So, what does it have to do with its feasibility as a magic fuel? BTW, zinc no more in just 30 years, no zinc catalysts - no massive production of ammonia as we know it. that was truly perceptive and ahead of the time. Ammonia powered car was made 27+ years ago, so I've read, ammonia is extremely toxic and corrosive. Ammonia car has NO chance to conquer the streets considering litigation possibilities. Heat of ammonia combustion is half of that for diesel. Sounds like a winner evil oil companies keep from eager plebeians. So does burning shit. First, you'll have to come up with the process transforming nonpolluting (are you crazy?) nuclear energy into ammonia. Good luck. Second genius, you should know that heat required for synthesis of substance X is equal to the heat of dissociation of that substance. Considering all kinds of energy loses and efficiency of the machinery involved, energy released by burning ammonia will unlikely cover even 50% of energy spent to manufacture it. Third, mankind doubled concentration of active nitrogen in the nitrogen cycle which does nasty things to all kind of rivers and estuaries, etc. Burning ammonia is a really smart idea to boost those imbalances. Please, call back when you invent iron based fuel cells or iron based catalysts for NH3 production. Until then ... The bottom line question, will ammonia engines save fossil fuel or accelerate its consumption. At this time the answer is obvious even for chemically challenged - NH3 substitution will accelerate depletion of oil, gas and rare metals.