TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Chemists discover new way to harness energy from ammonia

62 pointsby theduder99over 3 years ago

9 comments

bryanlarsenover 3 years ago
&gt; &quot;One of the next challenges I would like to think about is how to generate ammonia from water, instead of hydrogen gas,&quot; Trenerry says. &quot;The dream is to put in water, air and sunlight to create a fuel.&quot;<p>Producing ammonia from water is a lot easier than producing it from natural gas the way it&#x27;s currently done now. The drawback is that it requires a <i>lot</i> more energy. There are 6 steps in the process here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ammonia_production" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ammonia_production</a><p>If you use water &amp; electricity &amp; air as the feedstock, it&#x27;s a 2 step process:<p>1: electrolysize water to produce H2 2: Haber-Bosch 3 H2 + N2 → 2 NH3<p>(In practice step 1 is multiple steps of purification and adding electrolytes)<p>In many situations, it&#x27;s cheaper to convert hydrogen to ammonia, transport the ammonia, then convert back than it is to transport hydrogen.<p>That&#x27;s exactly what Korean steelmakers are doing to source green hydrogen: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kedglobal.com&#x2F;newsView&#x2F;ked202107160003" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kedglobal.com&#x2F;newsView&#x2F;ked202107160003</a>
评论 #29211819 未加载
lambdatronicsover 3 years ago
From the abstract[0]: they have a promising catalyst that could be used for a &quot;direct ammonia fuel cell&quot; operating at room temperature. It involves ruthenium, which is an expensive rare earth element.<p>For context, it&#x27;s possible to &#x27;crack&#x27; ammonia into hydrogen and nitrogen &amp; feed that to a PEM fuel cell, but this requires extra equipment, high temperatures, and consumes some of the output energy. Solid oxide fuel cells can also run directly on ammonia, but that&#x27;s b&#x2F;c they operate at high temperature [650 C].[1] Solid acid fuel cells can turn ammonia into hydrogen at 250 C -- but this is still extra equipment &amp; consumes energy.[2] Ammonia can also be burned in modified gas turbines, which IMO would be a great way to quickly displace natural gas in peaker plants, to enable higher renewables penetration w&#x2F;o relying on fossil fuels to take up the slack.<p>Ammonia is a better hydrogen carrier than liquid or compressed hydrogen because storage is easier due to high energy density. The round-trip energy efficiency could also be higher.[3] It&#x27;s less flammable, but more toxic. For more, see [4]. It sounds like the real enabling technology would be direct fuel cells and direct electrosynthesis (reverse fuel cells) to get higher efficiency.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41557-021-00797-w" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41557-021-00797-w</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ammoniaenergy.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ammonia-for-fuel-cells-afc-sofc-and-pem&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ammoniaenergy.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;ammonia-for-fuel-cell...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.northwestern.edu&#x2F;stories&#x2F;2020&#x2F;11&#x2F;ammonia-to-green-hydrogen&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.northwestern.edu&#x2F;stories&#x2F;2020&#x2F;11&#x2F;ammonia-to-gre...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ammoniaenergy.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;round-trip-efficiency-of-ammonia-as-a-renewable-energy-transportation-media&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ammoniaenergy.org&#x2F;articles&#x2F;round-trip-efficiency...</a><p>[4]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.intechopen.com&#x2F;chapters&#x2F;40233" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.intechopen.com&#x2F;chapters&#x2F;40233</a>
评论 #29212810 未加载
评论 #29215217 未加载
评论 #29213247 未加载
gus_massaover 3 years ago
In case you are wondering, the molecule at the top is 2-Pyrroline <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pyrroline" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pyrroline</a> and as far as I can see it&#x27;s totally unrelated to the reaction discussed in the article.
评论 #29210903 未加载
xyzzy21over 3 years ago
Ammonia is like hydrogen - not a fuel source but merely a fuel storage medium.<p>Further we used to common use ammonia for refrigeration before Freon became a thing - the reason we don&#x27;t use it for that except in very limited large scale applications, is that it&#x27;s SUPER POISONOUS and prone to leaking and killing.<p>So pushing ammonia is another example of solving one problem but creating 5-10 more problems which our society ALREADY KNOWS WILL HAPPEN - because we&#x27;ve been there before and abandoned it for safety, economic and environmental reasons. It&#x27;s willful ignorance of history and science.
评论 #29214622 未加载
评论 #29212699 未加载
