• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ammonia as fuel

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,395
Reaction score
14,430
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I look every so often at the progress in the power to liquid fuel research,
and came across this piece of research.
Nitrogen-Based Fuels: A Power-to-Fuel-to-Power Analysis - Grinberg?Dana - 2016 - Angewandte Chemie International Edition - Wiley Online Library
Storing hydrogen attached to nitrogen, has some merits, in that nitrogen is easy to capture,
I question them saying that ammonia is non toxic, perhaps less than gasoline, but still very toxic.
I have read that people converted vehicles to run on ammonia during WW2 fuel shortages,
I suspect it would not be much different that liquid propane.
Everyone could tell if something was leaking!
 
I look every so often at the progress in the power to liquid fuel research,
and came across this piece of research.
Nitrogen-Based Fuels: A Power-to-Fuel-to-Power Analysis - Grinberg?Dana - 2016 - Angewandte Chemie International Edition - Wiley Online Library
Storing hydrogen attached to nitrogen, has some merits, in that nitrogen is easy to capture,
I question them saying that ammonia is non toxic, perhaps less than gasoline, but still very toxic.
I have read that people converted vehicles to run on ammonia during WW2 fuel shortages,
I suspect it would not be much different that liquid propane.
Everyone could tell if something was leaking!

Is there a possibility we could start mining all those dirty disposable diapers?
 
Is there a possibility we could start mining all those dirty disposable diapers?
I think those are best left in reserve for future generations.:mrgreen:
 
Well, There is an article here about using NH3 as a source for fuel for fuel cells https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116001611

If NH3 is able to be used as a fuel cell, the byproducts woudl be nitrogen gas and water. That would solve the following problems.

1) The release of Co2 into the atmosphere.
2) The storage of hydrogen and the ability to transport it, and fuel the vehicle.

The issue then would be making the ammonia, and how much energy you can get per gallon. The thought is interesting though.
 
Well, There is an article here about using NH3 as a source for fuel for fuel cells https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116001611

If NH3 is able to be used as a fuel cell, the byproducts woudl be nitrogen gas and water. That would solve the following problems.

1) The release of Co2 into the atmosphere.
2) The storage of hydrogen and the ability to transport it, and fuel the vehicle.

The issue then would be making the ammonia, and how much energy you can get per gallon. The thought is interesting though.
You can burn ammonia in an IC engine also, (but I suspect you may need different lubricates)
I think incomplete fuel burning would create a smelly mess.
I favor carrying hydrogen has a hydrocarbon, but mostly because our current infrastructure
is compatible. Man made hydrocarbons could be carbon neutral as well.
 
You can burn ammonia in an IC engine also, (but I suspect you may need different lubricates)
I think incomplete fuel burning would create a smelly mess.
I favor carrying hydrogen has a hydrocarbon, but mostly because our current infrastructure
is compatible. Man made hydrocarbons could be carbon neutral as well.

The current infrastructure would be able to handle liquids.. and ammonia is a liquid.
 
The current infrastructure would be able to handle liquids.. and ammonia is a liquid.
Not at atmospheric pressure, more like liquid propane, but also could have negative effects on o-rings, seals, pumps, ect.
 
Not at atmospheric pressure, more like liquid propane, but also could have negative effects on o-rings, seals, pumps, ect.

Only if used in IC engines.
 
Only if used in IC engines.
?, ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure, what you do with it, does not matter.
As to the negative effects of ammonia being a caustic agent, that would have to be considered
no matter what the application was.
 
?, ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure, what you do with it, does not matter.
As to the negative effects of ammonia being a caustic agent, that would have to be considered
no matter what the application was.

You are right. I am just thinking it's dissolved in water for cleaning purposes..
 
Ammonia would work as rocket propellant for a NERVA drive plus its clean running, but it would be less efficient than hydrogen or methane.
 
You are right. I am just thinking it's dissolved in water for cleaning purposes..
I am not sure if household ammonia burns,(I never actually tried, which is odd, I guess the smell bothered me.)
I am not trying to be disagreeable, ammonia has potential as a hydrogen carrier,
but we have to consider the limitations as well.
 
The current infrastructure would be able to handle liquids.. and ammonia is a liquid.

Only under pressure at low temperature. Ammonia is used (as a liquid) as a refrigerant alternative to chlorofluorocarbons (Freons).
 
Ammonia powered internal combustion engines. Gasoline and diesel fuel internal combustion engines can be converted to run on ammonia. ... Along with hydrogen, ammonia is the only fuel that has no carbon emission when combusted because it doesn't contain carbon.
 
Even though my degree is in chemistry, I haven't balanced an equation in years, so this was good practice:

Ammonia as fuel.jpg
 
But unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, ammonia-powered cars would not emit carbon dioxide. Most cars on the road can run on a mixture of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent liquid ammonia, and could be modified to run on a mixture of up to 80 percent ammonia—at a cost of $1,000 to $5,000 per vehicle. Feb 17, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0hBAz6MxC4
 
Last edited:
But unlike conventionally fueled vehicles, ammonia-powered cars would not emit carbon dioxide. Most cars on the road can run on a mixture of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent liquid ammonia, and could be modified to run on a mixture of up to 80 percent ammonia—at a cost of $1,000 to $5,000 per vehicle. Feb 17, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0hBAz6MxC4

The whole key would be getting enough ammonia from a non-carbon source.
 
The whole key would be getting enough ammonia from a non-carbon source.

The 2 raw materials required to make ammonia are nitrogen from the air & hydrogen from methane separated from natural gas. Methane is a bad actor in itself because it is far more potent as a greenhouse gas than is CO2. So converting it into motor fuel that leaves no carbon exhaust is a good thing IMO.
 
The 2 raw materials required to make ammonia are nitrogen from the air & hydrogen from methane separated from natural gas. Methane is a bad actor in itself because it is far more potent as a greenhouse gas than is CO2. So converting it into motor fuel that leaves no carbon exhaust is a good thing IMO.

Well, with new cheaper catalysts, the amount of energy and speed for electrolysis might make using electrolsys and solar panels to be less expensive than using methane. The use of methene puts hydrogen costs about 2.75 per kilo from methane.

The second generation goal for the device will be just slighly lower than that. That would make it in line cost wise.
 
Last edited:
Well, with new cheaper catalysts, the amount of energy and speed for electrolysis might make using electrolsys and solar panels to be less expensive than using methane. The use of methene puts hydrogen costs about 2.75 per kilo from methane.

The second generation goal for the device will be just slighly lower than that. That would make it in line cost wise.

A lot of methane escapes from fracking wells due to their owners not investing in the cryogenic equipment needed to capture it. So to capture it is expensive. But turning it into ammonia & then into water through automobile combustion makes a lot more sense to me than letting it destroy the ozone layer.

Ammonia as fuel.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom