Hydrogen as an aircraft fuel source ?

[Flying Binghi]

Been a couple of hydrogen posts about so thought I'd start a thread...

Possible problems:

- The weight of the fuel tank may be the limitation.

- Corrosive nature of the fuel.

- Why bother. When natural oil runs out we can still make avgas/jet out of coal or methane hydrates or even out of the air with solar panel power.

- ?





.

[rutan around]

Okaaay Binghi I'll bite.

ARE WE USING THE WRONG GAS ?
1. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Australian scientists unlocked a product that would earn huge export dollars and create tens of thousands of Australian jobs? Better still if this product could provide cheap sustainable clean energy forever? (i)
2. But wait there’s more. What if it could prevent the closure of the Curtis Island LNG plants, keep many power stations economically operational, utilise megatons of flood waters, and re-invigorate towns hit hard as coal mines close? Just a dream? Not at all.

3. Just as science is telling us of the devastating damage that coal and gas burning is wreaking on our biosphere, science has made a breakthrough which if developed will allow us to affordably use the cleanest fuel known to man.

4. Hydrogen (H2) is often described as the ultimate clean fuel. The only emission arising from the use of Hydrogen is water. You can also manufacture H2 completely renewably. (ii)
5. The major problem with H2 is storage and transportation. It has very small molecules which leak out of hoses and containers, as well as making metals brittle and thereby weakening them. H2 requires a lot of energy to compress or to liquefy it down to a useful energy-dense volume.

6. Chemical engineers have long known that Ammonia (NH3) contains a high density of H2. It actually has greater H2 density by volume than liquid H2. Ammonia becomes a liquid at -33⁰C at normal atmospheric pressure. Compare that with LNG at -160⁰C, and liquid H2 at -253⁰C. So comparatively ammonia is easy to liquefy and store. (iii)
7. Ammonia is the second most manufactured chemical in the world, after sulphuric acid, with some 200 million tons being manufactured each year. Obviously world-wide its storage and transportation is well understood. Internal combustion engines with modification can use ammonia directly as a fuel, and indeed it was used with liquid oxygen to power the X15, the fastest aircraft ever built at 7,274 kph. (iv)

8. However, it is the ability to transport hydrogen economically in the form of liquid ammonia, by road, rail, sea, or pipeline, that has long held the interest of scientists. Separating H2 from NH3 economically has been a difficult problem until a recent discovery by Australia’s CSIRO scientists. (v) They have developed a metal mesh so fine that once ammonia disassociates at about 430⁰C it allows the tiny H2 molecules through but not the larger Nitrogen ones. The N2 can be released or retained as desired, and the H2 used as a fuel. The separation could be done at the point of H2 sale, or as technology improves, on board the vehicle using the H2.

9. The most efficient way of using the H2 to power a vehicle would be in a fuel cell, resulting in more than double the efficiency of internal combustion engines. However, with little modification current internal combustion engines can use ammonia as a fuel without separating it into its components. This would allow today’s vehicles to continue in use until new fuel cell vehicles become readily available. (vi)

SO HOW WOULD IT WORK IN PRACTICE IN GLADSTONE OR THE REST OF AUSTRALIA? (vii)
10. Clean energy (e.g. wave, wind, hydro, photovoltaic, fusion) would make electricity to supply normal daily needs. Any excess electricity would be sent to a plant to manufacture ammonia. This field is rapidly evolving and would involve scientists selecting the most cost-effective way of making NH3. The Haber Bosch method appears to have been replaced by solid state electrochemical synthesis of ammonia. (viii) Part of this new technology is already in use on Curtis island to extract Nitrogen from air.

11. The ammonia would then be piped to Curtis Is LNG plant (probably standing idle due to gas shortage and world-wide court action (ix)). Here it is liquefied at an easy -33⁰C reducing its volume to 1/850. From Curtis Is the ammonia would be piped or trucked to wherever it is needed in Australia. It would be used to fire gas-powered base load power stations in small towns where it is not economical to connect to the grid.

Major previously coal powered stations could be converted to ammonia or H2. All the electrical distribution system could then stay in place. The only emissions from this process are water and nitrogen.

