A jug of ammonia (Not hard to keep liquid at room temperature with modest pressure.) has more hydrogen in it than a jug of pure liquid hydrogen!* (which is very hard to keep liquid even with huge pressures and very cold temperatures)

When you decompose ammonia (NH3) you get heat and can throw the N2 formed into the air and even Green Peace’s idiots** know that is OK.

The resulting H2 can be burned to H2O, which also is harmless to discharge into the air.

Ammonia is relative cheap to make - if it were not farmers would not be injecting solution of it (I think) into the soil of their farms. - I think that is the major commercial use of NH3 today.

I am not much of a chemist, but can someone who is tell me why do we not use these facts to make ammonia fuel for cars and trucks, etc?
---------------------------
*True because each molecule has 3 atoms of hydrogen, instead of 2 in it.
**The ones that have blocked the development of safe nuclear power in US for 30+years with the net result that much more CO2 has been dumped into the air and global warming is now a serious enviromental problem, not to mention all the SO2 that has been released, killing fish in Adrondac and N. European lakes, even killing some forests with the "acid rain" SO2 becomes. etc.

My contribution, although I'm not chemist.

Ammonia fuel cell

United States Patent 7157166

This invention refers to generating electrical energy comprising an ammonia fuel cell for generating electrical energy including a catalyst being in contact with a high temperature proton conducting membrane and the catalyst comprising at least one decomposition catalyst which causes NH3 to decompose to N2 and H2 and at least one catalytic anode which dissociates and ionizes H2 into H+ and electrons, the fuel cell further including at least one catalytic cathode for reaction of H+, electrons and oxygen to form H2O, an external circuit from the catalytic anode to the catalytic cathode, an ammonia source for introducing ammonia into the fuel cell, a gas exit for N2, and an oxygen source.


Also, Ammonia Cracker has been developed two years ago by Apollo Energy Systems to extract hydrogen from ammonia for fuel.

More here (http://pesn.com/2005/05/24/6900101_ZAP_ammonia_cracker/).

Creating the fertilizers (NH3) that farmers use requires a great deal of energy. Energy we get from fossil fuels.

Right now, most ammonia is manufactured from hydrogen and nitrogen, using a lot of electricity. Not much use cracking ammonia to get a raw material that it is manufactured from.

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

Here are some of the reasons for not using ammonia as opposed to hydrogen

1) It puts off Nitrous Oxide which is very bad for you

2) It smells awful

3) It is more expensive to produce than Hydrogen

Here are some of the reasons for not using ammonia as opposed to hydrogen
1) It puts off Nitrous Oxide which is very bad for you
2) It smells awful
3) It is more expensive to produce than HydrogenCan yo say a little more on (1)? Are you just referring to the NOx that is made when any fuel is burned in modern high compression / high temperature engine, or something specific to HN3?

On (2) THIS IS AN ADVANTAGE. In higher concentration it will kill you. It must be keep under compression at all times and if a small leak does occur, the strong smell can save your life.
Contrast this with the oderless CO that kills a few people every year. (Often they were keeping warm with the car's gasoline motor running while stuck in snow drift that blocked the dispersion of the exhaust, helped it seep into the car. That will never happen with ammonia, thanks to the smell and fact neither H2, & N2 nor H2O products of this system (as I understand it) are toxic.

On (3) and in answer to Metkron also:
Probably true NH3 is more expensive to make (as there is more stored energy stored in each molecule), but againthat is an advantage.
Important point to keep in mind is:
Both H2 and NH3 are energy transport systems, not energy sources. - Clearly when the cost of transport is included, room temperature NH3 system is much cheaper and much lighter in the car for much better fuel milage performance.

It would work great if you could get some kind of catalyst to help you break down the NH3 into N2 and H2. As is, there is no good way to do it. It would take you more energy to get hydrogen from the NH3 than you could hope to get back by burning it.

