydrogen Sulfide, totally different chemistry
That's what I was thinking !
Ammonia smells like ammonia. Once you smell it, you know it forever !
ammonia as in hot springs on some mountainous places? cause i do know when i was a child my mom has amonia rocks from a hot spring, i heard it has its own health properties
"I was told to expect a ...rotten egg smell..."
By WHOM? Your videographer who flunked HS chemistry because he dozed off and woke up when the teacher said,
".. and as you can all smell, this reaction has the distinct odor of rotten eggs..."
He then turned to the wastoid next to him and asked, "What the hell was that effing smell?"
And the wastoid replied, "I think he said something about being stronger than ammonia or something like that or something..."
Remember he was probably told this by the programme producers, who took english and other language or art subjects. Possibly biology by not Chemistry and Physics.
This us one of the reasons the country is in a mess.
Decomposing egg whites *will actually* create ammonia. Don't just dismiss what he said as false because it can make something else.
I was surprised that a chemist would not know the smell / attack of ammonia. I used to smell it around pet owner's homes. I was even once given smelling salts in my middle school.
Yeah, this was the most surprising thing to me in the whole video. I get that ammonia isn't as common an item as something like bleach, but it's still a household item available at most grocery and hardware stores.
@@lonestranger Not to mention a not-so-clean cat litterbox.
Worked on a horse farm. Smelled like ammonia
I agree. He's a fake chemist, clearly. How do you become a chemist without knowing _anything_ about the chemistry of ammonia?
@@undercoveragent9889 Pretty sure he was aware of the smell of ammonia, most people are. He was doing it for demonstration purposes. To teach youtubers not to play with the stuff. You know how they like to eat tide pods.
i remember the coast guard giving out warning over the radio whenever a tug pulling an anhydrous ammonia barge would come into the bay... 1000 foot clearance for any other traffic... look up ammonia plant explosions on the web
Or don't thoughts of Timmy McVeigh and Terry Nichols echo a bit- something about an Oklahoma tale... and AMMONIUM NITRATE?? The largest homegrown T-attack in US history. Given this fact, pushback against such a fuel would likely be so-so, only because it happened a while back and 911 is much more impactful both literally and figuratively
Same for natural gas, which is even more volatile.
@@Al-Storm No, natural gas is not able to react with itself while releasing energy. Ammonia can. 2 NH3 + energy N2 + 3 H2 + more energy
Ammonia is a high explosive. It is not that sensitive if there is nothing sensitizing it, but the smoke from a burning ship nearby might sensitize it.
Farmer cousin was filling a tank with anhydrous ammonia and a hose burst. I guess he was lucky enough to be upwind and turn and ran, trying not to breath. He didn't get much of a dose but, it didn't help him much either.
He did have to spend a day in the hospital under OX.
Roads lined with dead flies, including bees. Used to work at a firm that used liquid latex. It gave off ammonia when the top was off. It soon acquired lots of black spots on the surface as insects flew too close and died. Sure wouldn't want to pump the stuff or work on the engine.
There is a TH-cam video of a guy working on cleaning a DEF Diesel exaust system that uses Ammonia as a burn agent to process NOX in the exaust. He got violently ill while doing the shoot. He ended up in the hospital for quite some time, as they ran detox agents through his blood. It alomst killed him. He may have permanent damage.
@@barrettabney DEF is urea or AdBlue as a marketing name. It's not ammonia but will probably release ammonia when heated to glowing hot temps.
NH3 tank pressure is high, and accidental venting is dangerous, so all systems would be designed to make the kind of thing you're imagining nearly impossible.
Kind of like the way we don't have gasoline fires or poisonings at every gas station.
@@barrettabney GUESS WHAT'S IN DEF ALREADY
Lovely, we're abandoning diesel because of NOx to replace it with this?
Interesting... 🤔
Actually the first place Toyota and GAC have put an Ammonia Engine into is a Container Ship. Batteries are never going to work for shipping, maybe Ammonia works? Here's a fun fact - Cruise Ships in Europe put more sulphur into the air than all the passenger cars on the Continent do. And that's just Cruise Ships, not Goods Transporters.
Actually the first place Toyota and GAC have put an Ammonia Engine into is a Container Ship. Batteries are never going to work for shipping, maybe this works? Here's a fun fact - Cruise Ships in Europe put more sulphur into the air than all the passenger cars on the Continent do. And that's just Cruise Ships, not Goods Transporters.
NO ! Diesel is NOT being abandoned, bur supplemented with DEF to reduce exhaust emissions . What would the OIL Companies do with all that Diesel fuel if they cany sell it ???
Diesels are pretty much worse in every type of emissions compared to gasoline engine, other than thermal efficiency (i.e. CO2), which still has only a marginal lead.
uh. we are not replacing diesel. and we are not going BACK to liquid fuels because ev's have not replaced a single internal combustion engine. the number of conventionally powered vehicles has increased every year since the useless ev first hit the market.
Ammonia-powered cars make absolutely zero sense when ammonia's extreme causticity is a core reason why we aren't using it as a domestic refrigerant in fridges, freezers and heat pumps despite being one of the best options otherwise.
Worked in industrial refrigeration long enough to tell you its more of a complexity issue than anything else as to why we don't use it domestically.
Also can confirm, that shit HURTS when you get a lung full but after a while you hardly notice it.
Yep. NToyota are unremittinngly silly - now to the point of stupidity - chasing hydrogen and now ammonia. Apart from the toxicity to make the stuff carbon free (from renewables) requires huge quantities of electrical power and you are literally throwing half of the power away from the start. Then you have add massively costly ammonia (or H2) distribution + handling infrastructure to construct - all likely to put it in the end back into a fuel cell in your car (itself of limited life and high expense) to turn back into electricity and power a motor. Why not cut out all the multi middle-man chain and concentrate on batteries Toyota?
I agree.
Further, has anyone calculated the cost of producing NH3?
@@RUHappyATM in bulk, you can buy it for ~$0.75/gal. At 1/3 the energy density of gasoline, that comes to about $2.25 for the same energy as 1gal of gasoline. Not that bad a deal apart from needing a 3X as large fuel tank and all-new infrastructure to handle this highly caustic stuff.