12. Ships previously built to carry LNG could transport surplus ammonia to overseas countries not as blessed as Australia with sun and wind.
13. If we move rapidly to an ammonia economy we could be world leaders in clean energy supply and technology. Australia more than most countries has abundant sunshine and wind. In producing ammonia we would have an endless supply of a sought-after product. With ammonia as an energy carrier we would be selling our wind and sunshine to the world.

14. All that is required now is for the politicians to publicly acknowledge the dangerous nature of burning fossil fuels (i) (ii), and to explain to the public that there is a way we can produce unlimited clean energy while at the same time boosting jobs and overseas exports.
15. As a forward-thinking person are you willing to consider new ideas?

The current Federal Government is considering spending billions on a new coal-fired power station which at best will still put out more than half the CO2 of current coal-fired power stations.
16. Why not put that money into a clean, reliable, renewable, affordable job rich energy future?

[tail wheel]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft

I vaguely recall a Lockheed (?) hydrogen powered aircraft design concept maybe 40 years ago, that never got beyond the design stage.

[tdracer]

Hydrogen is not a fuel source as such - although it can be used as an energy storage medium (basically a very good battery). So for starters you'll still need an energy source to create the H2. Today, the cheapest and most efficient way - by far - to create H2 is to take natural gas and strip off the carbon. So much for being carbon neutral (with current technology).
If we assume that we have a large source of environmentally friendly energy - windmills, solar, pixie dust, whatever - we still need an efficient method of creating H2 from that energy source. Electrolysis works, but with current technology is very inefficient - so either we need a breakthrough that makes large scale electrolysis efficient and viable, or a new technology to turn energy into H2.
OK, so we've solved that and we have large sources of H2 available. While H2 has great energy density per unit weight, it's horrible per unit volume. So we either need to compress it to a thousands of PSI, or cool it to cryogenic temperatures so it's a liquid, and even then it's density per volume is a small fraction of Jet A. So to give an aircraft reasonable range, we need a massive fuel tank that has to be able to handle very high pressures and/or very low temperatures (read HEAVY and EXPENSIVE) Such a fuel tank isn't going to fit in the wing like what we do today with Jet A - to be even remotely efficient it needs to be round or cylindrical - the obvious answer being to put in the fuselage (you know, the same place where the payload goes today).
So, what we have is an aircraft that is expensive to build, expensive to fuel, can't fly very far, and can't carry very much, and isn't remotely viable given current technology.
OR, you can grow algae and use it to make biofuel Jet A which done properly is basically carbon neutral, using technology that exists today, works in today's aircraft and is already being used on a small scale, and is already approaching being cost effective compared to fossil fuels.

[megan]

rutan, the only problem with ammonia is that it is classified in some jurisdictions as an extremely hazardous substance, and is subject to strict reporting requirements by facilities which produce, store, or use it in significant quantities. It's dangerous stuff.

That was the Lockheed CL-400 Suntan Tailwheel. A study which lead to the SR-71.

[PDR1]

Hydrogen is not a fuel source as such - although it can be used as an energy storage medium (basically a very good battery). So for starters you'll still need an energy source to create the H2.

That's true for current ready-to-use technologies, but the "bio-hydrogen" concept is looking very promising (using genetically-modified algae to perform photo-desynthesis on sea water in large areas of shallow ocean).

But I agree that the stuff is still too bulky and problematic to be a practicable alternative to AvTur [etc].

PDR

[le Pingouin]

Why would we use ammonia which is highly toxic and liable to produce NOx when burnt at high temperature, when we could produce methane using the same excess electricity?

[Sunfish]

lethally stupid debate until an efficient way of storing hydrogen is discovered. energy density in terms of kw/cm3 is the defining metric. on that basis liquid petroleum based fuels win hands down. Ammonia? toxic.

[rutan around]

Why would we use ammonia which is highly toxic and liable to produce NOx when burnt at high temperature, when we could produce methane using the same excess electricity?
Le Pingouin I thought you of all people would know better. NH3 when burnt gives water and nitrogen as harmless emissions. It produces less NOx than gasoline engines and is easily nullified with a catalytic converter.

(iii) https://nh3fuelassociation.org/comparisons/

Methane WTF? The whole idea of going to a Hydrogen / Ammonia economy is to stop putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
Ammonia is toxic but is not carcinogenic like gasoline and is much harder to ignite than either gasoline or methane. 200 million tons of it are made worldwide per year with a good safety record. Don't confuse it with ammonium nitrate.