I suppose the smell could be a good thing but with combustion the products of the reaction must go somewhere. It would not be efficent to "can" it in another part of the car because not all will be used up. As for the NOx put off. Something is put off for all reactions. CO2 is put off from Combustion with gasoline and NOx is just what would be put off burning ammonia.

I suppose the smell could be a good thing but with combustion the products of the reaction must go somewhere. It would not be efficent to "can" it in another part of the car because not all will be used up. As for the NOx put off. Something is put off for all reactions. CO2 is put off from Combustion with gasoline and NOx is just what would be put off burning ammonia.I do not envision burning NH3,not even sure it will burn. One decomposes it and throws the very low cost, efficient, light-weight (compared to metal hydrides, cryogenic / very high pressure tanks, etc. H2 requires) "transport system" I.e. the nitrogen, as N2, away.

Both H2 and decomposed NH3 can be used in fuel cell electric moter car to proproduce zero NOx and in principle as not Carnot limited, more efficiet cars - perhapse more that twice as efficient as the 30 to 35% Carnot limited IC engine cars of today, but practical economic consideration (do not use lot of copper in the motors etc.) may limit the real world efficiency to only twice that of current cars.

Nasor I do not remember the details, but a catalytic decomposition system is well developed. - I read about it years ago - why I know the decomposition is exothermic. Probably, Plazma Inferno's patent reference tells at least one also.

On a small scale in a car, compressed tanks could be dangerous unless properly sheilded and this will hike the price of the car. As for "burning" the ammonia it is just a term I use for using something as energy in casual chemistry speak.

My contribution, although I'm not chemist.

Ammonia fuel cell

United States Patent 7157166

This invention refers to generating electrical energy comprising an ammonia fuel cell for generating electrical energy including a catalyst being in contact with a high temperature proton conducting membrane and the catalyst comprising at least one decomposition catalyst which causes NH3 to decompose to N2 and H2 and at least one catalytic anode which dissociates and ionizes H2 into H+ and electrons, the fuel cell further including at least one catalytic cathode for reaction of H+, electrons and oxygen to form H2O, an external circuit from the catalytic anode to the catalytic cathode, an ammonia source for introducing ammonia into the fuel cell, a gas exit for N2, and an oxygen source.


Also, Ammonia Cracker has been developed two years ago by Apollo Energy Systems to extract hydrogen from ammonia for fuel.

More here (http://pesn.com/2005/05/24/6900101_ZAP_ammonia_cracker/).

This one might make sense. Couldn't there also be a cycle to use the released hydrogen?

...As for "burning" the ammonia it is just a term I use for using something as energy in casual chemistry speak.I think you need to keep your thoughts separate to avoid confusion:

Burning can mean oxidation in a fuel cell, I admit, but if you want that to be understood, say that.

I also think that "burning ammonia" meansjust that - not decomposing ammonia and then either buring one of the decomposition product in an IC engine of a car OR using it as the fuel of fuel cell.

Even the discussion of the two catalyist fuel cell (in Plazma's post) keeps it clear that it is a two step process - decomposition followed by fuel cell use of the hydrogen.

no one can tell what you ae saying if you fail to distinguish these concptually different process by calling them all "burning" - at least I was not able to tell what you were referring to.

As far as your comments about the "ammonia car" - I agree that it would be more expensive, but note that the gasoline IC engine has had more than 100 years of development to bring the cost per horsepower of capacity down. Might be more fair to compare both systems after 10 years of progress in development of each.

This one might make sense. Couldn't there also be a cycle to use the released hydrogen?Yes. For example, if nuclear power were used to first produce H2 from electrolysis and also at the power plant, this H2 and N2 from the air were made into NH3, it could be sent long distances with less loss (and in hidden under ground pipes)* to cities and then distributed thru (in some cases existing natural gas pipelines) to individual homes where small fuel cells provide both heat (for making hot water etc) and electricity.

Certainly a transform of the existing energy system, more costly at least initially, but with zero release of CO2 and much higher efficiency than the current system which wastes at least 2/3 of the energy by the time it is used in the home.
-------------------------------
*Always amazes me how "ugly" many view the graceful aerodynamic wind generators yet say little about power line marching across the landscape, some time even building their homes along these lines.

OK, I made a mistake and should have read the link.

The ammonia cracker makes sense. Apparently it doesn't even have to use electricity. Too bad it won't generate enough power to actually liquefy the hydrogen.

I once had an adjunct teacher in high school physics. He was a real greeny hippy type. You could just tell by his whole attitude and he was only well-dressed and shaven so he could be a teacher. He did Peace Corps and taught classes to kids in Tanzania. He was in class one day expressing in a matter-of-fact tone that we could easily be driving water-powered cars if it weren't for the big oil and the powers that be. He's like, "Water has hydrogen! We can use the hydrogen to power our cars!"

"I'm like, but it requires energy to separate the hydrogen from the water. Water, itself as it is, is not a viable fuel. The energy that goes into breaking apart water into its constituent atoms is what make hydrogen and oxygen volatile chemicals. Its constituents atoms are volatile because they can be used as fuel. It's energy potential is often what makes a fuel volatile."

The guy was like, "Nope. We could have had water-powered cars in the 70's."

My real physics teacher understood what I was saying and knew I was right, but didn't say anything.

I guess the main question is, how easily can the hydrogen atoms be stripped off the ammonia molecules? Obviously energy is needed to break the bonds, to separate the hydrogen from the nitrogen, just like energy is needed to break the bonds of hydrogen from oxygen in water. But how much energy is needed to do it? If too much energy is needed, then it might be a completely fruitless endeavor. On the other hand, it might use very little energy, in which case ammonia might be a very good idea.

However, just because ammonia contains a lot of hydrogen doesn't make it a good potential fuel.

I think we're better off with engines that don't rely on internal explosions to combust the fuel. Hydrocarbons are only a problem because of soot. I have thought for a long time that steam engines are a better choice for powering hybrid electrics for that reason, that they can generate less pollution and the storage battery keeps the driver from having to wait for them to warm up.

The creation of ammonia is an endothermic process. Releasing the stored energy is exothermic, so the generation of electricity by cracking ammonia can work, as the article referenced above says. The Wikipedia article says that ammonia has also been used as rocket fuel with liquid oxygen for the oxidizer.

Billy, I apologize for any confusing tones that came off from me and I will try not to do it again. I agree that if ammonia is used extensivley in cars the cost will indeed be much cheaper. Unfortunatley it has been hard to get America on the track to hydrogen as an alternative fuel and any switches on that may confuse people as to think we don't know what we are doing. If the people do not support it the people in Washington will just keep going with something that can fatten their wallet. But, i'm straying from the chemical point of this thread. Ammonia is surely an alternative scource of energy but just about everything is or can be with proper reasearch.

I guess the main question is, how easily can the hydrogen atoms be stripped off the ammonia molecules? Obviously energy is needed to break the bonds, to separate the hydrogen from the nitrogen, just like energy is needed to break the bonds of hydrogen from oxygen in water. But how much energy is needed to do it?
Thermodynamically, you release energy when you go from 2 ammonia molecules and 3 oxygen molecules to 6 water molecules and 2 nitrogen molecules. So from an energy standpoint, it could work.

