Chemists Discover New Way To Harness Energy From Ammonia (phys.org) 119
fahrbot-bot shares a report from Phys.Org: A research team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has identified a new way to convert ammonia to nitrogen gas through a process that could be a step toward ammonia replacing carbon-based fuels. The discovery of this technique, which uses a metal catalyst and releases -- rather than requires -- energy, was reported Nov. 8 in Nature Chemistry and has received a provisional patent from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
The scientists were excited to find that the addition of ammonia to a metal catalyst containing the platinum-like element ruthenium spontaneously produced nitrogen, which means that no added energy was required. Instead, this process can be harnessed to produce electricity, with protons and nitrogen gas as byproducts. In addition, the metal complex can be recycled through exposure to oxygen and used repeatedly, all a much cleaner process than using carbon-based fuels. "We figured out that, not only are we making nitrogen, we are making it under conditions that are completely unprecedented," says Berry, who is the Lester McNall Professor of Chemistry and focuses his research efforts on transition metal chemistry. "To be able to complete the ammonia-to-nitrogen reaction under ambient conditions -- and get energy -- is a pretty big deal."
Ammonia has been burned as a fuel source for many years. During World War II, it was used in automobiles, and scientists today are considering ways to burn it in engines as a replacement for gasoline, particularly in the maritime industry. However, burning ammonia releases toxic nitrogen oxide gases. The new reaction avoids those toxic byproducts. 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.
The scientists were excited to find that the addition of ammonia to a metal catalyst containing the platinum-like element ruthenium spontaneously produced nitrogen, which means that no added energy was required. Instead, this process can be harnessed to produce electricity, with protons and nitrogen gas as byproducts. In addition, the metal complex can be recycled through exposure to oxygen and used repeatedly, all a much cleaner process than using carbon-based fuels. "We figured out that, not only are we making nitrogen, we are making it under conditions that are completely unprecedented," says Berry, who is the Lester McNall Professor of Chemistry and focuses his research efforts on transition metal chemistry. "To be able to complete the ammonia-to-nitrogen reaction under ambient conditions -- and get energy -- is a pretty big deal."
Ammonia has been burned as a fuel source for many years. During World War II, it was used in automobiles, and scientists today are considering ways to burn it in engines as a replacement for gasoline, particularly in the maritime industry. However, burning ammonia releases toxic nitrogen oxide gases. The new reaction avoids those toxic byproducts. 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.
All you burn is Oxygen? (Score:1)
If I get this right, the only real input is one thing we literally need every minute.
However, we plant trees to make oxygen from carbon dioxide. Might actually work out well. How soon until the plant scale?
Re: All you burn is Oxygen? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn't we just plant trees inside cars and trucks instead?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:All you burn is Oxygen? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Couldn't we just plant trees inside cars and trucks instead?".
Folks have been doing that for decades now.
In the 30's [duckduckgo.com]
In the 40's [duckduckgo.com]
And the 70's [duckduckgo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody did sleep in Chemistry class.
Yes, almost everything that can be used as an energy source via chemical reaction consumes Oxygen. However we do _not_ have any kind of Oxygen shortage on this planet. There is plenty and it is not in any danger of running out.
Re: (Score:2)
Cite
Re: (Score:2)
> However we do _not_ have any kind of Oxygen shortage on this planet. There is plenty and it is not in any danger of running out. .. required, last I looked we are burning down the house.
Cite
No. Claiming we are running out of oxygen is an extraordinary claim. You are required to provide extraordinary proof to have it even considered.
What is happening is that we have global warming from too much greenhouse gasses. That is something else entirely.
Energy density and supply issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Ammonia is potentially great as a renewable resource - but humans churn out about 2g a day of ammonia.
You can also get ammonia from decomposing organics, so I guess landfills become more important. I don't see us capturing ammonia from farm animals. And you should be able to generate ammonia industrially from bacteria.
And the energy density issue - ammonia has about half the energy density of gasoline - isn't much of an issue as it's still far better than the best electric car battery by a factor 50.
Add in that this process would run via a fuel cell to produce electricity, and what you really have is a 'battery pack' to plug in to electric cars that instantly and vastly increases their range... and allows for 'charging' the same way you currently pump gasoline.
All that without the environmental issues of a high density battery pack. I say 'start up the ammonia bioreactors'.
Re:Energy density and supply issues (Score:5, Insightful)
I know sanity is gone from the world but Ammonia is one of the largest manufactured chemical products in the world today, and the Haber Bosch process is not a net producer of energy.
https://www.aiche.org/resource... [aiche.org]
Unless you have a way to make Ammonia that doesn't involve consuming energy this is just another alternate type of battery.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have a way to make Ammonia that doesn't involve consuming energy this is just another alternate type of battery.
Yes, so? Is improving battery tech, in particular at those storage densities for mobile use a worthwhile goal?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is something we REALLY need. We badly need a sustainable way to store and transport energy. From daytime to night, and from Australia to Japan and other places that can't produce for themselves. Just one chemical process that can produce some gas or liquid for trade around the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
Explaining is a pain, usually you are talking to someone who is ignorant and is just seeking validation
It's even worse when you are talking to someone who is triggered and isn't accepting input or even looking for input.
Ruthenium spot price $610/oz
Ruthenium availability in the crust 78th three steps behind gold at 75 estimated amount 1/3rd to 90% that of gold
Not going to see ruthenium ammonia batteries competing any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Energy density and supply issues (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure have fun making electrodes with a few grams
Re:Energy density and supply issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems at least it would be produced at a point source so capturing the CO2 to sequester it might be practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if powering a ship, airplane or even a train, capturing the CO2 might be more complicated.
