Ammonia-a renewable fuel made from sun, air, and water-could power the globe without carbon
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- With copious solar and wind power, Australia aims to displace Haber-Bosch, a dirty, 100-year-old recipe for making ammonia
Read more - scim.ag/2KQRHH6
CREDITS
--------------------------
editor/animator/narrator
Chris Burns
supervising producer
Sarah Crespi
script
Chris Burns
Sarah Crespi
Catherine Matacic
Robert F. Service
story by
Robert F. Service
fuel cell photo
Steven Mortion
Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society
fuel cell illustration
Val Altounian
stock footage
Pond5
Videoblocks
stock graphics
Freepik.com
Vecteezy.com
Pond5
music
Chris Burns
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
Anhydrous ammonia is a poisonous gas and so volatile that it must be stored under high pressure or at low temperature to keep it liquid, so transporting it in large quantities is energy intensive in its own right. Ammonia is also highly soluble in water and toxic to aquatic life. If ammonia becomes "the carrier for moving energy around the world" we will inevitably need to deal with a lot more ammonia spills.
Hydrogen is stored under even more pressure. Ammonia has the advantage here.
Ammonia is toxic to aquatic life in increased concentrations, yes. But in the natural world, bacteria convert urine into ammonia. That "fishy smell" you get from the ocean, is from bacteria eating the fish pee and producing ammonia. The smell of the ocean, is literally ammonia.
But i worry too.
If you need intrinsic safety to shelling and medium gunfire...yeh, costs go higher somehow. Dazzle us w. your calls on such safety systems, because 😂 shipping without cooling systems is not a thing.
There's few different types of ammonia, the one they're talking about is a gas at room temperature.
In this situation I think CO2 isn't so bad
@@CUBETechie yes but hydrocarbons aren't renewable, this is why they are talking about ammonia as an energy storage medium.
whole video about amonia and not a word about toxicity :/
Well it's about using ammonia, not about sniffing it.
So, no idea how to create the Ammonia quick and efficiently.
No idea how to use the Ammonia for fuel.
This is a bit premature.
Hydrogen is safer and more efficient to produce and we already know many ways to use it to produce energy.
Producing Ammonia is just kind of silly.
The ammonia is only for transport, using current infrastructure tanker trucks & petrol stations. the ammonia would be stored in underground tanks like petrol, then separated into ultra pure hydrogen for fuel cell cars & nitrogen which could be released into the atmosphere. CSIRO has developed a graphene membrane for this purpose. th-cam.com/video/np9YhW3lo7Y/w-d-xo.html
@aud_io Theoretically you already do. Using hydrogen is the same as LP gas really, if either tank explodes you're dead. It's a matter of building tanks strong enough to protect the occupants of the car. Check this link out, Toyots tested Mirai h2 fuel tanks by shooting them with a 50 cal. H2 is lighter than air & dissipates quickly. th-cam.com/video/jVeagFmmwA0/w-d-xo.html
I want more information about green ammonia (like, thesis)
can I get these information from your channel?
thank you.
Okay the title is BS! They talked about producing ammonia not using it as a energy source!
Many interesting comments. Thank you.
It's very toxic
Then? I will rely again from the manufacturer of the ammonia fuel? I like battery because im in control when should I charge my battery....but more research and development is needed to inprove battery storage ang charging
Why are wind and solar always the "go-tos" when people talk about renewables?!? Why not nuclear?!?! Sure, it's not "renewable" persay, but it's not carbon-emitting and has at least half a millennium of supply
I'm still more in favor of moving hydrogen and energy in paraffin. It could be made much more stable than ammonia and less dangerous. I don't know how to recycle the carbon other than using high temp fuel cells and some kind of rube goldberg device. Still , I can't shake the feeling.
amonia = liquid hydrogen in a molecular container of nitrogen. Nifty.
@Viktor M But there is one big advantage: Air contains roughly 78% N2 vs. roughly 400 ppm CO2. Therefore extraction of the hydrogen carrier is much easier.
Ammonia molecules consist of 3 hydrogens and one nitrogen that vibrates between those h atoms very convenient way to store hydrogen got it ronadamn
Ha, everyone in the comment section already sees the problems....Thanks powers that be...Another terrible idea brought to you be an aging power structure too suborn to adapt to change....
It's not that the PEOPLE are stupid. It' s that our '"leaders" are under the full control of those who have appropriated all of the money. And because they appropriated all of the money by "gaming the system" they don't have a clue how the REAL world actually works.
Suddenly they are in full control - which means they must decide what to do. But they do not understand now the real world works and, far worse, they do not understand that they do not understand.
This would be a hilarious comedy except that they are literally KILLING EVERYTHING.
@@ForzaJersey Ammonia is still toxic, and difficult to manage.
I'm aware of the importance of hydrocarbons, I also understand that we are nowhere near to a point of replacing the only source for hydrocarbons. Therefore, conservation should be priority
Store energy the way nature does.
Carbon based.
Carbohydrates store the hydrogen.
Animals eat carbs and use fuel cells called mitochondrion to create ATP to transport energy.
The whole process is carbon neutral and green.
Biology could be the answer.
It can used is as a suppliment for a hydrogen combustion energy.
The vehicle will do hydrogen generation too, put direct input into engine combustion with water-liquid hydrogen ammonia with bio-fuels.
The liquid ammonia provides more storage foor fuel/water electrolysis. If it is part off a bio-fuels injection once separated as a hydrogen gase, the oxygen will be farty & wet from the exhaust, but clean enough. Never getting 100% clean, it's 80% at max.
if we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs
BS. Use sun hydrolysis to separate oxygen from hydrogen. Compress into two different liquids, distribute to be recombined on demand by end-user, stupid.
If you burn it under ideal conditions, you get only nitrogen and water and no formed nitrogen oxides but I fear for the word"ideal". I wonder about the exhaust of those Belgian buses that ran on ammonia in 1943 because of diesel shortages.
Ammonia is massively toxic to fish, and Ammonium is super toxic to crops. More so than gasoline and desiel by 1000s of orders of magnitude.
There is also the intermittant high rpm and low rpm combustion issues which cause incomplete combustion, and put this stuff right into the environment.
The most suitable use would be for the uses we already use it for in manufacturing. As a fuel source for hybrid cars, it might be able to fuction as a green or nuclear energy liquid battery.
The problem is also the nitrous oxide waste. Nitrous oxide destroys ozone which is bad.
It's not a fuel source, just a means of easy transportation.
2 stage conversion. The efficiency would be low.
Efficiency will be lower than something like batteries sure, but that doesn't mean that it can't be a viable alternative to batteries or petrol. The problem with batteries is that their energy density is very poor and that won't be improving much any time soon. There's also the issue of it being very difficult to supply energy quickly to batteries compared to fuel tanks. People need to have cars charging on their private property overnight, and if they don't have such private property charging area (which s a huge chunk of the population), they simply could not use a battery vehicle at all.
Just use solar panels, water and get hydrogen and oxygen. Boom
@aud_io apparently some Japanese guys had some success in that.
But hell yeah if it took 40 years for hydrogen and its still not there, the ammonia fuel cell is not gonna be piece of cake
Not as low as drilling and refining oil, then burning it in ultra inefficient ICEs.
@@theflyingwelshman5338 I wouldn't say ices are inefficient. They kill us, yes but at a formidable efficiency.
Wicking metal foam fuel cell electrolysis could make ammonia more efficiently.
Produced from sun air and water huh ? You forgot about urine
This new method (if efficient) is good news for fertilizer production and agriculture and world hunger as a whole, but as so many people commented ammonia is extremely TOXIC, that's the reason it was banned as a refrigeration agent back in the days.