....I guess the main question is, how easily can the hydrogen atoms be stripped off the ammonia molecules? Obviously energy is needed to break the bonds, to separate the hydrogen from the nitrogen, just like energy is needed to break the bonds of hydrogen from oxygen in water. But how much energy is needed to do it? If too much energy is needed, then it might be a completely fruitless endeavor. On the other hand, it might use very little energy, in which case ammonia might be a very good idea....I am not a chemist but have read that the catalytic decomposition (at high temperature, I think, but that is not a chronic energy requirement for an exothermic process, if well insulated.) is an exothermic process. You could check this by comparing the binding energy in two molecules of NH3 with that in an N2 and 3 of H2*. I.e. six N-H bonds broken in the two NH3s and four stronger ones formed. I.e. you are forgetting the fact that twice as many new bound molecules are formed for those decomposed. - That is why I do believe what I have read about decomposition being exothermic.

by edit - I now see Nasor just said the over all process (water and N2 as final products) is exothermic, but even only the decompositioon stage is exothermic I believe and told above how to check.
----------------------------------
*I do not know if it is correct or not, but as a physicsist, I tend to think of H2 as sort of like deterium in mass and sort of like helium in electronic configuration. I.e. has two protons keeping apart by electo statics and two electron going around this "split He nucleus" in the same n = 1 ground state as one is spin up and the other is spin down and Pauli (exclusion principle) is happy. Thus very strongly bound, I think, H2 is.

Actually it's endothermic to go from 2 NH3 to 1 N2 and 3 H2. So if you use ammonia as a hydrogen source you actually pay an energy penalty when you liberate the hydrogen from the ammonia, but you more than make up for it in the second step where you combine the hydrogen with oxygen.

Actually it's endothermic to go from 2 NH3 to 1 N2 and 3 H2. So if you use ammonia as a hydrogen source you actually pay an energy penalty when you liberate the hydrogen from the ammonia, but you more than make up for it in the second step where you combine the hydrogen with oxygen.Can you show or give reference? as this is not what I remember. Even if true, can fall back on your point that the over all process is exothermic.
Most do not realize that a very high percent of the power that a jet engine makes is feed back to drive the compressor, so using part of the output to drive part of the process is not a "show stopper."

What about Na2B4O7·10H2O?

Can you show or give reference? as this is not what I remember. Even if true, can fall back on your point that the over all process is exothermic.
Most do not realize that a very high percent of the power that a jet engine makes is feed back to drive the compressor, so using part of the output to drive part of the process is not a "show stopper."

Just look up the standard enthalpy of formation for NH3. Whatever units you find it in, it will be a negative number, meaning it's exothermic to make NH3 from H2 and N2. So it must be endothermic to make H2 and N2 from NH3.

But the reaction where you combine the hydrogen with the oxygen is exothermic enough to make up for it and leave you with an excess of energy.

Just for the records, the standard entalphy formation information refers to the energy needed to make NH3 from N & H & H & H as opposed to N2 & H2.

Just for the records, the standard entalphy formation information refers to the energy needed to make NH3 from N & H & H & H as opposed to N2 & H2.
No, the standard enthalpy of formation is the energy needed to make a product if you start with elemental reactants in their "standard state". For nitrogen and hydrogen, the standard state is diatomic H2 and N2.

As far as actually obtaining the ammonia, what about using human urine as a source? I know it contains ammonia, but is it enough such that you could like filter out your own ammonia fuel in your house? Or at least if new plumbing lines were made in homes just for urine and these would lead to a local plant which could filter out the ammonia somehow and then would be just a supplemental supply of ammonia? Maybe people could even get tax breaks or incentives based on how much ammonia they contribute ( I can see it now, ID swipe cards at public toilets to add to your ammonia contribution lol)

But in all seriousness, is urine a viable source of ammonia?

As far as actually obtaining the ammonia, what about using human urine as a source? I know it contains ammonia, but is it enough such that you could like filter out your own ammonia fuel in your house? Or at least if new plumbing lines were made in homes just for urine and these would lead to a local plant which could filter out the ammonia somehow and then would be just a supplemental supply of ammonia? Maybe people could even get tax breaks or incentives based on how much ammonia they contribute ( I can see it now, ID swipe cards at public toilets to add to your ammonia contribution lol)

But in all seriousness, is urine a viable source of ammonia?