[rutan around]

energy density in terms of kw/cm3 is the defining metric. on that basis liquid petroleum based fuels win hands down. Ammonia? toxic. Sunfish the name of the game is clean energy. Petroleum based fuels put themselves out of the game because of their CO2 emissions. U235 has great energy density too but I don't want it or it's waste anywhere near me.

[rutan around]

and is subject to strict reporting requirements by facilities which produce, store, or use it in significant quantities. It's dangerous stuff.Megan you are correct but handling it is no more onerous than handling gasoline and easier than LNG. 200 million tons per year of ammonia has has given the industry plenty of experience in handling it safely.

[kaz3g]

lethally stupid debate until an efficient way of storing hydrogen is discovered. energy density in terms of kw/cm3 is the defining metric. on that basis liquid petroleum based fuels win hands down. Ammonia? toxic.


Storage and safety of those in close proximity of both hydrogen and ammonia are serious issues. How do you protect the driver and pax if something goes wrong?


kaz

[le Pingouin]

Burning carbon based fuels isn't a problem if you're synthesizing it from atmospheric sources. Carbon neutral.

[rutan around]

Storage and safety of those in close proximity of both hydrogen and ammonia are serious issues. How do you protect the driver and pax if something goes wrong?

A good way to find out would to contact the manufacturers currently selling ammonia or hydrogen powered cars. LPG and LNG are both pretty dangerous near naked flames yet we don't hear of many cars that run on those gasses exploding. Maybe their manufacturers could shed some light on the subject.

[Sunfish]

rutan is hopelessly ignorant of the logistics (distribution) of new energy media. they aren't easy to employ. care to think for example of driving an electric car outside major cities?

[criticalmass]

The Skunk Works investigated a Hydrogen-fuelled aircraft decades ago and came to the conclusion the thing would be mostly a vast flying fuel-tank if it were to have any decent range or capability. They abandoned it.

The technology today is the same as it was then as far as liquifying and storing Hydrogen is concerned. Apart from the size of the "flying fuel-tank" needed to carry it, the fuel itself is still just too damn dangerous and too dam hard to distribute and handle in any significant quantity for it to be feasible or economical.

If the Skunk Works says it's a dud - trust me, it's a dud. Read "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich and Leo Janos for the full story.

[rutan around]

rutan is hopelessly ignorant of the logistics (distribution) of new energy media.Maybe not as ignorant as you might think Sunfish. The whole energy problem is huge but as they say a journey of 1,000 miles starts with one step. My view of the order of events goes something like this :-

1 Recognize and accept that there is a problem. (man made climate change)
2 Stop heading in the wrong direction. No NEW fossil fuel plants.
3 Engage the best and brightest scientific minds across all disciplines to determine the best way forward. ( Note it's scientific minds - not political or fact free shock jocks)
4 Immediately commence infrastructure work on the best pollution free solution or mix of solutions the scientists recommend.
5 Be flexible in adopting new and better energy plans if new discoveries are made and recognize that changing to a new energy source cannot happen overnight.
6 Any new system should be as much as possible fungible with the old one.

These are some reasons I'm advocating a hydrogen / ammonia economy. I would happily throw my support behind a better system if anyone has one.

Requirements for an ideal form of energy.

Must be:
1. Non-polluting
2. Storable, transportable, available on demand
3. Sustainable forever, or at least until a superior replacement is found.
4. Reasonably energy dense

Problems with our current energy sources:

1. Carbon based fuels are finite but long before they run out their pollution will have rendered the earth unfit for human and other life
2. Electrical energy from any source including renewables is difficult to store and not ideal for transporting or use in transport vehicles.
3. Hydrogen, sometimes referred to as the ultimate clean fuel, is difficult to store and to transport in its pure form.

A Promising solution to the above requirements and problems.

AMMONIA NH3

8 things I’ve learned about ammonia.

