Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumHe's Creating A New Fuel Out Of Thin Air -- For 85 Cents Per Gallon
Advocates of Americas Green New Deal or other radical efforts to decarbonize the world economy in the face of a looming climate crisis may well have one of their greatest champions in a rumpled 65-year-old who lives in the Toronto suburbs.
Roger Gordon wears a navy wool coat that extends well past the bottom of his green knit sweater on a chilly day in February. He talks with a quintessentially Canadian politeness as he rails against what he sees as a massive conspiracy to suppress his lifes work which could amount to a fuel revolution.
Ammonia has been used as both an alternative fuel source and a surplus energy storage mechanism since the 1800s, and while its production is far less damaging to the environment than traditional oil and gas, its not without its pollutants. In order to create NH3, the ammonia-based fuel, one would have to build a massive production facility that still burns large quantities of fossil fuels and releases significant amounts of carbon in the production process.
But in 2014, Gordon whos spent his career producing active pharmaceutical ingredients for sale around the world secured a patent for his long-time side project: a refrigerator-sized machine that turns water and air into a reusable, renewable, ammonia-based NH3. The project began in the early 2000s, and took almost nine years before it produced a usable prototype. The patent application was submitted the following year, at a time when Gordon says he didnt even have transportation fuel on his radar. Today, he drives a converted Ford F-350 with a button on the dashboard that allows him to switch between traditional gasoline and one of the small tanks of colorless, strong-smelling NH3 gas sitting in back of the pickup truck.
I didnt have the wherewithal to try it as a transportation fuel, Gordon explains in an interview at a shopping mall in Toronto. But researchers at the University of Iowa and the University of Michigan were driving on ammonia and Gordon says they jumped at the idea of creating NH3 with no heritage of oil or coal or anything thats carbon.
Anyone can retrofit a traditional combustion engine into one that runs on NH3 for about $1,000, and at least 100 others around the world have made the investment, but Gordon says the infrastructure required to change the global transportation industry is too overwhelming to even consider. Instead, Gordon sees opportunities in places that are spending significant resources on getting access to fuel, such as remote communities and industrial operations in Africa or northern Canada. The lowest hanging fruit would be a mine in the far north thats now spending $105 million on diesel fuel a year, and they can now come to us for half the price, he says.
Read more: https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/hes-creating-a-new-fuel-out-of-thin-air-for-85-cents-per-gallon/92686
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Thanks for sharing this. Looks to be very promising.
Rhiannon12866
(205,144 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Because it isnt in the interest of the Corporate Infotainment media to do so.
Rhiannon12866
(205,144 posts)But we don't hear about it unless there's a major tragedy, like the wildfires.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)And it is incredibly unfortunate that is so.
watoos
(7,142 posts)the oligarchs from the fossil fuel industry who control the M$M.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Only when it becomes in their best interest or we abandon the M$M will that change.
TexasTowelie
(112,089 posts)See post #6.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)truly a mixed blessing, but as the article mentioned it's not really seen for use everywhere. Under some circumstances it may (or may not) be the best alternative and it is good that they are developing this source of energy for those applications.
TexasTowelie
(112,089 posts)The combustion of ammonia produces nitric oxide.
4NH3(g) + 5O2(g) --->4NO(g) + 6H2O(g)
Nitric oxide then can react with hydroxyl radicals to yield nitric acid, a component of acid rain.
There may also be questions as to how it affects vehicle performance if less energy is produced upon combustion (e.g., will it give you the boost when you have to "punch it" . On the positive side, ammonia weighs less than gasoline and is less combustible in open air conditions.
Rhiannon12866
(205,144 posts)Chemistry was not my best subject, I likely got through it because the teacher was also my coach, LOL. And it looks like widespread testing of this is a long way off - if ever - but it is being applied in a few limited places and I thought it sounded promising - and it's definitely an idea that we hadn't heard about before.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,489 posts)This statement from the article does not sound correct to me (or perhaps just poorly written):
Not sure that nitrogen can pass through a combustion engine without being oxidized.
The article also does not discuss the energy required to run Gordon's machine; i.e., electricity!
