The only way its going to work in our current political environment is if its cheaper....

Let's not forget why Einstein took out a patent for an improved refrigerator.

How much electricity per mile? (H2 takes 2x or more per mile than an EV.)

H2 and ammonia, produced from water, are only energy storage technologies. Liquid "batteries".

The only way its going to work in our current political environment is if its cheaper....

If it's cheaper, the taxes will be higher...

Let's not forget why Einstein took out a patent for an improved refrigerator.

Apparently, I forgot. So - why?

H2 and ammonia, produced from water, are only energy storage technologies. Liquid "batteries".

The article isn't saying any different. It's about the conversion process to release hydrogen from ammonia.

Does this process make it cheaper to drive than using H2 for FCEVs? H2 from electricity in FCEVs is non-competitive with electricity used in EVs.

Does this process make it cheaper to drive than using H2 for FCEVs? H2 from electricity in FCEVs is non-competitive with electricity used in EVs.

Because the storage and H2 release mechanisms are more complex. Thusly, more expensive.

At current prices that would put it about $1.50 or so a gallon. Now how far that would get you after breaking it down and using the hydrogen in a fuel cell powered vehicle is another matter.

I would also expect that there is not much cost that can be squeezed from ammonia production given its already huge scale.

I would also expect that there is not much cost that can be squeezed from ammonia production given its already huge scale.

Production doesn't have to be cheaper than it is currently to be viable. If it is sourced domestically, and has a smaller logistics tail, then it can out-compete petroleum.

Seems like ammonia is being used as an energy carrier, if the energy density is greater than current battery or fuel cell then it seems like it could be a good idea. The thing I think this article is missing is the energy requirement for ammonia production. The place of answers has this...

http://www.ocinit...hure.pdf

as the number one result for 'Ammonia production energy requirements?' A quick glance didn't reveal anything immediately useful but I was surprised to find that the feedstock they were talking about using was oil or natural gas!? If that is the case then this would seem to be a bit of an own goal, environmentally speaking.

Any industrial chemists out there who might be able to give an approximate figure for the energy needed to produce a litre of ammonia?

It sounds to me that on a weight basis and a 3 to 1 split, this solid form of storing hydrogen is going to be very hard to beat.

It sounds to me that on a weight basis and a 3 to 1 split, this solid form of storing hydrogen is going to be very hard to beat.

Seems like ammonia is being used as an energy carrier, if the energy density is greater than current battery or fuel cell then it seems like it could be a good idea. The thing I think this article is missing is the energy requirement for ammonia production. The place of answers has this...

i just dont get it. aint ammonia totaly unusable if not transformed in H2? this article is talking about new way to make hydrogen from ammonia because ammonia is much easier to handle and store than H2. so it's not energy density but ease of exploitation for of usage that need to be nexat. for example H2 catalyzed from ammonia, to be used in fuel cell, or ICE that use hydrogen for its operation. this ammonia thing cant directly been used in any type of vehicle, for ICE using H2 it must be first catalyzed for exact type of fuell on which this vehicle runing, and that is also true in the case of FCEV.

Quote from text.
"A small amount of hydrogen mixed with ammonia is sufficient to provide combustion in a conventional car engine."

This implies that ammonia will combust in an ICE (fuel cell not needed) if a small amount of hydrogen can be ignited and produce enough heat to breakdown the ammonia into 3 parts hydrogen and 1 part nitrogen. The hydrogen from the ammonia breakdown would then combine with the oxygen in the air to produce more heat.
One possible problem is the probable efficient production of NOx, a major problem.

The next problem is to efficiently produce ammonia from solar, wind or nuclear power.
We produce ammonia from natural gas. Using the natural gas directly would be cheaper and more efficient.

The game changer is blue flame natural gas-which any household can produce and store easily along with conversion kit to blue flame.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

This team came up with something resembling a 'Stirling' engine for minimising the huge, high-pressure system for ammonia production.