Ammonia was banned as a refrigerant in domestic refrigerators because of explosion risk. It is very safe as you can smell it and move away from leaks. It is still used are a refrigerant in industrial applications to this day and is a very efficient natural refrigerant.
of course you put a negative spin on it...shut the front door
Why not produce ammonia from human/animal waste?
Nice if you want to produce ammonia, but using electrolysis to produce hydrogen makes the whole process terribly inefficiently compared to battery storage (one of the reasons hydrogen is a very bad choice).
Those disadvantages may be offset by the sheer convenience of liquid fuels. Easy to transport & store, and vastly scalable.
You move oil around the globe because few countries have it. Transporting chemical energy produced with renewables in tanks makes no economical sense because renewables are everywhere and the price is falling down (the same is happening with batteries).
Nah mate it's just crazy economics. Australia is an oil producer, which it exports, and then it IMPORTS oil from other nations. Shit's crazy yo.
If someone is trying to avoid the use of carbon and calming that as an important goal, that just demonstrates that they have no idea what the problem really is.
You can make stable, easily transportable fuels (at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature at low cost USING RENEWABLE ENERGY and, yes, CARBON! There is nothing whatsoever wrong with using carbon IF YOU USE IT IN A RENEWABLE MANNER..
The core problem currently is that a bunch of complete morons who have no idea of what they are doing nor how everything in nature works TOGETHER are making all of the critical decisions and consistently coming up with the worst approaches imaginable.
Their core thought processes are so seriously disturbed and inherently dysfunctional that every "solution" they come up with to the problems caused by their previous "solution" to problems caused by the "solution" previous to that one (stretching back to before recorded history!).
It's never been that we don't know. There have always been a few individuals who realized what the problem really was and what to do about it. The problem is that those with the power to make decisions would not listen to them because the trouble makers were claiming they'd been doing something wrong. When you cannot admit that you did anything wrong, that ensures that the solution is going to be built upon the flawed structure of the solution that caused the previous problem. And so on. And on and on and on.
Jim Barron Are you referring to charcoal? Still producing pollutants and PM when burnt, and it is still a low efficiency process. Avoiding combustion in the first place is the only way to avoid the production of greenhouse gases and carcinogenic pollutants.
Product nitrogen is 300 x than carbon
Disliked. Ammonia is a toxic chemical. Also the process is inefficient and you can just store the energy in batteries.
You can burn ammonia in an internal combustion engine to run a generator , it’s not difficult so the user end conversion is actually the simplest part
Lots of NOX, get ready for the acid rain!
@@KittyKontrol850 the NOx emissions are very low or next to none due to the high pressure and temperature of combustion in an ICE
Urea can help lower NOx
The process involves extracting hydrogen, WHY JUST NOT USE IT AS FUEL? I'm pretty sure it's even more effective.
Because hydrogen cant be efficiently transported since it is so low density (ie high pressure but still few molecules compared to ammonia NH4 which each mole can be converted back in 4x the hydrogen per tank (approx. not sure exact number but its because of density). And also much less flammable.
Urine can make ammonia much easier, but the best way to store energy is h2o2 and/or solar electrolysis of h2o.
Why ammonia though? 🤔️
It's stable & far easier to transport than liquified hydrogen.
@aud_io Thanks for that explanation. Here is a practical power-plant fueled by ammonia. There are clear advantages th-cam.com/video/drdDt1ski1I/w-d-xo.html
It's been done, there's an old guy where I live who run this Ford F-350 on ammonia but our shiy faced prime minister won't answer his call 😑 it doesn't make them money and once people figure out how to make their own, it's game over
Its not about carbon is it..