1. It is the second most manufactured chemical in the world – 200 million tons per annum.
2. It liquifies at a surprisingly high temperature, at -33⁰C. The lowest ever Antarctic temperature recorded was -94.7⁰C.
3. By volume, liquid ammonia is more hydrogen dense than liquid hydrogen, thereby making it an excellent transport and storage medium for H2.
4. Internal combustion engines can run on NH3 and were in WW2 in some places eg Belgium. Emissions are pure water and Nitrogen. Prototype NH3 cars have recently been built in South Korea and Japan.
5. Australia’s CSIRO recently invented a metal mesh so fine that it can economically separate H2 molecules from N2 molecules, thus making fuel cell hydrogen cars more viable.
6. Numerous parts of the world already have large distribution systems for ammonia.
7. Burnt NH3 produces no greenhouse gases.
8. Internal combustion engines can use up to 50:1 compression ratio when using ammonia.

[rutan around]

Burning carbon based fuels isn't a problem if you're synthesizing it from atmospheric sources. Carbon neutral.My apologies Le Pingouin I didn't realize you meant the power was to synthesize the methane from the air. Fossil LNG uses so much power in cleaning and refrigeration that they have their own gas turbine power station on Curtis Island.That's why I thought you were using fossil methane. You are correct that it would be carbon neutral so at the end of the day it would come down to cost. LNG is mostly methane and it liquefies at at minus 160*c . NH3 liquefies at minus 33*c so NH3 is cheaper and easier to liquefy and transport. I don't know how the manufacturing costs compare.It would be an interesting exercise to see how the two products compare.

[Sunfish]

rutan, the "scientific minds" you posit are a waste of time and money. i speak from experience.

consider the logistics of designing and constructing distribution centres and fuelling stations capable of allowing mother to refuel her car with liquid ammonia (with a baby in the back seat). then think about the safety precautions necessary for fire brigades to handle a car crash. Gaseous Ammonia is effing toxic! liquid ammonia more so.

consider first the logistics of electric car recharging at service stations on the hume highway when current recharge times are of the order of 45 minutes minimum. then consider the electricity grid feeding that network of service stations.

to put it another way; someone tell i'm e's dreaming.

[rutan around]

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hydrogen+car+refueling+japan&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj55qqrsabWAhXMTLwKHV8DCKQQsAQIOw&biw=1336&bih=580

If they can do explosive hydrogen safely why not ammonia? The lass in the photo didn't look too stressed.

[rutan around]

Sunfish perhaps this is a good time to remember a famous quote from Arthur C. Clarke.

'When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.'

[tdracer]

Rutan, you're missing something painfully obvious to most of us:
Biofuels, properly done, are pretty much carbon neutral. Biofuel technology already exists and is rapidly improving. Biofuel is readily compatible with the existing fossil fuel infrastructure and in fact is currently using the existing fossil fuel infrastructure. Biofuel has more or less the same energy density as fossil fuel, works just fine in existing engines designed for fossil fuels, and requires pretty much the same handling procedures and safeguards as today's fossil fuels (which have been optimized by a century of wide-spread use).
Instead, you want to replace it with H2/ammonia, something that is:
1) impractical to impossible with current technology, and the technology to make it viable isn't even on the horizon
2) is incompatible with current infrastructure
3) ammonia is highly toxic in pure form - far more so that most fossil fuels
4) still has only a fraction of the energy density




Do the math...

[megan]

rutan, the hazards associated with anhydrous ammonia IMHO would preclude its use. It is not to be carried by ANY aircraft under ANY circumstance, irrespective of quantity or packaging. That alone says something.

https://www.amsa.gov.au/environment/national-plan/supporting-documents/documents/Ammonia%20(Anhydrous)%20MSDS.pdf

https://www.airgas.com/msds/001003.pdf

[Sunfish]

Rute; I agree with Clarkes quote, but again, i am focussed on the logistics and safety of energy sources. There is a huge gap between what can be demonstrated in a Lab and what can be deployed and bridging that gap typically costs hundreds of millions of dollars, if it can be bridged at all. Ammonia gas, even in quite low concentrations is toxic. what you are talking about is deploying a fuel source (ammonia) in simply massive quantities in an environment where it is going to need to be handled by totally unskilled and perhaps irresponsible people. A single Ammonia leak has the capacity to require the evacuation of huge areas. you might as well suggest fuelling cars with nitroglycerin.

http://www.newslincolncounty.com/archives/185576

[kaz3g]

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hydrogen+car+refueling+japan&client=firefox-b&dcr=0&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj55qqrsabWAhXMTLwKHV8DCKQQsAQIOw&biw=1336&bih=580

If they can do explosive hydrogen safely why not ammonia? The lass in the photo didn't look too stressed.