The article also has a wry caution about ammonia's smell...

You've got some stuff right. But not the "green energy" part. Renewables are very viable and now producing 12.9% of US electricity (6.6% hydro, 6.3% non-hydro renewables).

12.9% is closing in on nuclear's 19% share. It's almost half what we get from natural gas (27.5%)

You've got some stuff right. But not the "green energy" part. Renewables are very viable and now producing 12.9% of US electricity (6.6% hydro, 6.3% non-hydro renewables).

12.9% is closing in on nuclear's 19% share. It's almost half what we get from natural gas (27.5%)

As of 2011, renewables were 9% and nuclear was 9%.

Coal, due to the manner of it's usage, is actually the easiest fossil fuel to replace, because it's used almost exclusively in power plants on land. The manner in replacing this is to use wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, or nuclear.

People who use natural gas for cooking and heating(winter) are actually about 3 times cleaner than people who use coal-fired electricity for the same purposes. In fact, direct usage is actually about 3 times cleaner than would be using natural gas-fired electricity too.

A solar farm which uses natural gas as a backup is not efficient for heating a home during the night time phase, since burning the gas on site is 3x cheaper.

Anyway, replacing petroleum for cars, trains, trucks, and ships, is very hard, but manageable at the brink of technology, because you're dealing with on-board engines (or collectors).

Replacing Coal is cheaper because a Coal power plant is an off-board engine, for whatever it's running, therefore technology restraints are less. Your alternate power supply can be almost anything, as long as it's clean and profitable.

If you replace diesel trains with electric, you could cut some of this by having off-board power. Existing Diesel trains already use electric engines in a two step process, so it would actually be much more efficient to just remove the fuel tank and the ICE, and replace with a battery for backup, and powered rail along the track, just like sub-ways. But maintenance and hazards (to children) goes up.

Cargo/container ships -> Nuclear power plants (with military compliment vs pirates).
super-tanker ships -> become obsolete, or transport Hydrogen, etc.

Trucks are still...

"As of 2011, renewables were 9% and nuclear was 9%."

In the US nuclear was 19.3% in 2011. 19.5% in 1988. Since then nuclear has maintained a 17.9% to 20.6% "market share".

We have a major leakage problem with our natural gas delivery system. While the electricity might be cleaner than that from coal, the leaked methane really needs to be stopped.

Electricity used for resistant heating is a poor choice. Instead use heat pumps and geothermal.

Bob_Wallace:

I got my information from a government site, so where idd you get yours?

Though admittedly the nuclear value posted there seemed low, it was consistently written as being between 4% and 9%, not 19%.

So who is right?

You can use solar thermal preheaters.

55 gallons of water pre-heated to 150f is equivalent of 10 kw-h worth of heat energy above "room temperature" for every 55 gallons water.

You could store this in a 55 gallon drum (in an insulated box with a front door) at the back of a hall closet, boiler room, or other utility room, and a small 50-100 watt water pump. Pipes are vacuum insulated, except for radiators which are fed by same pipes into the rooms. Add a small, 50 watt fan to blow air across the radiators. even in a 3 bedroom, 2 bath house I figure 8 x 50 watt fan, 1 x100watt water pump, gives 500 watts for moving water and air around. You collected 10kw-h per 55 gallon drum, so this amount used on fans is meaningless.

With enough storage tanks, radiators, and collectors, you could heat your home in any climate, except on the cloudiest days, for just 500watts, even at night time.

Cold water is fed back to the drums at night, but during day you open valve and feed back to collectors.

Data from the EIA. http://www.eia.go.../annual/

In 2011, for example, nuclear produced 790,204 Million kWh out of a total 4,100,656 Million kWh generated from all sources.

I've calculated that heating the volume of the air in my house by 1c requires 716kj of energy.

So if it was 32f outside and I wanted it to be 72 inside I'd need to calculate the heat loss (which I can later since I can get the R-value of the panels and bricks, forget what it is), and figure out how much heat is lost through the walls.