In aqueous environments, such as the body the ammonium sulfate is completely dissociated into the ammonium (NH4 +) and the sulfate (SO4 2-) ions. At physiological pH in aqueous media, the ammonium ion is in equilibrium with un-ionized ammonia ... The ammonium ion serves a major role in the maintenance of the acid-base balance. In the normal pH range of blood, the NH4+/NH3 /ratio/ is about 100. An ammonium ion via the equilibrium with ammonia is readily taken up. Some evidence exists also for an active transport of the ammonium ion from the intestinal tract. It was shown that ammonia transport by the human colon still occurred when the luminal pH was reduced to 5, where nonionized ammonia would be virtually absent. Absorbed ammonium is transported to the liver and metabolized to urea and excreted via the kidneys. Minor amounts of nitrogen are incorporated in the physiological N-pool. Absorption of sulfate depends on the amount ingested. 30 - 44 % of sulfate was excreted in the 24 hr urine after oral administration of magnesium or sodium sulfate (5.4 g sulfate) in volunteers. At high sulfate doses that exceed intestinal absorption, sulfate is excreted in feces. Intestinal sulfate may bind water into the lumen and cause diarrhea in high doses. Sulfate is a normal constituent of human blood and does not accumulate in tissues. Sulfate levels are regulated by the kidney through a reabsorption mechanism. Sulfate is usually eliminated by renal excretion. It has also an important role in the detoxification of various endogenous and exogenous compounds, as it may combine with these to form soluble sulfate esters that are excreted in the urine.
A man named Roger Gordon from Ont canada has a device that creates ammonia and he runs his truck on the ammonia. It costs 25 cents a litre or 1 dollar a gallon
With all the talk of toxicity, seems maybe ethanol would be the better option.
Use parabolic mirrors for the steam production instead of natural gas. Then you're green
I have heard that urine contains ammonia. What about filtering sewer water ?
Excellent
No duzo a nie spałem dzis
Light colorized filter from sunlight can create ammonia
Why not use the solar panel to provide electricity that readily available instead of creating ammonia then converting again to electricity.
Because storing electricity sucks. Look at the shitty electric car range compared to their price.
Instead of creating liquid Ammonia and figuring out how to use it for energy, we can directly go for the proven concept which is Hydrogen.
u should use ammonia cracker it heats up the ammonia to 830°C and they u get the gas u need
Surogatki tak ..
LOL- Lets make Energy by Using Energy. You're much further off to just use the electricity the first time. We live in an Electric World...
The entire point of using other forms of energy to make liquid fuels is to REDUCE THE ENERGY DENSITY OF THE FUEL. This is particularly important with electricity which when store as electrical energy has a far higher energy density than any other modern fuel.
wwhy go the long way to combine hydrogen with nitrogen, when hydrogen itself is a fuel, and we have the technology (fuel cell) to do it without igniting the hydrogen. Electrolysis the water using solar/wind power and use the hydrogen. That will be the future.
All of what you say is true but you have to admit, transporting a fuel that is liquid at low pressures and doesn't need to be cryogenicaly stored does have a massive advantage. For one thing the infrastructure needed support such an endeavor may be a lot cheaper to build. And once the by-products of the energy transfer are environmentally friendly such as in this process th-cam.com/video/drdDt1ski1I/w-d-xo.html there is a lot of global potential here.
If.
...you nut in space do it push you backwards?
Electrolysis of pure ammonia is possible to produce hydrogen and nitrogen gas? To be used in air intake as gas?
A lampa byla cieplo bylo podczas zabiegu ?
Whats wrong with batteries???
just ask TH-cam: how lithium ion batteries work.
they are great for many uses but their energy density is very low which make their use in transportation very limited, most especially for air travel.
If you cut in half the payload you can carry because of the weight of batteries, that doubles the cost per unit of weight. In air travel the payload is already a much smaller fraction of the total weight than any other transport making the weight of batteries far more critical to it.
recycling them, its much more expensive to recycle then produce from new resources, about 5 times
this is a terrible idea
But it's flamable and poisonous...
so is petrol
compare with another option ?
