Ammonia FAQs: fossil fools use fossil fuels!

Featured

++++   FEATURED POSTS    ++++

Nature's Hydrogen TankQ: What is ammonia?

A: Ammonia is simply Hydrogen and Nitrogen (NH3). Notice there is no carbon (C) in “NH3”. That means when you burn ammonia, it cannot release carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, or other greenhouse pollutants. Continue reading

welcome to YOUR resource for promoting CO2-free fuel

Featured

This  blog  promotes a long ignored fuel.. ”green gasoline’ as a way to help stop the ‘Climate Armageddon’ that’s coming. We have NO commercial interest.  Please feel free to comment, or add material as comments which I’ll then highlight.     We are happy to accept articles we disagree with (like making NH3 from nuclear) in the interest of open discussion, but NOT to help sell noxious products ! Continue reading

Hydrogen from Ammonia breakthrough for car fuels

Hydrogen breakthrough could be a game-changer for the future of car fuels

Jun 24, 2014 by Marion O’sullivan

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-breakthrough-game-changer-future-car.html#jCp

1st published June 24 2014    by Marion O’sullivan

Nature's Hydrogen TankUK researchers today announced what they believe to be a game changer in the use of hydrogen as a “green” fuel. Continue reading

Fill her up… with ammonia! NH3 fuel is carbon-free

Originally posted on The Free:

Looking to the past for the fuel of the future

natures-hydrogen-tank

IN NOVEMBER 1942, Belgium’s public bus system ground to a halt, crippled by a wartime shortage of diesel.

The standstill caused chaos. 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.

amveh-x250

Seventy years later, ammonia may be ready to ride to the rescue again. As a fuel it has a number of attractive attributes. It doesn’t release carbon when burned, is relatively easy to store and transport, and could take advantage of an existing infrastructure…

View original 201 more words

Ammonia fuel.. CO2 and pollution FREE.. Wikipedia

Ammonia was used during World War II to power buses in Belgium, and in engine and solar energy applications prior to 1900. Liquid ammonia also fuelled the Reaction Motors XLR99 rocket engine, that powered the X-15 hypersonic research aircraft. Although not as powerful as other fuels, it left no soot in the reusable rocket engine and its density approximately matches the density of the oxidizer, liquid oxygen, which simplified the aircraft’s design.

The X-15 aircraft used ammonia as one component fuel of its rocket engine

Ammonia has been proposed as a practical alternative to fossil fuel for internal combustion engines.[49] The calorific value of ammonia is 22.5 MJ/kg (9690 BTU/lb), which is about half that of diesel. In a normal engine, in which the water vapour is not condensed, the calorific value of ammonia will be about 21% less than this figure. It can be used in existing engines with only minor modifications to carburettors/injectors. Continue reading

Korean ammonia NH3 car to Slash CO2 and Toxic Air

Originally posted on The Free:

The AmVeh – an ammonia fueled car from South Korea

South Korean researchers have successfully road-tested a dual fuel passenger car that runs on a mixture of ammonia and gasoline. It is called the AmVeh and was developed by members of the Ammonia Research Group at the Korean Institute forEnergy Research (KIER
).amveh-x250

Ammonia-gasoline dual fuel, and pure ammonia engines

The prototype vehicle uses a fuel ratio of 70% ammonia to 30% gasoline to power a spark ignition engine. As ammonia contains no carbon, this fuel ratio results in a corresponding 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, compared to pure gasoline.

The AmVeh team is now focused on improving the fuel system and the exhaust after-treatment system. Once these are optimized, they aim to develop an engine system that runs on ammonia alone, without any support from gasoline. The emissions from this carbon-free vehicle would be pure water and…

View original 1,029 more words

A simple solution to Climate Change

Originally posted on The Free:

in_the_ocean

There’s a simple answer to climate change that’s been available all along. Really? You don’t believe me?

The answer is to switch to a proven, cheaper, safer, CO2-free fuel that is also non toxic when used and would have saved, according to the WHO, seven million air pollution deaths last year.

All internal combustion motors can be converted easily to run on NH3 fuel, which with new tech can be made anywhere from solar energy, wind and water.

see here http://co2freefuelexistsnow.wordpress.com/

View original 81 more words

Clean car fuel video/ CO2-free ‘green gasoline’ gains Momentum

Originally posted on The Free:


Disclose.tvHydrofuel NH3 (ammonia) Car

NH3 green gasoline finally Gaining Momentum

The fossil fuel companies get grants and subsidies of over 500,000,000,000 dollars of public money a year, on top of their already obscene profits, while paying ZERO for the destruction of the earth and oceans, climate chaos and millions of air pollution deaths every year.

View original 388 more words

Ammonia CO2-free fuel: safety concerns discussion

This post is reprinted  informed discussion from readers.

  1. a comment from a 1043mabovethesea reader:

    NH3 (Ammonia)

    NH3 (Ammonia) (Photo credit: Orbital Joe)

    I think your point about thinking about our responsibility to reduce pollution, is a very good one, especially when it comes to delving deeper into what appear to be ‘magical solutions’ like ammonia for fueling cars. What the nhc3 car web site (where your article is sourced from) doesn’t tell us, is that ammonia is highly toxic and deadly, even in very dilute concentrations, to aquatic animals. For sufficient ammonia to be made in order to fuel the insatiable energy appetite of the worlds automobile fleet, production from current levels would have to be massively ramped up, and this large volume of ammonia, just like oil, would need to be transported around the globe, frequently in ships.