Are you suggesting that the toilet for light toilet (urinating) and heavy toilet
(excretion of faecal matter) is separated :confused:

Well, as far as I know, so far household wastewater is only separated
into greywater and blackwater.

Greywater, sometimes spelled graywater, grey water or gray water and also known as sullage, is non-industrial wastewater generated from domestic processes such as washing dishes, laundry and bathing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater

Blackwater (waste) is a relatively recent term used to describe water containing fecal matter and urine. It is also known as brown water, foul water, or sewage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29


Anyway if you refer to this (http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/freshwater/sb_summary/2.asp):

Each person on average excretes about 4 kg N and 0.4 kg P in urine, and 0.55kg N and 0.18 kg P in faeces per year.


let say in the city where I live, with nearly 1 million inhabitants, the city can
collect 4.55 million kg N per year, or 12.5 ton N per day. Hmm... this isn't
really bad.. :D but you have to consider this:

population: the city should be at least metropolis (over half a million of inhabitant)
the cost to separate ammonia from the blackwater (90% of Nitrogen in blackwater is in form of ammonia)...
how much is the fuel demand
etc etc..


umm... somebody could make a PhD for that :truce:

If you want to recover/ use human produced NH3, I suggest you go piss on the ground near a plant you want to grow faster. Spread it around a little. In winter, with snow, be artistc.
(Man, not woman, was first artist - probably why, in general they are better artists. :shrug: - Man's special gift is in their jeans. ;) )

he asked about ammonia for fuel, not for fertilizer :shrug:

As far as actually obtaining the ammonia, what about using human urine as a source? I know it contains ammonia, but is it enough such that you could like filter out your own ammonia fuel in your house?

I have thought for a long time that steam engines are a better choice for powering hybrid electrics for that reason, that they can generate less pollution and the storage battery keeps the driver from having to wait for them to warm up.
Me too! :) A small steam turbine to recharge the battery.

If you want to recover/ use human produced NH3, I suggest you go piss on the ground near a plant you want to grow faster. Spread it around a little. In winter, with snow, be artistc.Isnt that where Jackson Pollack got his inspiration? :cool:

A jug of ammonia (Not hard to keep liquid at room temperature with modest pressure.) has more hydrogen in it than a jug of pure liquid hydrogen!* (which is very hard to keep liquid even with huge pressures and very cold temperatures)

When you decompose ammonia (NH3) you get heat and can throw the N2 formed into the air and even Green Peace’s idiots** know that is OK.

The resulting H2 can be burned to H2O, which also is harmless to discharge into the air.

Ammonia is relative cheap to make - if it were not farmers would not be injecting solution of it (I think) into the soil of their farms. - I think that is the major commercial use of NH3 today.

I am not much of a chemist, but can someone who is tell me why do we not use these facts to make ammonia fuel for cars and trucks, etc?
---------------------------
*True because each molecule has 3 atoms of hydrogen, instead of 2 in it.
**The ones that have blocked the development of safe nuclear power in US for 30+years with the net result that much more CO2 has been dumped into the air and global warming is now a serious enviromental problem, not to mention all the SO2 that has been released, killing fish in Adrondac and N. European lakes, even killing some forests with the "acid rain" SO2 becomes. etc.
Not that simple. First, to break down molecules and to make molecules require energy. It often also require some other kind of molecule to exchange atoms. Thus, you must think about the energy required to make the chemical transactions and the bi-products that the reaction may produce, not only how easy it is to transport the chemicals.

For one thing, breaking down and creating H2O takes quite a bit of energy...

So... what substance do you propose to use in order to break down a molecule of NH3? O2?

NH3 + O2 + H2 = H2O + NH2 + H + energy.........?

Huuumm..... :scratchin:

Darn... I haven't done chemistry for so long I forgot all the rules....! :bawl:

So... what substance do you propose to use in order to break down a molecule of NH3? O2?