Hydrogen is an odourless, colourless gas which is explosive when reacted with an oxidant but innocuous of itself.

Ammonia is corrosive so much so that liquid ammonia will corrode most common metal piping including those made of galvanised iron and copper. Concentrated solutions or gaseous ammonia will dissolve mucous membranes....ingest it or breathe it in and you will likely die. Ammonia is a strongly hydrophilic, nonflammable gas but will ignite at a temperature of 1204°F within vapor concentration limits between 15% and 28%. (Paper ignites at 450°F, coal at 750°F). Outside conditions that would support these vapor concentrations are rare. As noted elsewhere, it is easily liquified hence its early use in refrigeration until it became apparent the dangers outweighed the benefits.

Kaz

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

1 Recognize and accept that there is a problem. (man made climate change)
And if there isn't, ie man isn't making the climate change, ignore all points after.

Burnt NH3 produces no greenhouse gases.

But someone will have an issue with lots of Nitrogen being pumped into the air, even though it too is a plant food like CO2, which wasn't really an issue until the zealots got hold of it. Now any and all carbon is demonised. They don't want us burning anything. Just living on sun rays and wind zephyrs.

[Captain Dart]

...and green pixie dust for base load and South Australia while we export our uranium and coal.

[Band a Lot]

I remember having a house phone with a rotary dial and a stubborn rip off monopoly Telco.


I didn't even dream of having a computer or even heard of the internet.

* Now my phone is in my pocket and is my computer and hooks up to the internet multiple ways including WIFI that my kids cant imagine life with out, I can go a few days before a recharge.


Any research into these alternate fuels and storage methods can lead to a game changing break through and this often happens by a mistake. Then once feasible, technology can rapidly evolve.

Getting aviation regulators approvals might actually be the most expensive and time consuming part.

[rutan around]

Sunny said

Rute; I agree with Clarkes quote, but again, i am focussed on the logistics and safety of energy sources. There is a huge gap between what can be demonstrated in a Lab and what can be deployed and bridging that gap typically costs hundreds of millions of dollars, if it can be bridged at all. Ammonia gas, even in quite low concentrations is toxic. what you are talking about is deploying a fuel source (ammonia) in simply massive quantities in an environment where it is going to need to be handled by totally unskilled and perhaps irresponsible people. A single Ammonia leak has the capacity to require the evacuation of huge areas. you might as well suggest fuelling cars with nitroglycerin.

Ammonia Leak on the Newport Bayfront ? Leak fixed, but ammonia takes time to dissipate ? News Lincoln County (http://www.newslincolncounty.com/archives/185576)

Repair work earlier this morning caused a temporary ammonia leak. The situation was quickly contained and there are no reported injuries.

Sunny it doesn't exactly sound like the end of the world as we know it. Gas and gasoline have their problems too.

Car crash in Sydney CBD: three dead in collision (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/three-dead-as-car-flips-and-catches-fire-in-sydneys-cbd/news-story/96971766e23deb27c7d74e56bc2639c2)

This fire probably would not have occurred with H2 , NH3 or methane for the cars fuel due to their very robust fuel tanks and shut off mechanisms.Of these 3 fuels NH3 is by far the hardest to ignite.

[megan]

rutan, ammonia is the refrigerant of choice in industrial applications. You need to ask yourself why it is not so in the household market.

Hazards of ammonia

Exposure to more than 2,000 ppm – fatal in 30 minutes, 6,000 ppm – fatal in minutes, 10,000 ppm – fatal and intolerable to unprotected skin.

Anhydrous ammonia is not dangerous when handled properly, but if not handled carefully it can be extremely dangerous. It is not as combustible as many other products that we use and handle every day. However, concentrations of gas burn and require precautions to avoid fires.