    If we think that an oil spill is harmful to the environment, it would be nothing in comparison to the devastation an ammonia spill would have.
    Also, outside of the enormous chewing up of resources required to ramp up ammonia production, each and every 4 stroke vehicle would require engine modifications, including new pistons, to lower compression ratios, enabling them to run on ammonia, or, all of the current worldwide fleet of cars retired, and new cars with new engines made that could run on ammonia. The resource intensive process of either of these options is crazy.

    English: Small gas cylinder with pure ammonia ...

    gas cylinder with pure ammonia Polski: Mała butla z czystym amoniakiem (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    Cars are an unsustainable, total environmental disaster, not only because when it comes to how they are fueled, there is no ‘silver bullet’, but also because of the large numbers of animals that are directly killed by them on roads, and indirectly killed from the environmental toxicity of plastic, rubber, glass and aluminium production.
    It is very obvious to me that human beings, even those who profess to care about the environment, are stubbornly going to hang onto their love affair with their cars, no matter what…….

TrevorBrown on June 22, 2013 at 6:33 pm said:Check out http://nh3fuelassociation.org for more detail on ammonia fuel – in car engines, vehicle conversions, safety.

Re: toxicity to aquatic life. Yes, ammonia isn’t a good thing to put into your rivers. I’d suggest the main problem here is fertilizer run off. In the US, we inject more than 10 million tons of pure ammonia into our soil every year, to boost crop production. If you count the other nitrogen fertilizers (made from ammonia) like urea, ammonium nitrate, UAN, etc, the amount of nitrogen is way more.

If you apply the fertilizer at the wrong moment, or use too much of it, or rain falls unexpectedly, the nitrogen leaches into the water supply. Check out the National Geographic article about farmers using more nitrogen than they need, and the damage it causes: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/fertilized-world/charles-text

Ammonia fuel reverses this problem: you aren’t pouring it onto the land, you’re burning it in an engine, and what comes out of your tailpipe is inert nitrogen (N2 – 78% of the air) and pure water vapor.

If we’re talking about leaks from ammonia production plants or pipelines, yeah, that could be an issue, but this is already very highly regulated, in every country in the world. Don’t forget – ammonia is a known quantity. We make and use about 200 million tons of it every year, everywhere. 25 million tons are shipped internationally every year.

There are accidents, of course, but because ammonia is so obviously and immediately dangerous to people, it’s got a much better spillage record than other things – like oil, or natural gas. How many leaking oil pipelines are there today? Plenty, everywhere. How many leaking ammonia pipelines are there today? Next to none. If there were, everyone near them would be in hospital. You could say, it’s so dangerous, it’s safe. Handle with respect.

Re: ramping up production. Look into alternate ammonia production: from biomass, from wind, from any power source (http://nh3fuelassociation.org/tag/nh3-production-renewable/). If you de-link ammonia production from areas where Natural Gas and Coal are cheap (traditional producers use fossil fuels to make hydrogen, which is the feedstock for making ammonia), you have a situation where you’re doing distributed production.

Why ship it across the ocean if you can make it locally? It’s a completely different scenario from oil – only available in certain places. Any country with sunlight, wind, or waves can make ammonia for themselves. Or, at least, will in a few years when the new slate of technologies come online.

Last point about aquatic safety: ammonia is toxic to sea life because it suffocates them (hypoxia). That’s not good. On the other hand, unless there’s an ongoing leak that isn’t addressed, it’s a short term problem. Bacteria will break down the ammonia, oxygen will get back into the system, life will return to the area. A sickly fish can get better: it processes synthetic ammonia the same way it processes the organic ammonia it produces every day: it pees.

There’s no contamination up the food chain. Compare that situation to oil spills, or contamination of aquifers from fracking – toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that stay in the system for ever, and become more concentrated the further up the food chain we go.

Ball-and-stick model of the ammonia molecule, ...

Ball-and-stick model of the ammonia molecule, NH 3 . (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Finally – what would it take to retire the entire world’s fleet of oil-burning cars? About 15 years. No effort required. It’s called buying a new car, and people do it in every economy around the world. Make a good product, and allow people to use a fuel that’s clean, efficient, locally produced, and cheaper than oil … the problem could take care of itself. It won’t happen quickly, but it can happen.

Great to get comments on this blog!, I may paste them in to a new post to illustrate the safety debate and try and share with somewhere more widely read.
Kade, did you look at the NH3 Fuel risk analysis report carried out by Quest Consultant  see Here http://www.iowaenergycenter.org/grant-and-research-library/comparative-quantitative-risk-analysis-of-motor-gasoline-lpg-and-anhydrous-ammonia-as-an-automotive-fuel/       and   2/03/NH3_RiskAnalysis_final.pdf ..seemed convincing to me.

1-Ammonia_compressor

1-Ammonia_compressor (Photo credit: Shining Fish Tech)

You’re right of course that NH3 is no silver bullet, I think what we’re probably talking about is ways to mitigate already inevitable ecocide and the destruction of the biosphere, playing for time for our kids.Tell me I’m wrong please!
I did recognise the aquatic danger in a few posts, I look after a natural pond myself, and reached the same conclusion that spills are ‘manageable’ already in the fertiliser industry and burning it is relatively safe compared to spreading it on the land.

All the best… mike

Continue reading