Cellulosic (plant waste) ethanol is about 50% more expensive but doesn’t require much if any new distribution infrastructure, should work with most semi-modern cars with little more than an injection table tune-up and would be safe to drink were it not for gasoline contamination and additives, some specifically selected to make it unpalatable so people don’t start using E100 as a vodka substitute.
@@RUHappyATM Ammonia is already produced in vast quantities by Bosch-Haber process for agriculture (on level of gasoline) and cost is very well known.It's similar to gasoline in terms per Tonne - less in terms of energy liberated. The problem is all ammonia is currently produced using carbon fuels . If you don't chnage that and are not concerned about planet Earth you may as well carry on producing and burning gasoline. If you want to produce ammonia in green way (using renewable or nuclear electricity) that will likely cost significantly more. But it will be known.
Batetry electric is best bet by far.
Doesn't the Haber-Bosh process generate CO2? It seems to me that any carbon reduction from using ammonia fuel would be offset by the increased CO2 generated in making that ammonia.
Like "gray" hydrogen
yea, but this is an stationary source, and for a Nation-State lead project so it can be contained or otherwise used in a way that keeps it out of the carbon cycle.
Yes and it's a problem, but gasoline ALWAYS emits carbon when burned. The emissions for ammonia is in the synthesis, so discovering an emissions free method decarbonizes ammonia and you can never decarbonize a hydrocarbon.
The method we currently employ does create CO2 but that is not a requirement of the process. At it's base, Haber-Bosch takes nitrogen, N2, from the atmosphere, split it catalytically and combine it with hydrogen, H2.
The basis of the (very) high CO2 emission from the Haber-Bosch process is a) how we get our hydrogen today and b) the high energy needed to run the process -rapid heating, high pressures, rapid cooling and back.
Today we make almost all the hydrogen from methane in natural gas and the energy for heating and pressurization is also provided by the natural gas. Change the source for the hydrogen and use renewable energy and you could have a carbon neutral production of ammonia.
Didnt you see last video about Bosch Prozess. In the future it can be that we dont need to use fuels to produce ammonia ;D
That was nothing, I've been hit by refrigerant grade ammonia and trust me you never ever want to go there, for a while I did not think I was going to survive it. Super dangerous stuff! I left a really big mess on the floor from what came out of me. I was not actually in the cloud I was just close. Gives me chills thinking about it.
What do you mean, "back to burning liquid fuels?" Roughly 99% of us never left.
Great point !!
Instead burn ammonia directly in a combustion engine, some companies are developing ammonia truck with a electric motor. Yes. The ammonia molecules (NH3) are broken in N (nitrogen) and H3 (hydrogen) in a special device and hydrogen go a fuel cell that converts it in electricity that feed a electric motor. This is much more efficient, because the efficiency of the electric motors are much more higher (> 95%) than a combustion engine (> 35%).
thats 95% of 35%. Do you even know the logic if this lol? you are still using a combustion engine to make the electricity.
@@System0Error0Message You missed the bit where it was fuel cell not a combustion engine. Hydrogen fuel cells are ~65% efficient, so ~61% overall.
@@pigsnoutman i did not. You still need to power the process and that comes from the 35% engine allowance. What makes a hybrid efficient is being able to use the engine efficiently at low speeds
That the best way to go: To make a fuel cell and use electricity to power an electric motor. There are also Direct alcohol fuel cells. Consider that 1 liter of ethanol has around 8 kWh of energy. That outclasss any battery available today in terms of wh/kg !
The electricity is generated from catalytic conversion of NH4 into H2 and N2, then fuel cell conversion of H2 into H2O. Where's the combustion engine? The problem lies with the CO2 emitted when the NH4 is synthesised (not in a combustion engine - lol)@@System0Error0Message
Let Toyota have all the ammonia powered cars they want. Let's keep them all in Japan for their executives to drive every day.
Ammonia is corrosive - period.
If you want a car whose parts last less than 3 years, then ammonia would be the way to go. It would be easier to phase out ammonia cars because they will fall apart after 3-5 years.
I helped my dad put a propane retrofit kit into a 1995 Ford F350 in 1996, It was super easy then and has become way more efficient since. It requires less modification than one would assume to make an engine run, it has an existing safe infrastructure and is readily available in the U.S.A, but nobody ever considers it as an option. Why?
Congrats to you and your dad on the conversion ! Propane is a cleaner burning fuel than gasoline though a slightly lower energy level,... Propane loves compression so the power can be made up there. HOWEVER, Propane is very dry, runs HOTTER than gasoline and can cause exhaust valves to burn ! Propane engines are setup with sodium filled valves and Stellite valve seats to take the higher heat along with larger cooling passages in the heads . it is generally lower in fuel costs too. The difference in the 1-2 MPG loss is more than made up for by the lower cost,... sometimes there's no milage loss with the newer F.I. engines . My Dad converted his 1968 F-250 to Propane in 1970 ,... had a 390 C.I. engine and ran great till it burned a valve 2 years later. His major complaint was the lack of gas stations carrying Propane and was afraid of running out somewhere on a long trip . PETROLANE,... the propane company that did the conversion supplied him with a booklet of dealers and stations that had propane, so that helped some. In 1970 when Gasoline sold for 32 -34 cents a gallon, he bought Propane for list,... 17 cents with a 4 cents Federal supplement discount ,... so 13 cents a gallon ! He loved it ! Propane and Natural Gas are both good fuels and cleaner burning ! The Propane infrastructure isn't as large as gasoline and would have to be vastly expanded to handle the millions of cars today !
Drag racers tried something similar a long time ago. They used Hydrazine. Led to engine blow ups and eventually being banned. Ammonia has to be transported in very heavy steel cylinders which are used as is to refill refrigeration systems. To use it in cars would need a lot more than just a squirty hose gun to get it transferred.
Hydrazine is horribly toxic. Now drag racers use nitromethane which can blow engines as well
Comparing NH3 to gasoline, it seems silly.
But compare NH3 to pure hydrogen. It's far safer, has exponentially better energy density, etc. etc. etc.
Hydrazine is literally rocket fuel.