At any rate, the amount of energy that is reasonably, safely stored in a 55gallon drum is enough to heat the entire house by 50 degrees celsius(ideally), but I only need a net gain of 22 of that, after all heat losses, to maintain 72f inside the house on a 32f night.

So yeah, this should work easily, with just one drum for someone in Lousiana.

For people farther north you'd need more collectors and more drums, since you won't have as much solar energy density and won't get as high an initial temperature. Even if you only get 100f in the drums, but have 2 drums or so, you'd be fine.

I know of some other ways to heat a house in winter during the day.

Thermal storage is something that is likely to increase. Currently some commercial buildings are using cheaper off-peak electricity to chill water/salts solutions and then using that stored "cold" to assist with air conditioning.

Winter storage of hot water along with a heat pump might be a very good idea for people who can't afford to do geothermal heat pumps. Put some solar water heating on the roof and use that to store away heat for building heat as needed.

Air to air heat pumps are not very expensive ($1k to $2.5k was what I found on line). It shouldn't cost much more to build a water to air heat pump although prices would likely be higher until they were manufactured in sufficient numbers.

An insulated water tank would work for both winter heating and summer cooling.

Winter, daytime.

Black metallic blinds with black curtain backing (your side). The metal collects the heat and it conducts it to the air quickly, the black curtain just makes sure all visible light is collected.

Summer cooling
White shutters, external, not internal. Some heat (IR) is converted by windows, even "insulated" windows, which you don't want, therefore reflective surface should be on the outside of the window, and NOT the inside of the window.

Discussion of a dirty cheap, DIY solar forced air heater, for moderate climates:

https://www.youtu...mswE70dM

This system should pay for itself in energy savings in the first season alone.

Combine with the water thermal energy storage scheme I outlined above, for storing thermal energy for night time, and you'd be paying almost nothing for energy during the gulf state's winters. Even if it snowed, just go out and brush the top of the collector of (2 minute job) and you're back in business...

You don't need 50w fans nor 100w water pump. You can get away with a tiny fraction of that,a nd get more cost-effectiveness out of it. Also, to be safe, not sorry, double up on the drums.

So you can storm 20kw-h of heat energy.

Use much smaller fans, like 5-10watt fans, and a 50w water pump. You just need the water to barely circulate from the hot water out side of the storage system, to the cold water in side. I don't have this installed, but hey, I just might do it.

I'm thinking of a double loop between collector and tank.

I, collector
A, Tank outside (can be diverted to hot water for washing too).
B, cold water in
C, hot water out
D, safety release valve (prevent boiling/explosion)
E, drain valve
F, valves hot
G, valve cold

II, Storage
A, 2 or more of 55 gallon (metal) drums in insulated box to be opened at night: conduction.
1, Hot out to radiators
2, 50w water pump
3, radiators w/ 5-10 watt fan
4, cool in to drums, still above room.
5a, cool out to collector
5b, valve on 5a

I've calculated that heating the volume of the air in my house by 1c requires 716kj of energy.

A cold room with warm air still feels cold, because the warmth you feel is not due to the air that is in contact with your body, but the infrared radiation that you're constantly exchanging with the walls and furniture. In fact, air is such a good insulator for convective heat transfer that the millimeters thick layer of air warmed by your own skin is enough to make it feel comfortably warm even if the air was otherwise freezing cold. Tha'ts why patio heater lamps work.

So it's not the heat capacity of the air you should be calculating - it's the walls and floors and ceilings that need to be warmed up.

And the walls have to be warm inside out so water doesn't start to condense inside them in cool weather, so your house doesn't rot. That's why there can be such thing as too much insulation. They've tried to solve that issue with plastic tarps, but they always leak eventually.

this ammonia thing cant directly been used in any type of vehicle

A combustion engine can run on ammonia. It does burn.

It just requires an ignition booster, like a small portion of gasoline or plain hydrogen to get it started.