He was proposing going from NH3 (that you store in your car's tank) and O2 (that you get for free from the air) to make N2 and H2O. Thermodynamically it would work, since you release a lot of energy when you combine ammonia with oxygen to make N2 and water. Most of the energy comes from combining the hydrogen with he oxygen to make water...basically the ammonia is just a better way to store the hydrogen. It might be the only sensible idea about alternative energy to be posted in the history of sciforums.

He was proposing going from NH3 (that you store in your car's tank) and O2 (that you get for free from the air) to make N2 and H2O. Thermodynamically it would work, since you release a lot of energy when you combine ammonia with oxygen to make N2 and water. Most of the energy comes from combining the hydrogen with he oxygen to make water...basically the ammonia is just a better way to store the hydrogen. It might be the only sensible idea about alternative energy to be posted in the history of sciforums.
So how much energy is required to do the reaction?

So how much energy is required to do the reaction?
It take 46 kj/mol to turn the ammonia into N2 and H2, then releases 363 kj/mol when you burn the H2. So you get a net energy output of about 317 kj/mol of NH3.

Sounds good to me? So what's stopping it from happening? The smell? :D

All--

I just ran across your forum. Most everything you say is true (except an earlier statement that NH3 is mostly made using electrolytic H2--it's actually mostly made using H2 from reforming natural gas). NH3 is a carbon-free clean fuel that has been used in vehicle engines since the 1930s. It can be used in spark-ignited ICEs, diesel (with ~5% high-cetane co-fuel), combustion turbine, and direct-NH3 fuel cells. Perhaps the best thing about ammonia is that it can be synthesized from simply air and water using renewable (or nuclear) energy electricity. E.g. wind or solar to ammonia. There is much going on in the world regarding NH3 fuel. www dot energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia dot htm .

Also, look in a few weeks for the new web site of the Ammonia Fuel Network, a non-profit organization promoting NH3 fuel, at www dot ammoniafuelnetwork dot org .

Keep up the good work and ideas.

A jug of ammonia (Not hard to keep liquid at room temperature with modest pressure.) has more hydrogen in it than a jug of pure liquid hydrogen!* (which is very hard to keep liquid even with huge pressures and very cold temperatures)

When you decompose ammonia (NH3) you get heat and can throw the N2 formed into the air and even Green Peace’s idiots** know that is OK.

The resulting H2 can be burned to H2O, which also is harmless to discharge into the air.

Ammonia is relative cheap to make - if it were not farmers would not be injecting solution of it (I think) into the soil of their farms. - I think that is the major commercial use of NH3 today.

I am not much of a chemist, but can someone who is tell me why do we not use these facts to make ammonia fuel for cars and trucks, etc?
---------------------------
*True because each molecule has 3 atoms of hydrogen, instead of 2 in it.
**The ones that have blocked the development of safe nuclear power in US for 30+years with the net result that much more CO2 has been dumped into the air and global warming is now a serious enviromental problem, not to mention all the SO2 that has been released, killing fish in Adrondac and N. European lakes, even killing some forests with the "acid rain" SO2 becomes. etc.

It's highly caustic, and has a relative low flash point.
Burning is not wise, as it is not clear. Trying to recall, 20% remains unburned.

So, anyone behind you, or in front, will Emit DEATH!

Not to mention, it trickles with eddy currents. And preventing back-flash could easily be over-ridden. By anyone whom wished with the tap of a hammer.

BOOM!

It's highly caustic, and has a relative low flash point.
Burning is not wise, as it is not clear. Trying to recall, 20% remains unburned.

So, anyone behind you, or in front, will Emit DEATH!

Not to mention, it trickles with eddy currents. And preventing back-flash could easily be over-ridden. By anyone whom wished with the tap of a hammer.

BOOM!It takes considerable energy to decompose NH3. There is net energy release after you get it decomposted by oxidizing the decomposition products, especially the H2 -> H2O reaction.

At certain times of the year, tons of NH3 are spread on farms by their owners each day in the USA. That agricultural use is the main market for NH3 in the USA, I think.