Mild exposure can cause irritation to eye, nose and lung tissues. Prolonged breathing can cause suffocation. When large amounts are inhaled, the throat swells shut and victims suffocate. Exposure to vapours or liquid also can cause blindness

The water-absorbing nature of anhydrous ammonia that causes the greatest injury (especially to the eyes, nose, throat or lungs), and which can cause permanent damage. It is a colourless gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperature, but under pressure readily changes into a liquid. Anhydrous ammonia has a high affinity for water. Anhydrous ammonia is a hygroscopic compound, this means it will seek moisture source that may be the body of the operator, which is composed of 90 percent water. When a human body is exposed to anhydrous ammonia the chemical freeze burns its way into the skin, eyes or lungs. This attraction places the eyes, lungs, and skin at greatest risk because of their high moisture content. Caustic burns result when the anhydrous ammonia dissolves into body tissue. Most deaths from anhydrous ammonia are caused by severe damage to the throat and lungs from a direct blast to the face. An additional concern is the low boiling point of anhydrous ammonia. The chemical freezes on contact at room temperature. It will cause burns similar to, but more severe than, those caused by dry ice. If exposed to severe cold flesh will become frozen. At first, the skin will become red (but turn subsequently white); the affected area is painless, but hard to touch, if left untreated the flesh will die and may become gangrenous.

The human eye is a complex organ made up of about 80 percent water. Ammonia under pressure can cause extensive, almost immediate damage to the eye. The ammonia extracts the fluid and destroys eye cells and tissue in minutes.

Handlers of the product are required to be trained, and to wear chemical protective clothing such as gloves, aprons, boots, chemical safety goggles, and a chemical cartridge respirator with cartridge(s) providing protection against ammonia.

Do you see Mum with a car load of kids pulling up at the local service station to fill up with those requirements in place?

[rutan around]

Ammonia is one of the most widely produced and utilized chemicals in the U.S., and while numerous lab studies have been undertaken, there is no consensus on the odor threshold. In contrast to controlled lab conditions used to determine odor thresholds, the field conditions following unintentional chemical releases are uncontrolled and highly variable due to many factors. A critical component in managing the response to these chemical spills involves understanding how lab data could be applied to uncontrolled field conditions in and around the affected community. It was postulated that analysis of field data collected following accidental releases of ammonia might augment and verify data collected in lab experiments. The widespread transport and use of ammonia has resulted in a number of unintentional releases of ammonia into the environment as a result of train derailments, tanker spills, and plant accidents. In the field studies reported here, air monitoring data were collected following a variety of accidental ammonia releases. Of 6539 readings between 0 and 1 ppm, odor was detected only in 208 samples (3.2%). Of 65 readings between 1.1 and 1.5 ppm, odor was detected in 51 samples (78.5%). These data are consistent with an ammonia odor threshold within a concentration range of 1.1–1.5 ppm. This level is consistent with the recently published odor threshold data for ammonia, but is significantly lower than frequently cited historical data. Furthermore, a review of the ammonia literature demonstrates that the ammonia odor threshold is significantly lower than levels that produce eye, nose, or throat irritation.The last 3 lines give the clue. If ammonias smell can be detected at 1.5 ppm it should in most cases give plenty of warning. No one would hang around for half an hour breathing 2,000 ppm.


Anhydrous ammonia is not dangerous when handled properly, but if not handled carefully it can be extremely dangerous.Absolutely correct Megan . However she same can be said of gasoline and LNG. Each one has their individual dangers but are about on a par with each other in terms of overall risk in transportation and at the point of use. The big trouble with the hydrocarbon fuels is greenhouse gas not to mention hidden costs and dangers in their extraction , transportation and refining.

1 Health problems: An extract from an article by business commentator Ian Verrender titled The Hidden Costs of Coal sums it up.

‘But there are other costs that the president has ignored with his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord. Most of those relate to the health of Americans.
‘According to the US Environmental Protection Authority – which has been neutered under the Trump administration – the clean power plan would prevent around 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks amongst children, and 300,000 missed work and school days each year.’
More on fossil fuels
The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels | Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.Wb5q1tH-vIU)

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If you check out the Union of Concerned Scientists (where 40 out of 56 of them aren't even scientists), when they're not asking for donations, they're pretty much toeing and pushing the alarmist line, so you're only ever going to get one perspective out of them.

[rutan around]

Traffic_Is_Er_Was,
If you read the article you would have seen it did no more than report the situation as stands today in harvesting fossil fuels. It is investigative journalism and as everyone knows you don't need to be a scientist to do that.