@@EHoser1 Little fun fact, there are mushroom species that, when metabolized, literally pump your liver full of mono-methyl-hydrazine!
eh, I have a bunch of liquid ammonia kit from my days working industrial refridge, its not like its magic..
NH3 is interesting, but the biggest problem is that it is NOT a fuel. You don't just drill holes and out comes ammonia (but that does happen with oil). You need to put energy into first obtaining H2, (which typically comes from natural gas turning into CO2 and H2 - another CO2 producing industry) or from electricity (which would be best if nuclear, but most are driven also by fossil since they have to run 24/7) and THEN you have to take the H2, mix it with N2 (which came from the energy to make liquid air and fractionally distill it), run it at high pressure and about 700 C and you get NH3. More energy is used to compress and store it. NH3 production consumes 2% (!) of the world's energy now. It is basically a liquid fuel battery, NOT a source of energy or "fuel". The Hydrogen revolution has a similar problem and has even worse problems for storage, energy density, etc. Interestingly HTGR and MSR (Gen IV reactors) run at high temps and could be used as direct heat sources for making NH3 (which would save that 2% I mentioned earlier, and more if it did get used as a liquid fuel). However, if you really want liquid fuel as energy storage, consider what the military does - use nuclear heat to make carbon-containing fuels (yes, they have carbon, but now you've closed the cycle). Lastly, any time you burn almost anything in an engine (including NH3) you will make some NOx emissions. Electric cars (and fuel cells) don't burn things to produce energy (in of themselves) so they don't produce CO2 and NOx (nor HC).
Exactly. extracting a fuel takes 0% or more of the energy contained in it, but manufacturing a fuel takes 100% or more of the energy contained in it.
this isnt explicitly true, modern gasoline, specifically the kind burned in cars has a LOT of refining steps in front of it.
Realistically the correct way to say that statement would be "extracted fuels can be
you should realistically be including all the refining done to oil, as well as the additives, and further refining done before it gets put into a car.
I am confussed ,, so .. what is the answer to no MORE CO2 ??? How are Northern Nations supposed to survive 6 to 8 months of Winter????
Natural gas can broken down into it's base elements,, Propane, Methane,, Amonia
,, In Canada,,, Quebec was runnig out of propane to heat and run the ruaul areas in 2020.. due to Indigenous Blockades of the railraods,
The federal Goverment went out and , negotiated an agreement with the Indigenois Peoples,, (which they """"have """" NOT houred ) to keep the propane running to Quebec....
seems to be,,,, that some policies work for the benifit, of the, 'few',, and not the many
Interesting timing seeing this video. I saw an ad yesterday, they mentioned using the idea to transport hydrogen as ammonia, and turning it back into hydrogen. that's probably the only reason I clicked this video.
When we get ammonia to shock a swimming pool, the supplier is always all freaked out and they won’t sell it to you unless you know what your doing, have the right licenses, are going directly to the pool to be treated and have a bucket of ice to keep it in.
It’s not the stuff you get at the stores like Walmart or whatever.
It’ll turn a dark green pool full of algae to a glacier like color instantly.
Don’t think I’d put it in my gasoline or diesel. Actually. I know I wouldn’t.
AND THAT'S STILL NOT PURE AMMONIA, JUST HIGHLY CONCENTRATED AMMONIA SOLUTION! (If you stood in the cloud produced while pouring liquid ammonia into a swimming pool it would DISSOLVE YOUR EYES AND SKIN.) BTW, mixing ammonia solution with water containing pool chlorine is a bad idea as it generates of chloramine gas. I have to assume you are treating (near) unchlorinated pools.
The questions that arises for me are "What is the carbon footprint of _producing_ a liter of Amonia? How does is compare with the (already known to be huge) footprint of producing a liter of gasoline?" The full lifecycle of a product needs to be taken into account to make valid judgements on its effectiveness in addressing environmental and climate disruption.
It's not about footprint. It's about round trip efficiency.
For example, 'green' hydrogen (made from electrolysis) has a round trip efficiency of ~25%, meaning of all the energy you start with, only about 1/4 of it can is actually useable to you in the end application (like driving your car). Batteries, OTOH, are over 90% efficient. That means we'd have to build ~4x as many solar panels, wind turbines, etc., to make hydrogen as opposed to just using a BEV. And all that extra production isn't cheap. Hence, running a car on hydrogen will always cost 6x-8x more than a BEV regardless of infrastructure or scale.
It seems the round trip of efficiency of ammonia (energy needed to make it v. energy that can be extracted from it to do work) is around 20%. If that's correct, then we can rule out making ammonia as being affordable. So unless there are sources of natural ammonia that don't have to be manufactured, it isn't happening. And even if there are, then it's not renewable.
Since it takes 3 liters of ammonia to move a car the same distance as 1 liter of gasoline, we need to triple the ammonia footprint. Carbon produced per km traveled is a nice metric that detaches it from what happens at the car and considers it AS A PLANET. Also, what's the "footprint" when there's an ammonia leak? (hint: It's a lot like Godzilla's foot stomped on your community.)
This is a great point, and I think if you researched, you would find that Ammonia's carbon footprint is very kind compared to all other options.
The nice thing about petrol is that it's safe enough for use by the general public -- even those idiots who smoke cigarettes while filling up are usually OK.
And although mankind has been handling ammonia safely for over 100 years *in an industrial* setting, the general public isn't trained to handle ammonia safely. This means that a simple fender-bender or a spill at a filling station will likely result in a trip to the hospital.
Ammonia (and hydrogen) are NOT really fuels, they merely store energy that is produced elsewhere (often by burning fossil fuels).
Petroleum and coal really are fuels -- you dig them out of the ground and burn them (but they're usually processed so they burn cleaner).
you cant really process fuels to burn cleaner, with petro products i suppose thats true. But certainly not with coal. It's easier to extract contaminants after having burnt it, than it is to process it, and then remove the contaminants, and then reprocess into a burnable fuel.
It's easier to do that with petro but even then we still have catalytic converters on cars for a reason. Realistically the only universal trick here is having as complete combustion as possible.
all the products need energy to extract and process. You ever seen a petroleum stream design/plan? The idea here is that since we produce ammonia industrially anyway the system is already in place, and replacing carbon means less emissions compared to the energy needed to make a hydrocarbon fuel. Hydrogen is a fuel as well and anything combustible is a fuel. check out what rockets have been using as fuel and im sure you cant dig petroleum out of the ground. same for rocket fuel.