Yes, NH3 is toxic, but it has such a strong smell that one would leave the area, if a small leak were to develope. Farmers spread it in an water solution, I think.

Although one could add energy to each molecule by hitting pure NH3 liquid (which would not be liquid unless inside a presure containiner) I strongly doubt that the energy per molecule possible this way would be even half that necessary to decompose a molecule. You do not seem to understand that the decomposition REQUIRES input of energy. I.e. is an endothermic process.

I know little chemisty, but of that I am sure. Can you support ANY of your statements? I bet less than half are correct.

Yeah, I avoid petty squabbles these days. PM me, and post your theories, not contradiction for all to see.

Waste of time/effort...<==*Ellipse

Yeah, I avoid petty squabbles these days. PM me, and post your theories, not contradiction for all to see. ...<==*EllipseNot squabbling. I am sort of a self apointed watchdog at sciforums in that I try to correct errors when I can. {later by edit: Even my own -see next paragraph.} Many will confirm this. Quite a few people lurk here and as retired professor (in part) I do not like to see falsehoods spread. Thus, I post and rarely use PMs - that would be squabbling.

Also I want to note that my speculation (I said "I think") that one might be able to put fires out with ammonia is wrong.* (So I have removed that error in prior post.)

If ammonia molecules are introduced into a flame, for example as in "flash point" testing, then they do get enough energy to decompose. If there is approximately a 20% concentration of these molecules then there can be a explosion, I think. It of course does require that the ammonia be in the gas, not liquid, phase; but at atmospheric pressure that would be the case.

Liquids (and solids) normally will not burn but many will vaporize or thermally decompose and their decomposition products will both burn and provide the heat to decompose more of the solid or liquid so wood, coal etc. can serve as fuels, but they do not burn as solids. Thus I continue to think that liquid ammonia will not burn but the gas will within the limited concentration range you gave.
---------------------
*For all practical purposes, but not entirely. If one very quickly floods a small flame (such as a candle) even with a stream of liquid gasoline you can put the candle out. - Very dangerous to demonstrate but dramatically shows that liquids do not burn.

http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/Encyclopedia.asp?GasID=2

...
"Major Hazards

* Major hazard : Inhalation and Bodily Contact
* Toxicity (Am. Conf. Of Gov. Ind. Hygienists ACGIH 2000 Edition) : 25 ppm
* Flammability limits in air (STP conditions) : 15-30 vol%
* Odour : Pungent, Irritating
* UN Number : UN1005
* EINECS Number : 231-635-3
* DOT Label (USA) : NFG
* DOT Hazard class (USA) : Non flammable Gas
"""
...

Let's stay focused. DEATH Trap. We're not the Venutians. This is ridiculous.
But, I feel you may proceed to pursue this, until most are fed up. Then, I'll discontinue my subscription. Build you a little engine bias though, and breath well, of it...

...
"Major Hazards

* Major hazard : Inhalation and Bodily Contact
* Toxicity (Am. Conf. Of Gov. Ind. Hygienists ACGIH 2000 Edition) : 25 ppm
* Flammability limits in air (STP conditions) : 15-30 vol%
...
* DOT Hazard class (USA) : Non flammable Gas
Let's stay focused. DEATH Trap. ...I tend to agree with your point here. I have (in OP) ONLY suggested that ammonia be used to STORE hydrogen economically, never suggested to burn it in an ICE* as some small fraction would still be unburned in the exhaust, making cities uninhabital.

What I imagine may be possible is a very well sealed, (but refillable) ammonia tank that within sealed converter produces hydrogen for a fuel cell but has a high presssure stage** condensing any un decomposed ammonia for recycle to the decomposition stage. I.e. only pure H2 and N2 get to the fuel cell.