Maybe you can list the parts of the article you dispute. Is it the number of deaths related to coal mining, the number of black lung sufferers, the annual oil drilling fatalities ,the number of oil transportation accidents or is it something else? Do you genuinely think finding the figures for the headings I've listed require a science degree?

[Flying Binghi]

The 'science' of EPA fabrication...

"...One of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) longest and most successful air pollution standards is based on a taxpayer-funded study plagued by “data fabrication and falsification,” according to a veteran toxicologist..."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/08/exclusive-researcher-claims-to-have-evidence-one-of-epas-most-successful-clean-air-rules-is-based-on-fabricated-data/





.

[rutan around]

So Binghi on the strength of your discovery are you going to chuck your CO monitor out of the plane and leave that cracked exhaust till the next 100 hrly?http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

[megan]

but are about on a par with each other in terms of overall risk in transportation and at the point of useSo you are saying all the safety precautions that are required for handling anhydrous ammonia are not required - the training, dress etc? As a hazardous substance petrol is very benign in comparison when it comes to handling.

[mcoates]

First 4-seat aircraft powered by hydrogen fuel cells takes off today (http://www.pipistrel.si/news/first-4seat-aircraft-powered-by-hydrogen-fuel-cells-takes-of)

Project Hydrogenius (http://www.pipistrel.si/news/project_hydrogenius)

[rutan around]

Megan for what it's worth I found this in an article on ammonia powered cars.

Ammonia is available almost everywhere, generally through agricultural or industrial suppliers. For example, in the US, companies like JR Simplot (http://www.simplot.com/ag_suppliers/distribution) distributes it to farmers, and companies like Airgas (http://airgas.com/browse/productDetail.aspx?Category=83&product=AM%20AH150) supply small tanks for industrial use. “Compressed” ammonia is standard – that’s how it comes – but we’re talking about low pressures: I think Airgas’s ammonia tanks are pressurized at 114psi (compare (http://www.airgassgcatalog.com/catalog/) that to their hydrogen tanks pressurized at 2,000-2,400 psi).
Commercial ammonia engines are only just starting to be demonstrated, so the infrastructure for ammonia cars, like filling stations, doesn’t exist … yet. In Iowa alone there are about 800 ammonia filling stations, so there is plenty of existing, proven infrastructure that could be adapted and expanded for ammonia vehicles. The fueling process itself will be similar to how you’d refill a tank with propane: it would be stored in mildly pressurized tanks, and it would be transferred into a vehicle’s fuel tank as a liquid. As of today there are over 2,600 commercial propane fueling stations (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/propane_locations.html) across the US.
Engine modifications would be required. These would be similar to propane conversions, but different …
Cracker: Ammonia conversions might install an on-board cracker. This is a device that goes between the fuel tank and the engine. It takes some of the ammonia fuel and breaks the nitrogen-hydrogen bonds to produce pure nitrogen and hydrogen. The hydrogen then mixes back in with the ammonia fuel, and this allows the ammonia to burn much more efficiently than it would on its own. (This cracker is the same technology that would allow you to use ammonia to fuel a hydrogen car, either using an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell).
Components: Ammonia corrodes certain metals – copper, zinc, silver – so any components containing these metals or their alloys, like brass, would need to be replaced.
Safety: Ammonia is very smelly, which is a great early warning system: if there’s even a small leak, you’ll know about it. More importantly, ammonia is an inhalation hazard, so any engine conversion will need to be absolutely safe and leak-free.
Tuning: Ammonia doesn’t burn in the same way as gasoline or diesel, so engine controls could be introduced or adjusted to optimize the engine. You’d want to ensure that the combustion was stochiometric – meaning that exactly the right amounts of fuel and air combust to produce absolutely clean emissions of pure nitrogen and pure water (ie: 4[NH3] + 3[O2] –> 2[N2] + 6[H2O]) because you wouldn’t want either ammonia or partially combusted ammonia (NOx), coming out of your tailpipe.
Different engine developers are working on different kinds of vehicles – some on an ammonia / gasoline dual fuel, like the Marangoni Eco Explorer (https://nh3fuelassociation.org/2013/04/25/ammonia-fuel-marangoni-eco-explorer/), some are working on pure ammonia engines (https://nh3fuelassociation.org/2013/01/01/sturman-industries/), some on spark ignitions (https://nh3fuelassociation.org/2013/01/01/hydrogen-engine-center/), some on compression ignitions (https://nh3fuelassociation.org/2013/01/01/iowa-energy-center-ammonia-diesel-engines). There have been some successful conversions and demonstration projects, and a number of companies who might be capable of offering conversion services when there’s sufficient demand (see here (http://www.nh3car.com/) and here (http://www.icomnorthamerica.com/) and here (http://www.nh3fuel.com/) and here (http://www.cleangreenengines.com/product/anhydrous-ammonia/) and here (http://www.eliminatorproducts.com/news_detail.aspx?news_id=6)).