Unless they use solar or wind to power the ammonia machines, there damn well will be carbon produced.
Without further details, perhaps I'm missing something about his process. However, it's amazing how things relating to science are discussed as if they're magic and avoid revealing the entropy of the entire process end-to-end.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)No, no, no, no.
You do not truly appreciate the genius of people who've never had a class in physics or chemistry, when it comes to "some guy has energy machine" claims.
The process, of course, runs on the ammonia itself!
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,489 posts)just run down to Sam's Club and buy a case of ammonia in gallon jugs to feed the ammonia machine that makes ammonia.
Self-sustaining process that runs on American Express.
(head spins).......
garybeck
(9,940 posts)his patent involves a process that does not require carbon input
a machine that makes ammonia with carbon fuel would not be worth reporting. according to this article, this is something different. the article does not describe his invention.
i've been working in this industry for over 30 years. i have learned that it is good to be objectively skeptical but also open minded. i've seen many many ideas come and go. until I see how the thing works i'm not going to condemn it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2019, 11:07 AM - Edit history (2)
"the article does not describe his invention.
i've been working in this industry for over 30 years."
Is it common in your industry, when informed that a Roger Gordon in Canada has a patent on ammonia synthesis, to be uninspired to find that patent within, literally, the seconds it takes to type "Roger Gordon ammonia patent" into Google in order to obtain a detailed description of exactly how it works?
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110243828A1/en
I mean, granted, I haven't worked directly in engineering for a while, but I seem to recall that engineers and scientists tended to be pretty rabidly curious about stuff like this, and would usually take a look into it before opining about an article in the popular press about a garage inventor being hailed as yet another energy and environmental savior. At least I did.
Without even getting into the details, what does your industry experience tell you about how to perform these steps:
"A process for producing ammonia from air and water comprises producing nitrogen gas from air by pressure-swing-adsorption; producing hydrogen gas by electrolysis of water; compressing the nitrogen gas in a first cylinder to produce pressurized nitrogen gas; compressing the hydrogen gas in a second cylinder to produce pressurized hydrogen gas; compressing a mixture of the pressurized nitrogen and hydrogen gases in a third cylinder; heating the compressed mixture in the presence of a catalyst to react nitrogen and hydrogen to form ammonia; and extracting the ammonia from the mixture. "
You are doing electrolysis of water to get hydrogen, running a PSA reactor for the nitrogen, compressing the products of those processes and then heating the compressed mixture in the presence of a catalyst.
Again, while you didn't specify the industry with which you are familiar, you don't get to run these processes for free. You are not going to go from N2 and H2 to get NH3, so that you can burn the NH3 as fuel, without putting more energy into that process than you are getting out of it. That energy has to come from somewhere. If it is coming from solar, wind or hydro, it is a fair bet (actually something of a sure thing) that you can do better with the solar, wind or hydro directly, than by using that energy for an inefficient process to produce an inefficient combustible fuel. Unless, and only unless, for some reason there is a vehicle which you have to run and which cannot have an electric motor.
Processes which use energy to synthesize fuel are properly characterized as chemical energy storage processes. There's no "extra energy" to be had.
Another thing that can be gleaned from article is that the best area of application is believed to be remote areas. Why? Aside from the outstandingly hazardous basic idea here which might make more sense in a setting in which some hazardous industrial operation is already going on with the use of internal combustion engines (making access to fuel an issue), it is something of a ridiculous process for economical production of NH3 at scale, when there are less costly ways to do it (which use, i.e. better precursors and less energy). Since the inputs here are air and electricity, then there may be situations where the efficiency and energy costs of this process make sense if there is no other way to get vehicular fuel, but one has enough solar, wind or coal power to make electricity.
Obviously, if one is in an environment where electricity is plentiful and the motive power of specialized vehicles is not an issue, then you might as well run electric vehicles instead of using the electricity to run this scheme in order to produce a dangerous fuel at a higher energy than other methods.
CDerekGo
(507 posts)Think of all of the Electricity required to process a barrel of Crude Oil
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,489 posts)Lots of large pumps and blowers, one of which sounds like a damn jet engine.