The efficiency of Hydrogen maybe lower than battery technology but the advantages is you don't need to disturb the planet by gathering different chemicals, no mining required, the only issue that needs to be sorted is storage, it will require a lot of investment but once the infrastructure is in place its there to stay as in existing infrastructure which could possible be utilized, I think at the moment work is being carried out on converting hydrogen to hydro carbons by combining hydrogen and carbon from the environment to create clean and efficient hydrocarbons with low carbon emissions for IC engines. ideal for an alternative for people that like IC engines and don't want to change to anything that doesn't make a lot of noise. I see a lot of negative comments about ammonia gas as a fuel, I think these technologies need to be tried in a control environment and then compared
then decisions can be made in regard to its safety, we should not jump to conclusions and create hysteria based on poorly advised information. a lot of cronies out there are against change because it may interfere with their sense of security but sometime we can be living with a completely false sense of security. change is inevitable, with every second that goes by things change, evolution is taking place, technology is no different.
You forgot about how inefficient it is though.
nuclear high temp or electrolysis is another option not shown here
And now many conventional ammonia company create their green ammonia pilot plant and to scale up to industrial plant in the next decade
Stupid idea.
My new engine can allow NH3 100% to be burned at high RPM. Make fuel at home from solar thermal to engine that turns generator which in turns makes NH3 with NH3 fuel maker. Store in propane tank at 1/2500th the cost of Li-ion. One year of fuel possible... Run car, truck, airplane... New engine is key. On twttter...
Rodger gordon has a pation on it
Remember the fuel cell? I postulate this technology won't take off for pretty much the same reasons.
Just build a DC high-voltage transmission line.
this is for fuel cells. You store the (inconvenient & dangerous) hydrogen by converting it into (less dangerous and much higher density) liquid Ammonia.
I see. So exactly the same, apart from more convenient, because I would really like to question the "less dangerous liquid Ammonia"-part.
Frank, the influence of oil cartels is not unlimited. Renewable energy (eg: solar, wind) has persisted and by now has well and truly "taken off", so have electric cars, and there's nothing stopping the trend.
+roid?
Ammonia is much more dangerous than hydrogen if it leaks.
Oh? I just remember Hydrogen being dangerous to work with because it's flammable/explosive at a huge range of concentrations in air, leaks easily due to the atom size, leaks are odorless, and for fuel-cell vehicles it's stored at very high pressures.
I know Ammonia is dangerous, but i didn't know how much until these conversations we've been having. You're right, Ammonia is probably the greater risk. Bit of a shame considering. I guess it's best suited for safely non-moving grid-energy-storage as discussed in the video (rather than in vehicles that are susceptible to crashes).
Hydrazine should have a higher energy density, and you don't have to waste energy cracking it bak into hydrogen. It decomposes into N2 and H2 with just a catalyst, and that step yields a lot of energy also.
Hey we're all dangerously unstable. No, seriously. We must stop extracting fossil carbon and dumping it into the air. Any replacement involves certain new hazards. energy density is the main obstacle to finding replacements for fossil fuels on, say, airliners. Hydrogen tanks must be kept at like 10,000 psi or else adsorbed hydrogen storage that has very low energy density. Petroleum is carcinogenic and how many deaths have gas fires caused in the last 118 years? Hydrazine is loaded onto every space probe so far without incident. It can be stabilized chemically as hydrazine borane or other compounds.
Fly a messersmit 136 on t stoff dangerous man forget hydrazine useful as a catalyst to make lsd or something the on pot shot roneinstein
could be useful, but it is also extremely dangerous if not stored properly. It also can be explosive at a certain purity
So it doesnt do shit bc you cant use the Ammonia as Fuel.
Wooo i know some people currently holidaying near there, they already plan to visit Dampier, and this Ammonia plant is being built only 11km to the North-east. I'm forwarding this to them to see if they wanna have a sticky-beak :)
Update: Ok they sent some photos and they were underwhelming. I guess it's either just not very exciting to look at from the road, or there's a lot of construction yet to be done.