@@System0Error0Message Umm ammonia would emit nitrogen and nitric oxide right? What effect they have on the environment?
@@WhiteGeared my point was mainly that it doesnt need to be carbon to be a fuel, as it is the hydrogen in petrol/diesel that is the main combustion with the carbon acting as a carrier. The more hydrogen a molecule has the denser it is in energy (basically 1L producing more, why diesel has better range than petrol). Hydrazine has nitrogen and hydrogen. In all cases think as carbon or nitrogen as the hydrogen carrier. In nitros for cars, the nitrous oxide is an oxygen carrier. What matters is the purity of the fuel and what comes out. A bad combustion would produce incomplete combustions but our hydrocarbon based fuels have Sulphur in them as well. So the 2 main factors are, how much carbon, and how much pollutants and how much energy it takes to make the energy. And sure ammonia might not combust perfectly but testing needs to be done.
@@killingtimeitself Have you heard of cocke ovens? They remove contaminants you don't want in your steel from *coal.*
In a blast furnace the fuel is burned directly within the iron oxide feedstock, so there wouldn't be the possibility for removing contaminants from the products of the burning.
Law of headlines strikes yet again...
wdym
@@aeriumsoft if the title ends with a question mark - answer is NO, and the video proves just that.
@@VEC7ORlt My take-away from the video is a Yes, Ammonia engines are much more plausible than it would seem at first. The next big question is if it could be produced affordably at scale in a way that doesn't generate CO2.
@@mrmaple 'much more plausible' tells us F all - there is no engine, nor there is fueling infrastructure, no manufacturing, just a lot of ifs and buts, in other words not a good place to start.
Frankly it's the same with hydrogen...
I'd appreciate hearing the direct comparisons between the toxicity of alternative fuels like ammonia to gasoline and other common hydrocarbons we interact regularly with.
Mechanics wash parts with hydrocarbons all the time. Painters wash their brushes with it. Woodworkers clean surfaces with it (naphtha.) There's really no comparison to a gas that's toxic and corrosive at even low concentrations.
Farmers have been running tractors on ammonia forever while they are also using that same anhydrous ammonia to fertilize their fields. So using ammonia in an ICE engine is nothing new. But a car engine specialized for this fuel is new. Thanks for the video.
I would talk to Homeland Security about its potential uses first.
Ammonia can be used as a fuel for a fuel cell. Stripping the hydrogen atom and producing electricity direct to a motor or battery is an interesting alternative. This process can be 65% efficient. The Internal Combustion Engine is only 30% efficient. The conversion of NH3 to make electricity produces water, free nitrogen and a tiny fraction of nitrogen oxides. There is still a long way in proving this technology.
I personally don't think we need to be promoting something as dangerous as liquefied ammonia for powering cars. On that note, a Chinese researcher published a paper on the feasability of a HYDRAZINE-air fuel cell powered vehicle- now that sounds scary.
In real-life applications, only diesel engines reach 25-30% efficiency. Gasoline is even worse - at around 15%-20%.
It may also be beneficial to discuss the manufacturing of Ammonia and the effects increasing the demand would affect the cost of food worldwide.
Yeah, he mentions the innumerable tons produced every year, but not that 99% of it is tilled into the ground.
"Brawndo! It's the electrolytes that plants crave..". 🤣
@@jimurrata6785 Lol, nice reference.
Ammonia is very versatile and can be produced from wind, solar, nuclear, etc.
I was a cargo engineer on gas tankers. Occasionally we carried ammonia. When we did you always had strapped to you a mini BA set. Ammonia loves moisture, so the eyes nose and mouth get it first.
The marine industry is looking at using ammonia as a fuel for ships, especially those with large Slow Speed 2-stroke "cathedral engines". These engines run at around only 100 rpm, so the slow flamefront is less of a challenge. Not poisoning the crew will be sorted as soon as they've got everything else right (probably).
Yes correct.
Or they could just use Nat Gas. We already have ships powered by Nat Gas and it burns Much cleaner than bunker oil or Deisel.
I am pretty sure that if you're smelling ammonia for the first time, you're not qualified to make this video.
100%, unless he's lying.
Hey! So just a clarification: Ammonia (when difused into water) actually onyl produces small/negligable amounts of Ammonium Hydroxide (NH4OH). It mainly exists as just ammonia dissolved in the solution. In addition, Ammonia is not very caustic. In fact, it is a pretty mild base-- having a similar pH to Sodium Carbonate (washing soda). So while I would NOT reccomend getting ammonia in your eyes or lungs, I think it is a mistake to claim ammonia is remotely comprable to Sodium Hydroxide (lye). Great video though! Really interesting ideas. Cheers!
hey s-s, your entry cot my eye. and clarifies a misunderstanding i had.
thanks for making your contribution to this ammonia / fuel topic.
now i need do some homework. and re-learn those factors that let
one determine the amount of dissolving. Ksp or something similar ...
also want to clear up if
a solution made alkaline w/ NH4OH can be heated to drive off
the ammonia and thus have its pH lowered.
this appeals if it works for not needing some pH-down chemical
like H2SO4
where would you send a person to learn more about the chemistry
of NaOH and Na2CO3 and NH4OH solutions ? and how / not
interchangable they are ...
I walked into a home where the60 yr old Sevile propane powered refrigerator had just failed and spewed ammonia. It was literally overwhelming. I had to take a breath just to see the effect and it was breath taking. Ammonia is not something you breath!
how is this relevant? Gasoline spills aren't better and neither is diesel
@@THESLlCK or oil spills that happens in accidents when you drill up oil
@@exeexecutor those don’t really happen that much anymore. Train derailments are the worst we deal with now.
In the moment you smelled that ammonia, really bad memories came to my mind. I still remmeber that awful odor when I smelled ammonia for the first time in 1989, yeah long time ago.
Chemically pure ammonia is vastly worse. The fumes are like tear gas. We were warned in chemistry lab to Never sniff it. One guy did (of course) and we pulled him out of the lab (in fetal position) and gave him eyewash. He was incapacitated for some time.
