Comments on: Ammonia as Fuel

By: Frank Eggers

Frank Eggers — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:21:22 +0000

NH3 for use as motor fuel is not without problems, but probably the problems could be easily solved. An important advantage over H2 is that it can be liquified at normal temperatures and convenient pressures, unlike H2. For that reason, it makes more sense than H2.

To run well on NH3, an engine would have to be designed for it from the ground up. NN3 is more difficult to ignite than gasoline which can cause missing, but spark plugs with a much larger gap and an ignition system that could deliver a longer duration spark would probably solve that problem.

Also, NH3 burns much more slowly than gasoline. That problem could be solved by 1) designing an engine to run at a lower speed, 2) designing an engine with a longer stroke so that the combustion chamber would be more compact thereby shortening the flame travel, 3) designing the engine so that there would be more turbulence in the combustion chamber thereby speeding up combustion, 4) having multiple spark plugs per cylinder if necessary, and 5) heavily turbo-charging the engine so that the power would be adequate in spite of the lower speed (than could be done because NH3 has much greater anti-knock characteristics than gasoline).

The engine would have to be kept tuned properly because missing would cause unburned NH3 to be ejected from the exhaust system; not pleasant! Also, special fueling techniques would have to be used to prevent NH3 from escaping while filling the tank. As explained by another poster, NOx emissions could easily be dealt with.

Probably all these problems could be solved without undo difficulty.

The NH3 could be produced by energy from wind turbines and, because the NH3 need not be used immediately upon production, the intermittent problems of wind energy would not be a serious problem. However, unless wind energy could be produced more cheaply than now, it might not be economical.

In situations where battery electric vehicles would have inadequate range, running vehicles on H3 would be a possible solution. It might even turn out to be more practical than running vehicles on batteries; we don’t yet know.

When changing energy technologies, it can take considerable time to determine which is the best path. When railroads converted from steam to Diesel, it took years to evaluate the economics and determine that Diesel was more economical. Evaluating the economics of energy systems that don’t use fossil fuels could be just as difficult.

By: charters en ibiza

charters en ibiza — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:40:13 +0000

Hello There. I discovered your blog the usage of msn. That is an extremely neatly written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I will definitely comeback.

By: alquilar crm

alquilar crm — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:05:34 +0000

You’re in point of fact a just right webmaster. The site loading pace is amazing. It kind of feels that you are doing any unique trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece. you’ve done a great activity in this topic!

By: bill northlich

bill northlich — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:57:33 +0000

Larry L. …er – where do you think the electricity for “electric vehicles” comes from?

By: Craig Shields

Craig Shields — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:45:33 +0000

Yes, this helps a great deal. That’s a fantastic report you have online, btw. Thanks very much.

In addition to great content, I love the way you British scholars write. You use “candidature” rather than “candidacy.” Fantastic!

By: David Nugent

David Nugent — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:28:22 +0000

It is right to highlight the possibility that NH3 combustion engines will produce NOx emissions. The solution to this problem is well known and documented. I am referring of course to Selective Catalytic Reduction according to the forward reactions:

4 NO + 4 NH3 + O2 >> 4N2+6 H2O (1)
6 NO2 + 8 NH3 >> 7 N2 + 12 H2O (2)

SCR is already used to minimise NOx emissions in diesel engines. Where do they get the NH3 from? Either be decarbonating urea or by reforming fuel to produce H2, which is then combined with atmospheric nitrogen in a mini Haber Bosch reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_catalytic_reduction

This problem is trivial for a NH3 engine since the exhaust need only be bubbled through the fuel tank. No, I don’t mean this literally, but you get the idea.

Hope this helps.

PS: You might want to read this report I wrote back in 2007, and published in 2008. Downloadable here:

http://www.elucidare.co.uk/for-media.php

By: Ammonia–Fuel of the Future? « Biofuels Seminar

Ammonia–Fuel of the Future? « Biofuels Seminar — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:53:41 +0000

[...] is the inevitable by-product of NOx, a large contributor to the formation of smog. Despite this, the benefits of ammonia use as a fuel source may still outweigh the negatives. It has already been show to work in a vehicle [...]

By: Larry Lemmert

Larry Lemmert — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:42:05 +0000

Oops. Neutralization of NOx would be with a base, not an acid.

By: Larry Lemmert

Larry Lemmert — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:34:58 +0000

Ammonia as a fuel does not make a whole lot of sense. First, like hydrogen, it is not a source of energy but a mere transfer of energy medium. That is not really bad in itself since transformation is a necessity for virtually all of the actual root sources of energy.
The problem with ammonia is in its use as a fuel. It burns well with a good energy output but the byproducts of combustion are the various nitrogen oxides (NOx) and water. While NOx can be neutralized to make a nitrate fertilizer, the burden of carrying the neutralizing agent, an acid, in large quantities, and then the storage requirement for the resulting fertilizer solution becomes a literal burden.
Hydrogen serves the same nitche as ammonia with fewer drawbacks. I am not a proponent of a hydrogen economy by any means but ammonia would be further down the list of choices when hydrocarbons are phased out. Electric vehicles with battery storage is at the top of my personal list.
Larry L