The discussion centers around the potential of ammonia as a medium for energy transport and storage, particularly in the context of a carbon-free economy. Participants explore the feasibility of using ammonia fuel cells, the efficiency of ammonia generation from renewable sources, and the implications for cleaner energy solutions.
Participants generally disagree on the feasibility and practicality of ammonia as a fuel source, with multiple competing views on its potential benefits and drawbacks. The discussion remains unresolved, with ongoing debates about its role in a sustainable energy future.
Limitations include unresolved questions about the efficiency of ammonia production from renewable sources, the implications of using ammonia as a secondary energy source, and the broader context of energy generation and greenhouse gas emissions in regions reliant on coal.
energy density by volume is nearly double that of liquid hydrogen—its primary competitor as a green alternative fuel—and it is easier to ship and distribute.
Trivializing the thermodynamics, "Oh breaking the triple bond of N2 is just a 'small detail'." That's one that caught my eye on the first read; don't know that there's any real reason to go through it a second time. It smacks of "pot shards."BillTre said:What specifically would that (they) be?
In no particular order:BillTre said:What specifically would that (they) be?
In order to promote intelligent/quality discussion, the articles linked should have quality and the OP should start the discussion with [intelligent] analysis of the topic.One of my goals posting stories like this is to promote intelligent discussion...
Whatever did happen with that?russ_watters said:See also: Bloom Box
Nothing.Bystander said:Whatever did happen with that?
Well, since it seems to work in the older Haber-Bosch reactors as well as the newer "fuel cells". what is the relevance of this?Bystander said:Trivializing the thermodynamics, "Oh breaking the triple bond of N2 is just a 'small detail'."
Name calling.Bystander said:It smacks of "pot shards."
Really?russ_watters said:Breathless enthusiasm for a product that doesn't exist and has no market, with not a hint of thought to its viability (Cost? Output? Lifespan? Maintenance? Safety?, etc.).
Not sure what this means.russ_watters said:Ammonia is not a [primary] fuel source.
This is a problem how? Would not ammonia store the energy?russ_watters said:Mutually exclusive goals (energy storage and ammonia production).
How is this meaningless when much of the world would like to see less release of climate changing chemicals?russ_watters said:Meaningless stat touting the solar power potential of a country that is 77% powered by COAL!
Another form of name calling not supported by anything.russ_watters said:This is probably a puff piece solicited by the owners to drum-up investment.
This product has *nothing whatsoever* to do with cleaner energy generation. That is a typical part of the scam that people *must* learn to recognize. I've edited my previous post to say that more explicitly.BillTre said:Really?
No market for cleaner energy [generation]?
A primary energy source is one that is collected (or somewhat refined) as usable energy. Sunlight, oil (gasoline), natural gas, and coal are primary energy sources. Secondary energy sources are manufactured using other energy sources. Batteries, hydrogen (when not reformed from natural gas), pumped hydro, this, or other storage is secondary energy. A secondary energy source does not help deal with global warming because it depends entirely on the primary energy source for the global warming reduction (caveat: in some cases a small improvement is possible if the efficiency of the total cycle is better, as gas engines in cars tend to waste energy at idle). In this case, pretty much anything you do with this product in Australia (E.G., use it to power cars would be my first guess) will increase greenhouse gas emissions.Not sure what this means.
Is ammonia not usable as a fuel?
Or only indirectly? Maybe like gasoline in a generator to make electrical energy?
If you don't sell it as ammonia, yes. This article is trying to sell it twice. You can only sell it once.This is a problem how? Would not ammonia store the energy?
It is meaningless because it:How is this meaningless when much of the world would like to see less release of climate changing chemicals?
Actually knocking down that 77% would be considered a plus by many people of the more green perspective.
I'm trying to find a rational explanation for such a terrible article. You could try providing *some* analysis of it, of your own.Another form of name calling not supported by anything.
This response has been bothering me.russ_watters said:If you don't sell it as ammonia, yes. This article is trying to sell it twice. You can only sell it once.
Clearly, this is not selling it twice.The simplest option, Dolan says, is to use the green ammonia as fertilizer, like today's ammonia but without the carbon penalty. Beyond that, ammonia could be converted into electricity in a power plant customized to burn ammonia, or in a traditional fuel cell, as the South Australia plant plans to do.
I'm not someone who does backhanded implication, so let me be clear: the claims in the article are basically fraudulent. The article does not make sense. More specifically on the idea of selling it twice: what they are really doing is proposing an idea that they can't do and then providing a back-up plan. It isn't literally selling it twice (which is physically impossible), it is figuratively selling it twice: to trick people who are thin on science to invest. It's a bait and switch. It is almost certainly a fraudulent operation like Bloom Energy.BillTre said:This response has been bothering me.
It seems to me like a backhanded way to imply some kind of fraudulent operation in order to impugn the ideas in the article rather than actually dealing with the issues or making sense.
The article discusses two separate and mutually exclusive uses for the ammonia. Two totally different purposes that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. So why are they both being discussed in the same article? Answer: when you don't have a good idea, you throw multiple ideas out there in hopes of blinding people with quantity over quality. It's a swindle.Nowhere does the article (that you imply you have read) say anything like selling ammonia twice.
Rather than breathlessly defending the article, please provide some analysis of its claims. Tell me:Rather than...
Yes, it absolutely is. I believe that bad science in the media is very harmful. In this case the broad issue is that people have been worshiping fools-gold instead of making responsible choices about energy for decades. I believe that it is in large part the reason we have a power grid in the USA that is 35% coal instead of 0% coal.Bandersnatch said:@russ_watters the article might be a bit overenthusiastic about the whole 'ammonia economy', but is there really a reason to lambaste it so?
What attack? Is insisting the OP provide some analysis of his own an attack? I consider that my moderator's hat! Otherwise, the OP is just a "post-and-run". Given that the OP contains zero content that wasn't a straight paraphrase/quote from the article, my other option would have been to delete the thread and for being substandard.Or to attack the OP for posting trash?
Since that is not what the term "fuel cell" means, I consider that to be a red flag that something is very wrong with what the article is trying to convince me of - that someone is trying to trick me instead of explain the technical merits. However, it is the unstated part of the technical point that is what is actually problematic: that fossil fuels are integral to the traditional process for making ammonia. They aren't. <<<----- That's a trick from me, but for a purpose. It's flipping the tables on the misleading statement from the article. Untangle it and you get a clear answer to the problem with this "uncontroversial claim". I'm doing this for illustrative purposes and to force critical thought.Bandersnatch said:The way I read it, it makes some uncontroversial claims:
- here's a new fuel cell (RFC is still an FC) in development, that generates ammonia without using fossil fuels in the process itself
[snip]
Previously, with the Haber-Bosh process this would not have been a green path, regardless how clean the first step was, since the other would still have produced CO2.
Yes, that's uncontroversial -- though not terribly useful/profound of a statement...although if I want to be critical of the wording, it implies that only intermittent sources like solar and wind can be considered "green", another major wrong of standard "green energy" advocacy.- having green storage for green energy allows for green energy economy
The conclusion for this isn't correct, though again it is the "conventional wisdom" for use of intermittent "green energy". Storing and exporting green energy makes it substantially more expensive than just using it as electricity. There is simply no way around that and it is a permanent, inherent barrier to economic viability of high fraction intermittent energy grids.- clean way to store energy can help solve two of the issues solar currently has: intermittency and exportability, making it more economically viable
The article does not even mention that problem, so we're left to assume it isn't a problem. *I* know it is a problem and maybe you did as well before you read the article, but what about a person who read the article who *didn't* know it was a problem?The point is not that Australia should immediately switch all ammonia production to the new technology once it's developed, because clearly - and as I think you're focusing on saying - if it's less energy-efficient, and (say) all the energy comes from coal, that will result in an increase in CO2 production. I really don't think the article is suggesting such a thing.
I disagree. But what does the word "feasible" mean to you? Perhaps it doesn't mean the same thing to each of us...The point is that with this technology it is feasible to have 100% green energy production/usage, where you have green energy (renewables), supplied to green storage (ammonia).
This is a great article, with discussion of most of the technical problems. Since you already summarized them, I won't repeat them, but I have another takeaway from the article:Ygggdrasil said:A lot of the issues with the potential for a future "hydrogen economy" that was touted in the early 2000s applies to the idea of these ammonia fuel cells. See https://www.technologyreview.com/s/402584/hype-about-hydrogen/ for a nice discussion about some of the issues with the idea of a hydrogen economy.
Correct.For all the buzz about future highways filled with hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars, the technological-and environmental-high ground will belong to gasoline-electric hybrids for decades to come.[from the subtitle]
A quarter of its R&D budget? That's huge! And how did that work out? No, GM did not produce a fuel cell vehicle in 2010. So where are they today?General Motors is spending more than a quarter of its research budget on fuel cell vehicles and Larry Burns, GM’s vice president for R&D and planning, said in February that the company will have a commercially viable fuel cell vehicle by 2010.
Correct.Yet for all this hype, hydrogen cars are likely to remain inferior to the best gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles such as the Toyota Prius in virtually every respect-cost, range, annual fueling bill, convenience, safety-through at least 2030. The Prius will even have lower overall emissions of many pollutants than cars running on the hydrogen that is likely to be available at fueling stations for the foreseeable future.
Yes, that's my primary complaint about this undue hype. That $2.5 billion just from GM would have gotten them halfway to a nuclear power plant (which could have been built in 14 years). If people really care about global warming, pushing us off-track like this is harmful.And a premature push toward hydrogen cars would undermine efforts to reduce the heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions that cause global climate change...
“Exaggerated claims have damaged the credibility of alternate transportation fuels, and have retarded acceptance, especially by large commercial purchasers.”
This switchover is happening. The US had about 50% of its electrical production from coal when this article was written. Today it is 35%. The bulk of that is from switching to natural gas.While vehicles running on natural gas-derived hydrogen won’t provide significant greenhouse gas reductions compared to the best hybrids running on gasoline, a switchover to natural gas can greatly reduce the emissions from electricity generating plants.