Sorry Mr Fetus, I am an older person, not very computer saavy and only wishing to help get the world off carbon before I leave it. No he does not use carbon to make his fuel, and no he is not looking for your $100. Please look at the GreenGas.cc website and you will see the guy is making his fuel without using carbon. and it costs him very little. ...
The part of this I made bold, both claims, is surely false as explained below.
Welcome to sciforums. You sound like a well intentioned person. Here is the end of my post in the mod only thread “action requested”
“Rogerg's first post, made more than a year ago, is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=128
It deals with same subject but is not blatant spam. It does, however, mention GreenNH3.com which leads you to the exact same site as GreenGas.cc
Stomp on MrGreeen for sure but Rogerg may just be ignorant. If we stomp on the just ignorant, 2/3 of our posters would be gone.”
MrGreeem has been permanently banned. I don’t mean any insult by suggesting that you were “just ignorant.” (I am ignorant of many things.)
Certainly you are correct that NH3
as a fuel does not release any carbon, but its most economical production method now does. I STRONG DOUBT the people behind GreenGas.cc = GreenNH3.com web site have a new and cheaper way to make NH3 which does not also release CO2 as this is a huge tonnage commercial product, originally a great chemical “break thru” by Haber. His process has had millions, (possible a billion?) of dollars invested improving it for slightly more than 100 years. Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
GreenGas.com does not even hint that they have any improvement.
IMHO they are a scam trying to exploit well intentioned people like you. I hope you have not sent them the $100 requested.
Below are some facts to enlighten you about the production of NH3, but first I want to note that H2, is not really a fuel, but more of a way to transport the energy of some more primary energy source. IMHO, it is impractical as a car fuel, but probably less of a hazard than gasoline as if there is a leak the H2 rises up and disperses in the air. NH3 will do this too to a lesser extent but is very toxic, not to mention extremely irritating.
Quoting from:
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/09/27/ammonia-and-biofuels/
“As originally practiced, the N2 for the Haber Process was readily obtained by cryogenic air distillation. The H2 could be obtained by electrolysis of water, which would make very pure H2 high quality feed with relative ease. This process was extensively practiced in Norway by Norsk Hydro (and its predecessors), and was also used in North America (for example, at Trail, British Columbia, on the Columbia River, 15 miles north of the border) by Airco (now BOC). The H2 could also be made by the water gas reaction using coal or petroleum, but the resulting syn-gas had to be extensively cleaned up of ash, sulfur, arsenic, CO, CO2, and other chemical “varmints”. In fact, the H2 purification part of the site would be one of the largest and most expensive parts of an NH3 plant.
As the 20th century rolled on, methane became the H2 source of choice, as it was really cheap, readily available and easy to use compared to coal. The water gas reaction is endothermic, so energy must be supplied in the form of steam (water feed) and just plain heat to drive the reaction; carbon is removed eventually as CO and/or CO2, and any CO can be readily oxidized to provide more energy for this process.
In other words, preparing NH3 from CH4 also involves the co-production of CO2. …
Nowadays it is around $450/ton, and a considerable amount of U.S. NH3 production has been shut down. We now import a lot of NH3 from places like Trinidad, which have more Ngas than they can readily consume, and cheap local Ngas prices. … At one time in the recent past, NH3 consumption on the farm was about 12 million/tons/yr, out of 14 million tons/yr produced. To make all 14 million tons/yr of NH3, about 2.47 million tons/yr of H2 must be prepared and purified (or just prepared and dried in the case of electrolysis). To make 1 ton of H2 using industrial scale electrolysis units requires about 45 MW-hr.
So, if electrolysis units operate at 8700 hr/yr, a steady rate of about 72.5 GW of electricity would be needed, requiring 194 GW of wind turbine capacity, or 77,600 x 2.5 MW wind turbines operating at an average capacity of 37.5 % to make all the H2 needed to make all the NH3 used in the USA. {Author has suggested that wind power from the mid west is better used to make NH3 than ship either electricity or H2 to the city load centers.} Is there room in the Midwest for 77,600 turbines (each one occupies about 1/16 acre for the (largely) buried foundation)? What is 5% of U.S. Ngas consumption worth, especially 10 years from now?...
But the H2 preparation for NH3 synthesis will not be changed until fossil fuel prices rise, and the external costs of this fossil fuel consumption are reflected in the price. And the same goes for other Ngas consuming activities. On a raw material basis, the breakeven point is for a delivered price of natural gas at $11.60/MBtu (not Henry Hub!) and wind turbine electricity at 5 c/kw-hr delivered. ..."
SUMMARY: There an environmentally more friendly way to make the H2 (via very many wind machines) required for making NH3, but it is currently not as cheap as using coal or natural gas.