@@avgjoe5969imagine he he got knocked out and someone tried to revive him with smelling salts.
Don't sell yourself short, garage science is still science and you got yourself a sub.
Everytime he rested his arm on the neck of the ammonia bottle, a little safety concious chemist died inside of me. But when he said that ammonia can be handled with proper safety procedures, it became funny again.
Liquid ammonia is regularly handled by some farmers for some reasons, but you also hear a lot about injuries you can sustain by improper handling of that stuff.
Cool topic!
Frank Whittle tested an ammonia precooler with his Powerjet turbine. It radically cooled the inlet temperature, adding massive power to the jet like an afterburner.
*Since Ammonia is made from air (Nitrogen) so you are basically burning 'AIR'. Problem! It's very energy intensive to make Ammonia.*
Given nuclear power to produce the ammonia, energy intensity is not an issue.
@@factnotfiction5915 *True but Nuclear Power will not reach maturity for another 60 years long after gen "Z" has been hit HARD in their pocket-books and "GREEN-LIGHTS Nuclear like France has. It takes a long time to build a Nuke Plant these days.*
The reason that ammonia is very slow to burn is octane. Ammonia has a pretty high octane at right around 120. The way to go around that issue (which really isn't one at all) is higher compression. With higher compression, you wouldn't need to use a promoter. Your average gas-powered engine has anywhere from 9.5:1 to 10.5:1. For ammonia, it'd have to be at least 13:1 and higher. It would be better from a performance standpoint, too.
Octane has nothing to do with combustion rate.
@@methylene5 While you're not incorrect, it also doesn't negate the point of the original comment. What's the point other than being pedantic?
@@scottleggejr Octane has nothing to do with combustion rate, I wasn't labelling anyone or throwing insults. That appears to be more your style. Besides, if you knew anything about engine tuning and how octane rating is applied, you'd understand that what I said is very relevant. We have many fools who add diesel (often cheap agricultural diesel) to their gas tank because they think slow burning diesel has a high octane. Actually, it has a catastrophically low octane despite its slow combustion, and many have ruined their engines. So other than ad hominem attack(s), do you have anything constructive to add or was that it?
@@methylene5 nothing about what I said was any kind of "attack" at you. It would be like if my only reply was "diesel has cetane"
He's not wrong though. You can add boost, design quench on the piston/head, change bore/stroke, and cam profile to adapt to slower burning flame walls and higher octane. Look at 2000+ hp methanol engines as an example of "not typical yet highly performing"
@@scottleggejr So you guys think Toyota doesn't know that increasing the compression ratio increases the combustion rate. Wow, such expertise. Perhaps you should get in touch and pass on your wisdom to them. The moon isn't made of cheese, whoops that's just me being pedantic again.
where did you get that combustion engine model?
first, the speed record for a crewed aircraft is Mach 23, the space shuttle Challenger. second, flame speed means nothing, you want energy density. Gasoline provides 42-44 MJ/Kg of energy. this is by far the most energy dense liquid fuel that we have created and burns kinda dirty, 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O. now compare that to nitromethane (CH3NO2) that top-fuel dragsters burn at 11.3 MJ/Kg. so why is the nitro so low but can drive an ICE to 10000 HP? because it also contains it own oxygen. Now of course nitro is expensive and creates a lot of nitric oxides when burned, 4 CH3NO2 + 5 O2 → 4 CO2 + 6 H2O + 4 NO, so thats out as an alternative fuel. however, there is also methanol (CH3OH), which is usually mixed with nitro in the model r/c world but can be a good fuel on its own. Methanol has an energy density around 22 MJ/Kg and also carries some of its own oxygen. Now methanol does have some pros and cons, a con is that the flames are invisible, so if your fuel tank ruptures, you wont know if its on fire. A very big pro for methanol is the fact that its biodegradable. Its burn cycle is as follows, 2 CH3OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 4 H2O. now this fuel burns much cleaner than gasoline and is cheaper and cleaner than nitro, so why arent we using it every day?
"Contains more oxygen" is the wrong analogy. The fuel just requires much less oxygen to combust, so much more fuel can be burned relative to air in a fixed displacement motor. The much greater amount of fuel exceeds the lower calorific value of the fuel, so more power.
@andreasdinkelacker6729 I didn't say "carries more" i said "contains its own" if you're going to quote me, get it right. but, if thats all you have to "nitpick" i'll take that as a win.
The simple answer is because that's what the oil companies have to sell ! The results of oil refining yield huge amounts of gasoline and diesel, so that what we get ! Brazil changed it's Fuel Based economy from gasoline to methanol years ago and is doing quite well for it ! But the USA where Standard Oil Company, aka Rockefeller , took control over the oil industry in the late 1800's then with gasoline in 1900's , they aren't about to give up what they have controlled for over 100 years without a major fight !
Japanese car manufacturers aren't focusing on electric cars, and have been working on other gasoline alternatives like hydrogen and methane. This is for geostrategic reasons. Japan doesn't have enough of the common energy sources to maintain energy independence. But they do have lots of methane, which means they have hydrogen. Which means they have excess to use as a promoter for ammonia-based combustion.
If they took the $billions wasted on H2 and every other hair brained car tech Japan has conjoured and used it to build out strategic materials capacity, they wouldn't be driving off a technological cliff like they are today. Lithium has Many sources now and Tesla is building their own refinery for less than $1billion. They also came up with a clean/cheap way to extract it from common clays. There are also Massive reserves at the bottom of the Salton Sea (California) or other briney lakes (the Great Salt Lake/Dead Sea).
They Have Panasonic and can work with Samsung and LG in Korea to help build out their local battery capacity.
Tesla has built a new type of motor that uses no rare earths but is nearly as efficient.
Toyota is cutting off its nose to protect its face.
It's more than that. The Japanese can't deal with losing face. Toyota have made some terrible decisions about Solid State Batteries, Hydrogen and now Ammonia. They simply can't admit that they're wrong, it's culturally impossible, especially when it's the family business and you've made the wrong call. Even his successor can't escape this because shaming the President is not acceptable.
Where is the methane coming from? Couldn't they more economically make electricity with a fuel cell?