Still good to know just where it is. It's an "interesting" technology, even if ammonia itself has many pitfalls as an energy solution. Just working on the electrolysis end of the problem would be fascinating. Even simple high'ish frequency piezoelectric tranducers and low pressure "airlock sections" may be able to up some efficiencies on that end of the process, which would be useful to industry, even without ammonia being an end-step of the production chain.
This has already been done
Anything that depends on wind and solar energy is not efficient enough.
Can ammonia electrolysis gas used as fuel in bikes?
Of course darpa made laptops in vietnam that ran on piss ammonia is for decades the fuel that the whole evolution runs on bye bye ronadamn
@@TriNguyen-he7xk small baby, bike mean scooter. Not bicycle.
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas today, because 400ppm is already at saturation effect.
Also, ammonia is safe to use - farmers put out anhydrous ammonia every year, with very few accidents.
What does this has to do with green enery? And why just store hydrogen which is also easy to transport and burn directly into an engine?
Yes: why?
hydrogen needs to be in a tank that can hold up to 10,000 PSi or kept stupid cold to stay as a liquid ammonia can be in a tank as liquid at 125 PSi and tho hydrogen has much more energy per kg ammonia has better energy per L and because tanks made to hold 10,000 are heavy as hell ammonia wins in both volume and weight when you take in to account storage.
For comparison:
At normal pressure, Ammonia becomes a liquid at roughly -33°C / -28°F.
Hydrogen becomes a liquid at roughly -253°C / -423°F.
Also, Hydrogen molecules are so small, they'll find any hole, as small as it may be. Getting Hydrogen containers gas- tight is really hard to achieve. Most thinkable H2 / air mixtures are explosive.
Main drawback of NH3 is requirement of energy for the reaction + toxicity / corrosive hazard in case of a leak.
Nevertheless, I think it's worth to consider it for stationary storage purposes.
I agree that making the process of producing ammonia is a great thing.
However, your idea of using ammonia to transport energy from country to country seems inefficient to me.
If you are using the renewable energy to produce hydrogen, then why not just transport the hydrogen?
Why convert it to ammonia and then transport it?
I'd be greatful if someone could share some light on this for me
FRANK JONES well that makes sense. Thank you
Also
Liquid hydrogen has a very low density so the tanks would need to be maybe 3times the size.
It also leaks much more easily as the H2 molecules are so small.
The real question is why not make hydrocarbons from it? Hydrocarbons are very energy dense and can be transported at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperatures (and a leak, while not good, is inherently far less deadly and far easier to manage than either ammonia or hydrogen (whether as a gas or a liquid).
HydroCARBONs are GREEN provided that we manufacture them USING RENEWABLE ENERGYrather than MINE them. Whatever carbon you put into the air by burning a hydrocarbon you made is only replacing the carbon you PREVIOUSLY took out of the air by making it.
NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY, it's only a means of converting energy from some other source (which must be RENEWABLE) to a more transportable form.
The source of energy you use to make the hydrocarbon is what determines whether the process is green or not, the fact that carbon is RECYCLED makes the carbon irrelevant.
More energy lost in the reaction as heat
N2 + 3H2 -> 2NH3
vs
4H2 + CO2 -> 2H2O + CH4
for methane
With more stages for longer carbon chains.
Some of the heat could be reclaimed but that costs money to do and the laws of thermo dynamics limit you to only getting back part of that energy anyway depending how hot it gets and the outside temprature?
Ammonia would be much less safe if anything happened but simpler and potentially more efficient reaction.
I think hydrogen power sounds a lot more sexy than ammonia power. You can keep the nitrogen and [blah] ammonia... just get me my clean, cheap hydrogen already!
Ammonia IS hydrogen power. It might not have been stated very clearly, but what is being proposed here is using ammonia as a way to more easily store hydrogen.
roidroid I get it... ammonia is more efficient to store and transport. However, besides being sexier, H2 has its benefits also... like not being a neurotoxin, which, IMO, outweighs the transport gains of NH3.