You just get 40% the mileage running on ammonia because it's worse in energy density than gasoline or diesel, or natural gas.

And the walls have to be warm inside out so water doesn't start to condense inside them in cool weather, so your house doesn't rot. That's why there can be such thing as too much insulation.

House is properly designed for that. internal walls are actually not insulated (except a few).
External walls, including all surrounding garage, are foam panel construction. Six inch thick foam panels instead of ceiling joists. All joints are caulked.

The windows and doors are really the only weak points in the house in terms of thermodynamics or hydrodynamics. Freaking windows still sweat, no matter how much they are called "insulated," which produces a mold problem on the window sills, which pisses me off. This happened, I think, because for some bone-head reason we put metal window frames, instead of the plastic ones. So the "insulation" is wasted, which I didn't realize this was being done at the time.

The other ones are made of a similar substance to Vinyl Siding, maybe the same thing I guess, which doesn't conduct heat and doesn't corrode, and the internal spacer is also made of Vinyl, which means it has better insulating properties all around, and has better sealing properties on the edges.

Soo, if you're doing remodeling, DON'T use the freaking metal frame windows. They suck, even if they're called "insulated".

If you want to replace windows on a brick house, you're basically going to spend several hundred or thousand, dollars on repairs. Either way, it would cost more money than the window would ever save in it's lifetime.

Which is why I thought of other solutions, including the external shutters AND internal shutters, to maximize positive results for summer and winter.

Really, the way new homes in the south have been designed by architects for the past 20 years is about the complete opposite of what they needed to be doing to maximize efficiency.

@Returners: Please stop blathering. I'm subscribed to the thread and your incessant inanities keep giving me false notifications.

"We estimate"

http://en.wikiped...n_damage
http://en.wikiped...ttlement

The only way its going to work in our current political environment is if its cheaper....

But that is the criteria for almost everything: cheaper and less energy intensive is almost always better when it comes to raw materials production and/or energy production.

"... We have a major leakage problem with our natural gas delivery system. While the electricity might be cleaner than that from coal, the leaked methane really needs to be stopped ...

And that will be a big challenge as natural gas "leaks" from the natural reservoirs easily and everywhere. Swamp gas also occurs naturally and prolifically. And since Methane (CH4) is the most abundant complex molecule in this Solar system and rains down on the Earth regularly, well ... How are you going to put a diaper on that?

But your idea is right. The conversion of natural gas to electric power on site (at the well head) needs a more efficient conductor for energy transport to the customers in the cities. (The North American power grid is way less than 70% efficient, 30% being wasted in transit by resistance and radiation.)

... The basic problem is that Hydrogen does not have enough energy to do much. At 340 mm BTUs per standard cubic foot compared to natural gas at 1040, you have to make up for the storage of 3 times as much. It has 3 times less energy. We need to stick to coal and gas for a while. Face it, green energy is 30 years away from being viable.

Ditto that! There may be plenty of opportunities to cultivate "renewable" and "greener" resources, but the basics of Newtonian physics (as you note) keep getting in the way. Over all thermal inefficiencies of Hydrogen (and most other "green" alternatives) remain below par ... par being the standard set by natural gas, for one.

BTW: Natural gas could be considered as "renewable" or at least very long term viable. If North America were to rely on natural gas for all power needs, the best guess estimates are that we have a 400+ year reserve supply ... plenty of time to bring on line alternates.

It sounds to me that on a weight basis and a 3 to 1 split, this solid form of storing hydrogen is going to be very hard to beat.

... also very hard to manufacture and maintain. The high compression and very low temperatures required may be the deal breaker.

Amazing. Scientists patting each other on the back for seeing the obvious!
There were ammonia powered buses running in Belgium perfectly well in 1945!

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.
Plus converting renewables to ammonia is a great way to store energy for when there's no wind or sun.
see my modest blog here http://co2freefue...ess.com/
So why not do it??