Pee Powered Car
Gas hydrates in the ocean?
Ammonia has been worked on as a vehicle source of Hydrogen for years. CSIRO came up witha filter to seperate hydrogen and nitrogen. When you oxidise hydrocarbons, you are simply oxidising the hydrogen in it, leaving carbon. When you oxidisehydrogen in air, because of the hightemperatures, you end up with a lot of NOx which then needs to be converted, much like in diesel engines.
When you oxidize hydrocarbons you get carbon dioxide and dihydrogen oxide. Everybody running around and talking about "carbon emissions" has really dumbed down the populous. Now half of people think carbon is bad. We're made of carbon. Are we bad?
@@andyharman3022 I feel like the "zero carbon emissions" logo will lead to the end of us. It is so short sighted to only look at the very end product and not the entire process to get there.
Does flame propagation velocity change with pressure? (eg, the ~1MPa I'd expect just prior to ignition)
You did mention that liquid ammonia was very cold. I had ONE drop of Liquid Ammonia fall on the back of my neck while working in a walking in freezer. I got a instance burn and felt like some one hit me with a club.
The practical engineering problem of packaging for use in a vehicle is the sticking point. At about three and a half times less energy density as gasoline or diesel, you need storage for that much more mass to compensate.
Add the additional storage volume requirement for either a pressure vessel or cryo system on top of that and you begin to have trouble fitting it into a normal passenger vehicle....
I'd say Toyota knows this as it is very much the same problem they face with their hydrogen vehicles - when they have to cram multiple copvs into their Mirai to give a decent range, it results in much lower passenger and other storage space.
Yes ammonia has poor specific-volume energy density compared to conventional hydrocarbon fuels, but do the same maths for hydrogen and you'll be astonished. Then when you pick yourself off the floor, do the same for whatever flavour of battery chemistry you care to select, typically used in an EV. Energy density is not the chief problem here; toxicity, ignition, flame speed and the need for a pilot fuel or an on-board cracking plant are. Most of these issues have resource being thrown at them to fix them. Storage of ammonia is not a problem as it has very similar requirements to propane (a 10bar pressure vessel is enough). In fact, the ease of carrying around liquid ammonia makes it a strong candidate for a hydrogen storage medium (avoiding the need for a 700bar pressure vessel).
Anyone who doesn't know about the energy density of ammonia probably hasn't heard of ANFO or The IRA either.
It is very handy as a hole digger or a fertilizer.
Explosiveness and energy density have almot nothing to do with each other, most explosives have lower energy density then wood.
"For the purposes of TH-cam -- we're doing science." Love the disclaimer and I declare it good enough.
Ah yes NOx, the stuff many car companies got a proverbial kick to their balls for in the EU because they didn't do their homework in terms of catalysts out of greed.
If we had anhydrous ammonia in fuel tanks every car crash would be like Emil's death in Robocop.
Just another way Robocop has predicted the future....
I work with ammonia as part of my job. The thought of cars driving round with ammonia tanks makes me want to work from home. Ammonia works but it’s for professionals and controlled processes only.
This! X100
@@javelinXH992 And yet we drive about with 15 gallons of a _much_ more energy dense liquid in the tanks.
@@UncleKennysPlace Sure but I’d stand next to an open 10 litre bucket of petrol or diesel. You wouldn’t get me anywhere near a 10 litre bucket of ammonia without my respiratory on and sealed eye protection.
Since Ammonia can be stored like propane, liquefied at room temperature & moderate pressures, it would probably be great for container ships. The only problem is producing green or pink hydrogen...
Most of the world's electricity isn't green or pink. And EV/battery mfg isn't even close to green.
It is already used on many container ships.
@@NH3EnergyPlus I've heard of new ship engines which support multiple fuels including Ammonia, but I was unaware that ships were already using Ammonia for fuel. Maersk is looking into it for new container ships and ammonia carriers. For now, I thought LNG ships usually use natural gas as it boils off and most other ships use bunker fuel. It would be great to hear about a ship where ammonia is already used for propulsion.
My immediate first concern is "What happens if the fuel leaks?" Like gasoline is flammable and its fumes are an explosion hazard, yes, but the conditions need to be just right in order to be dangerous. Ammonia is dangerous all on its own. Also, burning ammonia sounds like a good way to make acid rain a big deal again.
Not sure what Toyota knows, but I know this - Condensed ammonia is corrosive, and in its anhydrous state it can cause stress-corrosion cracking of stressed carbon steels or high-strength, low-alloy steels.
we were taking about this in university 30 years ago. it makes sense as a way of storing "excess" electricity generated from renewables. it can be synthesised on site. its a valuable feed stock. much easier to transport and store than hydrogen. i am surprised it has taken this long to be discussed in the wild
How would you go about synthesising it onsite in a smaller scale? Wouldn't Haber-Bosch be too dangerous and bulky to use?
No that's completly idiotic, what ever university you went too you should ask for a refund. If you want to store electricity you dont turn it into a chemical which then needs to be burned, you would be loosing 90% on the round trip. Electricity at grid level is best stored in pumped hydro, flywheels or batteries. And if you just want to just make any industrial process, particularly chemical synthesis powered with renewables then you MUST convert that green energy into a steady source first because constant stop-start is going to ruin nearly every chemical synthesis as well as ruin the utilization time of the equipment and capitol investment.
quiet you @@kennethferland5579
@5:16 that is actually the exhaust stroke but close enough. I do like the model though and the light that indicates the ignition. I would have liked to hear the energy required to create 1KwH of ammonia.
Look up heat of formation for ammonia.
Back in 2008 I got up in front of the Ammonia Fuel Network conference in Minneapolis and presented on a renewable ammonia production plant design for the Niagara Falls area. There were about two hundred people there, roughly 5% were unsmiling men from Toyota, who all sat together and said very little. Glad to see there's been some progress.
Toyota always had good representation at the Ammonia Fuel Network conferences! For many years, it seemed Toyota was going to make a move in this direction, and they never pulled the trigger. Now it seems they decided to go with Hydrogen, which was a strange decision I thought, since Ammonia is just an easier way to bring Hydrogen to mass scale.