HYDROCARBONS (AKA "oil") is a far better way to store the hydrogen (it too, is "hydrogen") It is far more energy dense than H2 or ammonia, can be stored at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature and is non corrosive. (You can spill it all over yourself and provided you clean it off promptly and do NOT ignite it, no harm done. Do NOT try THAT with hydrogen or ammonia!)
The only reason I can imagine why anyone would try to use a vastly inferior storage form like H2 or Ammonia is that their thinking is so warped that they don't realize that the reason fossil fuels are causing global warming is NOT that they contain CARBON but because they are NONRENEWABLE.
It's not that hydrocarbons are, per se, bad. It's that MINING them instead of MANUFACTURING them is bad. The former is non renewable, the later is renewable (IF you use renewable energy to manufacture them!)
It does seem contrived, but it filled in a gap in the carbon-negative use model for transport hubs in the sustainable energy issue of Science. All the pop-up tasks (deicing, repainting, tyre maintenance...) tend to need energy in gobs. This vid. just didn't cover the corrosion-proof magic of the spot recharge...
Jim Barron I think I also missed a particle-free emissions requirement that would apply in centers of use. New engines?
so the moral of the story is, they still havent figured out how to extract energy from amonia as you said at the end of your video, so it is like speaking nothing into the wind......rather produce videos that broadens actual factual practical knowledge rather than pure speculation...nice content though, thanx...
yea right. really, I heard if you burn HH gas in atmosphere, it generates ammonia.
Why not store hydrogen instead of amonia save a lot of time and money which readily burn with oxygen to produce only water
Ammonia already has an infrastructure in agricultural areas. And in those areas they are used to handling it. It could be a useful alternative in those areas.
finally someone thinks about us farmers.
Can you mass produce it?
EXELLENT NEWS
At what cost though?
I think we're missing the point here, because hydrogen is also a fuel, and it has no greenhouse gas emissions when combusted.
So just make tanks of that and ship them. They're quite lightweight too, so make vehicles (especially larger ones) that can just switch out an empty one for a full one, and ship those instead.
soooooooooo who forgot that we unveiled the positively charged ions we can collect as the rain down over earth for free? not me
No the process has no CO2... This video is outdated....
Put solar on your houses, fuck the grid.
back to fuel cells,this isn't gonna work.meanwhile batteries are better nd cheaper than this.more breakthroughs in batteries are coming.why waste time nd effort on fuel cells still
Hai ammonia
Please tell me this is satire.
21st century America is far beyond satire. Satire depends on exaggeration to the point of absurdity but the USA is ACROSS THE BOARD already light years beyond the point of absurdity. How could you possibly satirize THAT?
How do you, for example, satirize a state Environment Protection Department that forbids any of its employees to use the word "sustainable" in any form? (Florida for those not paying attention) How could it possibly be rendered more incapable of performing its core function that THAT?
ANd that was just the Bushes! The Trumps are light years beyond that.
Trump is not settling for just rendering critical departments totally incapable of performing their basic functions. What he's doing is making them highly effective at systematically destroying the very things they were formed to protect! HOW can you conceivably exaggerate THAT?
Jim Barron : Indeed. Our political situation has become such a caricature of itself that the line between satire and reality has gotten thin.
piss
Why don't just use hydrogen?
NH3 is the answer to our future fuel needs.
Way ahead of you!
This could be plausible or it could be snake oil. It deserves study.
Why so many inefficient steps if energy can be directly stored from sun into batteries? The best research bet right now would be increasing the energy density and charging cicles of batteries, as well as reducing it's cobalt content for environmental reasons.
'cuzz that worked so good for household refrigeration👌😉.
Add a step and make high quality carbon neutral Diesel?
Water can hold more hydrogen than nitrogen
Consider the generation of NOx. It's not all about greenwashing and wishful thinking, there are no silver bullets.