[Flying Binghi]

So Binghi on the strength of your discovery are you going to chuck your CO monitor out of the plane and leave that cracked exhaust till the next 100 hrly?http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

.....nor am i going to stop drinking coffee because it contains deadly caffeine, nor am i going to stop drinking water even though people drown in water, nor am i going to stop eating vegetables because some contain deadly arsenic, nor am i going to stop breathing because i exhale mystical world changing CO2..:hmm:

You'd think that if the EPA only worked with one corrupt bit of so-called research then when it were pointed out to them they would be all over the issue to remove the corruption... although, if large volumes of EPA decisions were based on corrupt research then they'd probably not want to even admit to any corrupt research what-so-ever. And the EPA response has been..... (insert cricket noise smilie here)..:hmm:


Meanwhile, over at NASA. A former NASA GISS employee of seven years is pointing out the corruption there...
"...Start with defunding NASA GISS where this whole global warming nonsense started...

JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au)





.

[megan]

rutan, what refrigeration consultant has to say.When installed correctly and with the right safeguards, ammonia is a very efficient refrigerant, especially in large industrial applications. Due to its toxicity, however, ammonia has been at the center of a number of incidents that have led to loss of life, and as a result, there are grave health and safety concerns surrounding its ongoing use in the modern workplace. Additionally, ammonia systems generally require large capital investment due to the nature of the infrastructure involved.Glaciem Cooling ? Glaciem Cooling (http://www.glaciemcooling.com/#home)

Why isn't ammonia used in motor vehicle air conditioners, nor household fridges and freezers, if as you say it's a no problem product? Used to be used in household items in the early days.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It is investigative journalism and as everyone knows you don't need to be a scientist to do that.

Well then don't call yourselves the "Union of Concerned Scientists" when most of you are not. Make it the "Union of Concerned Analysts" which most of you are, or the Union of Concerned Investigative Journalists" which all of you are not. But of course those names don't add that veneer of respectability.

I'm not disputing the figures, but you are hardly likely to get an unbiased view from that "union". They aren't going to tell you, for example, that coal mining (0.15 deaths per million production hours) is only marginally more dangerous in the US than other forms of mining (0.1 deaths per million production hours) and that the industry that kills most workers is fishing. They aren't trying to shut iron or copper mining down. Or get us to stop eating tuna.

[rutan around]

Well then don't call yourselves the "Union of Concerned Scientists" when most of you are not. Make it the "Union of Concerned Analysts" which most of you are, or the Union of Concerned Investigative Journalists" which all of you are not. But of course those names don't add that veneer of respectability.I concede that you have a valid point.


I'm not disputing the figures, but you are hardly likely to get an unbiased view from that "union".I don't think their statement is a matter of bias. The figures simply show that coal mining is not scott free in terms of human life and health. On the face of it those mining figures are probably an acceptable risk but they are not the main reason we are moving away from coal. It's after it's burned the trouble starts. The rest of the article is food for thought.

marginally more dangerous in the US than other forms of mining (0.1 deaths per million production hours)This means coal mining is 50% more dangerous than other mining.

If the profitability of my business increased 'marginally' by 50% over current figures I'd be very happy.http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

[Flying Binghi]

Originally posted to the 2 stroke thread. My reply more appropriate here...

via Sunfish (2 stroke thread):
...Examples: Mum with three little kids in her SUV trying to fill it with liquid ammonia...


Full computer drive cars and trucks will soon be in daily usage so i would suspect that the 'refuelling', be that petrol, diesel, hydrogen, moonbeams, whatever, will be done automatically with no human involvement. With the computer cars accidents of all types will be dramatically reduced so the increased dangers of hydrogen may not factor into peoples concerns. As to aircraft usage...?




.