I used to work in a heat treat facility. We used ammonia for nitriding. Our tanks were out side and we had a painted metal structure with a metal roof over the tanks (two sides were open). Just from changing out ammonia bottles and annoying little leaks, cause the structure to deteriorate in about a 15 year period to the point that it had to be rebuilt due to safety concerns. We only did this process about 20 days out of a year. We always wore respirators and safety glasses. the smallest amount of ammonia is over whelming, and if you have a big enough leak, which isn’t much of a leak it replace the oxygen around you.
IN NOVEMBER 1942, Belgium’s public bus system ground to a halt, crippled by a wartime shortage of diesel.
Engineers at the country’s public transport company got to work and by April 1943 the service was up and running again. They had adapted about 100 buses to run on an alternative fuel - liquid ammonia, pumped into tanks on the buses’ roofs.
The experiment was short-lived, but it proved the point that ammonia - plus a small amount of coal gas to help combustion - could be used as a transport fuel.
is delay the inevitable , combustion engines got is day counted
And some French produced gas from wood that they stored in enormous bags on the roof of the car, or actual gassifiers mounted to the car. The gas fed into the engine and allowed the car to move. But just because something is possible in the most dire of situations doesn't mean it something we should be looking to adopt when situations aren't dire and where better alternatives exist.
@@drxym , you're getting off subject, Toyota is working on ammonia power, it has been used before, with modern high tech methods it could be as advanced as the first electric cars in 1900 to current electric cars.
just another toyoda smoke and mirror bs cover up of their bad decision of leaving tesla partnership@@rickfarwell4110
yes, but,, oil,,will never run out.. this is why other alternatives, are suppressed.. like sodium reactors,, free energy, clean..
Lots of people burned ammonia in their cars during the war when gasoline was at a premium. The local sheriff's cars use ammonia, too. I love the smell of ammonia, so that's an extra bonus.
>Does Toyota know something that we don't?
NO
Ammonia us used as Rocket Fuel for a very good reason.
A little better than hydrazine?
Decades ago I was working on Ammonia as a fuel. Not for combustion engines (which have a physics limit of ~27%) but for Fiel Cell engines (which have a physics limit near 80%).
Sad to say we're will discussing Flintstone technology -- anything combustion.
interesting! any chance for this to work? would be much smarter way to do it.
SOFCs should catch on soon
Liquid fuels are a vector. If ammonia filling stations exist then hydrogen fuel cells can run off an ammonia reformer. A hydrogen fuel cell car with an ammonia reformer is useless to any customer if there is no filling station.
1_ How is Toyota way past 40% on combustion engines?
2_ Fuel cells may be 80% efficient, but ammonia brings the need to extract the hydrogen from it, further diminishing efficiency.
Thank you
I got a hunch last night before falling asleep: It has taken millions of years to form all the crude oil in the esrth. Now humanity has squandered maybe a half of it in just 100 years! When will all the crude oil run out? Maybe in 50 years?
Just as it dawned on my how bad an ammonia leak would be, you bring it up. Good timing. Back in the day, I worked at a place that used ammonia-based liquids to develop blue-prints or some other wide format paper printed stuff. Someone kicked over a jug of the ammonia based developer. It drove everyone right out of the floor of the building until it evaporated hours later.
You have a car crash. You might be injured. You're unable to get out and away from your wrecked car.
While sitting on a growing puddle of ammonia.
Not a pleasant way to go.
I would be concerned about the NOx
BTW, love the video, but if you can't have a voice volume very constant (lavalier or a more accurate microphone) please be careful with the background music, that's ok, but sometimes your voice wasn't very clearly higher than the music.
There was also a lot of inconsistency in the voice quality. Perhaps a good wireless mic would solve that problem.
doesnt the increased haber-bosch demand completely dwarf co2 savings at the engine? whats the net co2?
There are ways of producing ammonia that don't require going through the standard haber-bosch process and are co2-neutral, they just haven't gone mainstream yet for various reasons.
It is a project developed for a state actor, so expense is taken into account but the international reconition is the goal not profit.
And industrial fumes of any kind can be trapped and packaged reacted whatevers needed at a cost.
See where I am going with this?
@@rfldss89Would you mind listing some of those methods? I’m trying to find alternative ways to produce ammonia on my own and the only other way I know is the boiling pee method.
@@AnonymousAnarchist2 Uh, no, could you elaborate and be much more specific? And make sense?
@@jamesvandamme7786 He's saying it's not about profit/viability, it's about virtues. Just like BEV are a massive compromise compared.
Ammonia is used to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from diesel engines. To make it safe it is added as ureum dissolved in water, but this quickly falls apart under the right conditions. It might be an idea to add ammonia directly in a dual fuel setup as it can not only help to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, but also carbon emissions. Although this is not a long-term sustainable solution, it can also be used in combination with biofuels and efuels.
This reminds me of the use of dual fuel in gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles. Adding LPG or CNG can reduce a variety of emissions significantly. Similarly significant amounts of ammonia might be added to reduce fuel consumption and a variety of emissions. I have a feeling that combustion characteristics for hydrogen are much better for this though. In a dual fuel setup, a lower energy density of a secondary fuel is less of a problem.
"We can't just burn things for the sake of burning them."
Not with that attitude, you need to try harder.
Told to expect a pungent egg smell? Like a fart? Who told you that, ammonia smells much more like urine!
You are an chemist, right? Do you happen to know you to brake down Ammonia Catalytically? Could you make a video of how to make such a catalyst and don't come with Ruthenium because that shit is ludicrously expensive.
could it be useful / cleaner for electricity generation to replace diesel generators? (or natural gas power plants?) I'm thinking primaily of remote places with their own small power plants but also potentially bigger plants?
Ammonia is also a good refrigerant. It was used in air conditioning and refrigeration systems in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Mom's refrigerator announced it's impending death when it began leaking ammonia in mom's kitchen. The smell was pungent and the inside of the unit no longer remained cool. This characteristic resulted in the development of the product, Freon. To remain liquid, ammonia must be stored in a pressure vessel. Other gaseous fuels, such as hydrogen, Liquified Natural Gas, propane and butane are flammable. Only hydrogen LNG and are lighter than air. Ammonia, propane and butane are heavier than air. I would not want to be in the vicinity in the event of an auto accident of any pressurized fuel, but ammonia, as you pointed out, is not only flammable, but in high concentrations, is deadly, especially in enclosed areas such as a warehouse, parking garage, or a tunnel.