I started this thread to call attention to the STORAGE advantages of ammonia. I.e. is higher density of hydrogen than pure hydrongen and very easy to store as room temperature liquid at modest pressure.
-------------------
*That idea came from others.
**Perhaps some "molecular sieve" exists that will pass the N2 but not NH3? It is easy to pass H2 thru a metal wall. For example, H2 can (and sometimes is) purified by passing it thru hot paldium. - goes thru very rapidly almost as if there were no wall!

And another thing:::"DEATH Cloud",

many plant workers or laughing their MFA off right now. Being a coolant leak of minute traces leads to an Emergency plan. Where if happenchance or improper course of action is succumbed to: You DIE!

Toxic, toxic, toxic...

Friends: Be merciful on yo' hade. And, pass not these thoughts.

We must live another day. If, however, whomever of ill-logic presses the patent to succeed in this:

NICE knowin' ya' I guess.


MAY God have mercy on all of Our souls!!!
Amen-aimen'...

Perhaps urea, not ammonia, is the way to go for economical, light-weight, mobile storage of hydrogen, but IMHO still, not desirable to use the ammonia one can get from urea as fuel for an ICE. (Small unburnt fraction in exhaust is at least un acceptable irritant if not deadly in urban use. More comments in my last post.(45) Perhaps one needs a cryogentic "cold finger"* in the fuel cell exhaust in addition to the compression and "molecular sieve" preceeding the fuel cell as I suggested in that post to keep the NH3 vapor in the exhaust acceptably low concentration?

Crudely put: Drink lots of beer and run your car on piss!

Following from http://www.u3kenergy.com/

"...Both ammonia and hydrogen are widely recognized as theoretically attractive alternative fuels. The principal problems they face are safety, storage, transport, and, especially in the case of hydrogen, cost. Urea solves these problems. U3K's technology enables the solution.

U3K's patented technology (USPTO 7,140,187) can convert urea to either ammonia or hydrogen for delivery to internal combustion engines and fuel cells in stationary or mobile applications. ... U3K's system can provide internal combustion engines with ammonia or fuel cells with hydrogen "on demand".

Urea has many advantages compared to traditional fossil fuels: it is non-toxic, clean burning, non-explosive, and is more economical than refined petroleum products. Urea can fit into the existing liquid based fueling infrastructure. Existing engines can be retrofit cheaply. The capital cost of urea fueling stations is significantly less than the cost of existing gasoline stations. With current urea manufacturing technology, urea has a "well to wheel" efficiency that exceeds gasoline. And urea can be stored as a solid or a liquid.

Urea is listed on the FDA's GRAS list, a remarkable fact for a substance which can be converted to clean burning, high octane, and high performance motor fuels with sufficient energy density to match current driving range expectations. Urea engine emissions are principally** nitrogen and water. Greenhouse gas emissions through the entire fuel production/consumption cycle are reduced significantly relative to conventional refined fuels. ..."

-------------------
*Some "wiper" continuously collecting the ammonia/water ice that condenses on it for return to the decomposing stage?
** Yes but if that "Minor Component" is NH3, forget it.

PS Urea is a white solid. At the self-serve refill station, you buy a bag or two for your car's "hopper" and drop it in and drive off. Faster and safer than a gasoline refill! (Don't forget to save the crumbs for your house plants.) :cool:

It's highly caustic, and has a relative low flash point.
Burning is not wise, as it is not clear. Trying to recall, 20% remains unburned.

So, anyone behind you, or in front, will Emit DEATH!

Not to mention, it trickles with eddy currents. And preventing back-flash could easily be over-ridden. By anyone whom wished with the tap of a hammer.

BOOM!
What do you mean by "trickles with eddy currents"?

What do you mean by "trickles with eddy currents"?

That's due to it not burning completely as most fuels. It was also a lead to the fact highly toxic fumes would result.

It's kind of like kerosene when it burns. You can see the different layers burning, according to the flow rate given. However, kerosene is not as toxic, and is pretty much safe, given good ventilation.