评论 #29213762 未加载
robthebrewover 3 years ago
&quot;If the reaction were housed in a fuel cell where ammonia and ruthenium react at an electrode surface, it could cleanly produce electricity without the need for a catalytic converter.&quot; If the ruthenium is not a catalytic converter, then what is it? A god particle?
评论 #29209919 未加载
评论 #29212591 未加载
评论 #29215090 未加载
评论 #29211285 未加载
dredmorbiusover 3 years ago
If you can produce synthetic ammonia without fossil fuel (natural gas) inputs, you can create synthetic hydrocarbon analogues of petroleum-based petrol (gasoline), kerosene (jet fuel), diesel, and possibly heavier grades of oil (marine bunker fuel). Though it&#x27;s worth noting that the latter are used not so much for their suitability in marine use as their <i>unsuitability</i> elsewhere, and lighter grades (kerosene or diesel) would be likely substitutes.<p>Ammonia is harmful or deadly when inhaled, produces a large quantity of NOx in normal combustion (TFA specifically addresses <i>this one point</i>), and is highly corrosive. It&#x27;s one of the five most harmful chemicals in regular use already, given limited industrial and agricultural applications. As a general-application fuel, particularly in scenarios in which fuel-based power systems cannot readibly be substituted (marine and aviation uses) would greatly increase hazards of such operations.<p>Synthetic fuels are lossy as all heck in round-trip energy return (on the order of 15--25% recovery as motive or generation output), but offer a very-well-understood, well-behaved, largely safe, and high-energy-density (by both weight and volume) option for very-long-term (100+ million years proved) energy storage. There&#x27;s very little else that fits that bill.<p>Fossil fuels are principally nonviable going forward due to net CO2 emissions. Synthetic fuels based on ocean or atmospheric CO2 extraction would be net-neutral. Costs are higher than present fossil fuels, but present fossil fuels are grossly mis-priced based on both pollution and cost-of-formation externalities excluded from present market prices. (The pricing error could be as high as millions of times --- markets can in fact be remarkably inefficient and inaccurate.)<p>Other externalities including localised polluton (NOx, CO, VOCs, particulates) would remain an issue, but can be reasonably well controlled with extant technologies. If net fuel usage is decreased through electrified transportation and changes in land-use, lifestyle, architectural, and industrial behaviours, use in shipping, aviation, mobile, and remote applications should be within reason.<p>Ammonia not so much.
评论 #29215831 未加载
throwaway743over 3 years ago
Excuse my ignorance, but could this possibly lead to an energy source powered by animal waste&#x2F;urine?
评论 #29214931 未加载
评论 #29214242 未加载
评论 #29214038 未加载
betwixthewiresover 3 years ago
I like talk of fuel cells, alternate energy storage mediums and all that. But there&#x27;s always the question of where the energy comes from.<p><i>All</i> energy we use comes from the sun. Every single drop of it. For a billion years plankton and algae were sequestered from the biosphere and converted to the explosive energy &quot;source&quot; we use now to allow for our population and standard of living, this is petroleum, but the energy came from the sun. We are lucky. Even wind, which is fluid current, is caused by convection from energy that originated in the sun. Hydroelectric is water rushing downwards, that was moved upwards by the sun evaporating water. Even <i>fission</i> is energy in elements that was stores there from fusion in the sun.<p>So where do you get the energy from? The entire earth needs energy from the sun for the biosphere to continue. You aren&#x27;t going to get the energy you got from it slowly accumulating over a billion years, waiting for us to find it, not without paving the earth in solar panels. Short of sending a dyson swarm to collect solar energy from the vast surface area of the sun that does not radiate onto the earth directly, you&#x27;re not going to get an energy source that is more environmentally friendly than burning petroleum, because you have to pave the natural landscape just to get a miniscule percentage of what tectonic activity accrued on our behalf for a billion years.<p>This is what people who talk about carbon neutral and environmentally friendly energy fail to grasp. There is energy out there that isn&#x27;t oil, but it requires more disruption to natural ecosystems than burning oil, and it is far less energy dense. The best thing that can be done is to use oil to launch solar panels into orbit around the sun and somehow send that energy here, what you&#x27;re ultimately doing is creating a lens to concentrate solar radiation to earth in a round about way. Bar that, you&#x27;re talking about eradicating a significant portion of the human population.
评论 #29215673 未加载
评论 #29215761 未加载
评论 #29215828 未加载
inter_netuserover 3 years ago
Well, at least now we&#x27;ll know about an accident upwind without needing to look.