Reflecting on the processes I've work in, steel mills, cement and glass plants come to mind as the big energy hogs. Enormous amounts of natural gas are used in those and all produce lots of waste heat that goes into the environment.
Paper mills may be the most efficient, as they burn both bark stripped from trees and black liquor from the kraft process in separate boilers for steam, producing somewhat of a closed-loop system.
Being now retired, I reflect often and wonder how long we can sustain our addiction to many products so common in our lives.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,489 posts)I'm a hard-knocks skeptical sort in the engineering world due to working in field service for many years, so I may be a bit biased.
This is not a new concept at all (it's basic chemistry), but perhaps a new way to execute the process.
That said, I struggle to see much applicability with this device due to its complexity - mainly due to the high pressures and temperatures involved along with precise control systems, which suggests high maintenance. I worked in process instrumentation in chemical plants for quite a spell and see it as an item requiring skilled techs to fix.
As with all new concepts, we'll see how it plays out!.....
3Hotdogs
(12,366 posts)Finishline42
(1,091 posts)Local farm co-ops could have the equipment to produce the oil
https://www.energy.gov/eere/videos/energy-101-algae-fuel
Since most farm equipment runs on diesel algae oil could at least supplement it.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)at this time, the point may not to be elimination of acid rain, but its significant reduction.
Anyone calculated the potential acidification from this process vs others?
Vehicle performance is an issue, but engine designers are a crafty lot. My 2018 1.4 liter Cruz is faster and more efficient than my '66 401 cu inch Buick. Imagine what the next 50 years will bring.
tiptonic
(765 posts)Not to sound negative but big oil, will never let it happen. Not in this county anyway.
mitch96
(13,885 posts)How many companies that would effect the oil producers of the world were bought and quietly shut down....
m
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So, a country like Japan, which has no oil of its own, and yet has a substantial industrial base, is full of really really dumb scientists and engineers who are unable to adopt or duplicate these "suppressed technologies"?
NNadir
(33,512 posts)Like all energy storage devices, it requires the loss of primary energy. Almost all of the industrial ammonia on earth is manufactured from dangerous natural gas in a reformation reaction to make hydrogen for the reductive hydrogenation of nitrogen gas, again with a loss of energy.
Increases in the efficiency of this process, the Haber-Bosch process, which was discovered in the early 20th century, has led to a vast expansion in scale, with the resultant environmental damage being tremendous, but probably necessary in the sense without it at this point, we would be completely unable to feed three billion people, never mind seven billion people.
These ammonia schemes for cars are not new; not wise; and are in fact very dangerous.
If that guy's car springs a leak, even from a fuel line corroded by base, it may kill people, innocent people.
Pure ammonia is a gas, an easily liquified gas, but a gas all the same. It is corrosive, and unlike gasoline, the vapors will kill or blind a person rapidly. In lower concentrations, ammonia is a terrible, terrible environmental problem inasmuch as it causes eutrophication of water supplies (as agricultural run-off).
Many chemists are experienced with working with liquid ammonia - I am - and we treat it with healthy respect.
If we were going to make a liquid energy storage fuel for our stupid cars, dimethyl ether is a vastly superior fuel. It also is easily liquified, but in contrast to ammonia is non-toxic (it's used as a hairspray propellant), is easily removed from water, does not cause eutrophication of water supplies, in contrast to dangerous natural gas has an atmospheric half-life of about 5 days, and its production is well known on an industrial scale, and can be produced from any carbon source, including but not limited to carbon dioxide.
It would be a very, very, very, very, very bad idea to take this guys "Haber-Bosch plant in your garage" scheme seriously. It is yet another approach to the appalling and dangerous libertarian fantasy of distributed energy, the worst example of distributed energy being the automobile itself, with this scheme poised to make the automobile even a worse disaster than it already is.
It is a shame that people are not required to learn the 2nd law of thermodynamics and understand it deeply by at least junior high school. They would then understand that "energy from air" is a nonsense statement. The very, very, very, very stupid person Ayn Rand in one of her idiot novels made this an element of it. It was dumb then, and is worse now.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,089 posts)While I knew that one of the issues would be the byproducts of a combustion reaction, goodness knows that I'm decades past discussing the issues working with liquid ammonia on a large scale or exothermic calculations. All that I remember now is that I worked with ammonia under the ventilation hood in the lab and not to mix ammonia with bleach when cleaning the bathroom.