What about just using ammonia fuel cells to power electric motors? I think there is a type of amine made that can counteract ammonia fumes for consumer safety. I don't know much about it.
What's the benefit over liquid hydrogen?
Easier storage?
@@Yora21Yes
And what's the roundtrip efficiency? Wouldn't all the energy going to the HB process be better utilized going to water+air -> CH4 creation? Or or or... charging a battery?
Combined with porche's new tech in creating gasoline out of thin air, and using ammonia for electricity, we could PROPERLY cancel out our impact on the carbon cycle, without introducing more plastics into the environment in the name of carbon neutrality (Im looking at windmills here) And if we started using glass bottles we could possibly fight back against the erosion of beaches in michigan, and other places. We have a ton of problems in this world, and Waste is one of the biggest, and simultaneously the most untouched and unmentioned issues. (dont ask me for facts on this, this is one of the topics I don't have facts to go off of) I just spent 15 minutes writing this on an old potato of a laptop, so ... idk, pls make it worth my time, this kinda sucks because I can't see what im typing until 40 seconds later when the screen catches up to my typing. Thanks for puting the video next thing above comments in priority of what you render youtube, I love ya. I already had to deal with my sl510 telling me I can't type I already know this so dont tell me. Thx for reading this, I am greatful that my time with this steaming hot potato on my lap was worth something.
More like 30 minutes now.
I think this falls under the rule "if it were possible and actually worked, it would have been done many years ago".
Ammonia is a great fuel when catalytically burned to Nitrogen and water. Ammonia can be stored as a solid salt that Ammonia can be vaporized from
George, you're beautiful and don't let them tell you any different
In modern diesels to reduce NOx (in fact adsorbed NOX) AdBlue is used which is 5% aqueous solution of urea. Guess what, at catalyst temperature it hydrolises to CO2 and ammonia. Ammonia as a reducing agent will reduce NOx to N2 (byproduct: water). So as exhaust gas treatment to remove NOx you can use ammonia. Fun fact you don't have to buy it separetly like in case of AdBlue. It is sitting in your tank already. OK it will increase consumption with 0.1-0.2 %, but the engine will run with very low NOx emission.
Those old farmhouse steps identical to my old farmhouse. I installed the secondary handrail as well. I still remember coming down stairs having my shoes slip off those last couple of narrow risers. Never totally got use to using those stairs.
Yeah, that ANY hydrogen at scale is a petroshill game! 😂
Fortescue Metals Group (Aussie mining company) has been experimenting with using ammonia to safely transport hydrogen as a fuel. So maybe they know something we don't?
Seriously is pumping ammonia better than cleanly charging sodium ion batteries?
Nah no way will an ammonia car be allowed in a garage. If fridges killed people having ammonia be replaced then there is no way we can let consumers have this stuff.
Worked with ammonia a lot and it just keeps causing mishaps, trained mechanics having pumps burst on them and so on, loved it when they had a white dot on their head from it bleaching their hair all the time.
Also Haber-Bosch makes a ton of CO2, if we get a new fuel it's Hydrogen pure.
You bring a nice point: industry experience with ammonia in refrigerations systems. I wonder how much the smell has been fixed since last time I saw an ammonia one 30years ago.
This is the first video of yours that I have seen, and I love your verbal presentation. I am now a subscriber!
What is the octane of amonia or the energy in amonia vs gasoline 98 ron for example.
The problem with hydrogen and ammonia is that you’re stuck with the refueling “gas” station model, unable to fuel at home like electricity. It cannot be overstated how convenient is to charge at home or at any destinations that has electricity.
Applying this to trucks, ships and planes would make a lot of sense
You heard the part about it having a fraction of the energy density of Gasoline?
That means you would need alot more to go the same distance.
The Cost would also be much higher than Gasoline or Nat gas.
Building a huge infrastructure around this would be a colossal waste of money and time, especially given the rapidly improving battery tech.
@jimmytiddlytoo8160 Sadly it would make no sense at all.
What about EVs fueled (electrically) by ammonia fuel cells?
Question. Why would you store the ammonia inside the cab of the vehicle ? Why not outside where the gas tank is at??
It doesn't matter where you "store" it... a leak from a container would wipe out anyone in or near the vehicle for hundred plus feet... whoever decided to recommend ammonia for car transportation was not thinking.
Ammonia is already needed in agriculture - the prices would skyrocket
And nitrous oxide byproducts would be disastrous
No. no they don't. The Haber-Bosch process inefficient and energy intensive. There is no greener alternative, and people have been working on it for well over 100 years.
During WW2 in occupied Holland, the Dutch used ammonia to power municipal buses. Didnt work very well but it was all they had
So, it worked?
@@dcpack Sort of, but as soon as diesel was available, reverted.
if it exists it is energy ,thats the #1 rule , the second rule is how efficient it is when being consumed as transferred energy
One thing that everyone seems to be missing is how Ammonia is made cheaply on an industrial scale and what the byproduct of that process is. Small hint this doesn't solve global warming or the eventual depletion of fossil fuels.
I used to work with ammonia a lot and it's not nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be, it just behaves differently to other materials. That said, I wouldn't get complacent around it and if you do have an issue you don't get time to play around and figure it out. Ammonia is best described as a stubborn mule and it kicks like one.
An old fridge (using ammonia as a working fluid) sprung a leak in the 747 hangar I worked in. It cleared the (very big) building...
For years I've been wondering why companies insist on a combustion based process when it would be much easier and safer to instead make engines that rely on a chemical decomposition process to produce a high pressure gas?
This isn't exactly a new idea. During WWII, the US was the largest exporter of crude oil, but by the 1950s, the US was starting to approach being a net oil importer. The US Army started looking into using ammonia as a substitute for diesel fuel, as remote alternate energy sites couldn't ship electricity to the US, but could use the electricity to produce ammonia that could be imported. The US Army actually got their ammonia research to work, but it never caught on as there were no oil shortage, and ammonia burning efficiencies could not approach the level of diesel engines...