NNadir
(33,512 posts)...as a huge industrial process - even without the scale up to make ammonia for cars, which must not be allowed to take place - is, in fact, nitrogen oxides, specifically nitrous oxide, N2O.
Your point is equally as important as mine, nitrogen oxides, an inevitable consequence of the distribution of ammonia based chemicals.
By the end of this century, the accumulation of this gas, N2O, in the atmosphere - it's rising fairly rapidly - is going to displace CFC's as the primary source of ozone depletion. Like the CFC's, it's also a climate forcing gas, but that's not the worst of it.
Since the early 20th century we have greatly shifted the nitrogen equilibrium on this planet as a whole. While the issues are broadly discussed in the primary scientific literature, they have not yet made it widely into public consciousness like, say, climate change has.
One could imagine easily, were ammonia to become a common fuel item - perish the thought - a huge political denial lobby being formed to announce that ammonia deaths, destruction of the ozone layer, destruction of almost all the fresh water supplies on earth, etc, etc, etc, are not worth the economic cost of shifting away from it.
This is rather the same thing we see with dangerous fossil fuels today, of course.
It's been a very long time since I was in the lab, by the way, but I certainly recall the risks of liquid ammonia, with which the lab in which I was working, was using on a small pilot scale. It was nothing exotic, simple sodium amide stuff. We had those (glass) reactors in a walk-in hood, and lots of acid traps in the line. Even so it was still very scary in a sense; not as scary as other liquified gases like phosgene - and less scary than HF - but still worthy of lots of respect for the danger.
I once had some guys working for me screw up with liquid HF. They weren't injured but came to my office to ask me what they should do. Liquid HF was spilled all over the hood - but since I had obviously failed to train them sufficiently (although I was relatively new in my position) I made them all leave the lab, and cleaned up the mess myself. That was the most frightening chemical event of my life. It was twenty or thirty gram quantities, maybe a little more, fuming, and I suited up (in record time), even though it was in the hood. I imagine though, that a broken reactor with a few kilos of liquid ammonia spilling out, might have been worse. It's easy to neutralize HF with excess calcium carbonate; but with ammonia, one has to have a sense of the stoichiometry, since strong acids are themselves corrosive and somewhat dangerous.
I really hope this scheme goes nowhere.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)Glad to have a chemist on this board. You are right about everyone needing to learn thermodynamics.
erronis
(15,222 posts)Di-methyl ether as a fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether#Fuel
It seems to have a lot of positive properties - very similar to propane.
In my short scan of the articles I didn't see mention of how expensive it was to produce, although I understand it can be based on other hydrocarbon products.
c-rational
(2,590 posts)on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the commentary on Ayn Rand was most appreciated.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Touché
safeinOhio
(32,661 posts)the smell of cat pee.
justhanginon
(3,289 posts)when I was first starting out in the engineering field we had a big blue print machine, I believe it was called an Ozalid Printer which used ammonia as a developer. As the last one hired it was my duty to run the prints and tend to the machine. I was filling it one day with a large jug of ammonia, dropped the damn thing, it broke and cleared out our engineering department in a hurry, probably 15 or 20 guys in the room. This predates air conditioned offices so all they could do was open all the windows and bring in fans. About an hour later we finally all returned to work.
Embarassing, you bet! Did I get fired, thankfully no. I would imagine the boss probably mentioned something about being a little more careful in the future.
hunter
(38,309 posts)People have been killed and maimed in accidental ammonia releases.
Nebraska involve anhydrous ammonia. Up to 96% of them are
preventable through increased operator training, improved procedures,
and better communication of lessons learned.
Accidental ammonia releases cause injuries and death to
employees, emergency response personnel, and people in
surrounding communities.
--more--
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/accident_prevention_ammonia_refrigeration_5-20-15.pdf
California requires training and certification to handle anhydrous ammonia.
There is no benefit in Mr. Gordon's scheme.