Re: Energy density and supply issues (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are alternatives. Not ready for prime time yet so far as I know, but they have potential.
Here's one from 2018:
https://cen.acs.org/environmen... [acs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to make ammonia from dihydrogen produced by electrolysis of water when renewables produce excess electricity.
Bot how do they use the Haber Bosh process in a green fashion ? I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Answering my own post...
I should have just asked my wife. Here is a little link talking about making ammonia: https://royalsociety.org/topic... [royalsociety.org]
The "trick" is to use the Haber Bosh process with "sustainable electricity".
Re: (Score:2)
"Unless you have a way to make Ammonia that doesn't involve consuming energy this is just another alternate type of battery."
That's any fuel. You are against any fuel. Why do you hate fuels?
Since any fuel production is a net consumer of energy, because it's in the fuel, the value of the fuel is how good is it at storing, transporting, and transforming energy versus other fuels. If you are driving the process with energy that is otherwise too hard to store, transport, and transform, you compare the energy yo
Re: (Score:2)
That's any fuel. You are against any fuel. Why do you hate fuels?
Up your trolling skills.
Almost all fossil fuels are net energy positive
Alcohol and biofuels are net energy positive
Nuclear fuels are all net energy positive.
Hydrogen produced from solar is net energy positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all fossil fuels are net energy positive
Not true at all. It's just the costs were paid millions of years ago before we even evolved.
It still took energy to generate fossil fuels - they're a carbon battery holding ancient solar power for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all fossil fuels are net energy positive
Not true at all. It's just the costs were paid millions of years ago before we even evolved.
It still took energy to generate fossil fuels - they're a carbon battery holding ancient solar power for us.
Why stop there?
Every conceivable fuel is just a reservoir for energy released in the big bang.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I stop there is because it's a practical place to stop.
Fossil fuels are increasing in price because we've burned through the easy to reach stuff... the energy required to create more is actually a significant factor to consider.
In theory we can capture atmospheric CO2 and create synthetic fuels with the injection of some energy, presumably from renewable resources.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I stop there is because it's a practical place to stop.
Fossil fuels are increasing in price because we've burned through the easy to reach stuff... the energy required to create more is actually a significant factor to consider.
In theory we can capture atmospheric CO2 and create synthetic fuels with the injection of some energy, presumably from renewable resources.
You stop there because it's practical ?
Hmmm I suppose it's impractical to consider that synthesizing Ammonia is a lossy energy conversion process
That once it's synthesized distributing it as a fuel is another lossy process
Converting it back into electricity is also a lossy process.
Even if the the recovery rate for charge in a hypothetical Ammonia battery is as good as current batteries
The overall system is considerably worse.
Glad you considered this and made your determination of what parts of the system we
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and in case you didn't understand comments like yours are why I dislike explaining to stupid and willfully ignorant people
Have a nice day
Re: (Score:2)
Just like pure hydrogen, ammonia is a medium for the storage of energy (actually hydrogen). It’s much more convenient to store than pure hydrogen. The question are how densely it store energy (ie hydrogen) per kg and lt, and how efficient are the processes for getting to and from ammonia. It sounds like this is a more efficient way to split out the nitrogen and hydrogen (though the extract doesn’t actually mention hydrogen at any point, which is weird as there’s three times as much hydroge
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon me but no
The question is how efficient is synthesizing Ammonia and distributing and converting it back to electricity or using it directly as a fuel as part of the overall system?
Seeing as you have renewables fall off production for months
https://www.ft.com/content/0a9... [ft.com]
As The UK found out with offshore wind
You need to ask can that overall system generate months worth of surplus and cover for the shortfalls.
Hate to have that happen in the winter when solar is also only providing minimal power.
Re: (Score:3)
The question to my mind is "How common is Ruthenium?". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] reports that is is usually found as a minor component of platinum ores, so I'd guess it's pretty rare. That would mean that any increase in use would really drive up the price, so this may not be practical for any widespread use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC it wouldn't be a massive use, but when only extremely small quantities are available, ANY use will drive up prices (unless that cause better sources to be developed). Look at what's happened with Lithium. It's not strictly comparable, since a lot more Lithium is used per battery, but there also appears to be a lot more of it around.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile... (Score:2)
All over the world many fertilizer plants perform the opposite chemical reaction - converting nitrogen to ammonia. Because to plants, molecular nitrogen is pretty much useless, with some exceptions, like beans. So, I have reasons to doubt the practical value of this research.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a reason it's not a good *source* of energy. It could still be a good battery, though I have my doubts.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about fossile fuel replacement due to energy density. It is not about original energy generation. Quite obviously.
Ammonia synthesis produces Carbon Dioxide (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Ammonia synthesis produces Carbon Dioxide (Score:2)
Hold on a sec... (Score:5, Informative)
Further info (Score:5, Informative)
TFA has a link at the end that provides related information:
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-photocatalyst-ammonia-atmospheric-nitrogen-room.html
That page in turn has another worthwhile link:
https://phys.org/news/2021-08-alchemy-carbon-neutrality-ammonia-renewable.html
Geez, I really need to RTFA more often!
Nitrogen Cycle (Score:2)
I'm too lazy to RTFA. Hello 6 me out.
NH4 --> N2 + stuff happens continuously everywhere.
How much energy does this catalytic process create? Hour much of that energy can do work (in the sense of force times distance)?
Also, converting NH4 to N2 faster would really help me keep my aquarium healthy. Can I just throw in some catalyst and watch the nitrate levels in my fish tank go down?
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrates and ammonia are different things.
Source of ammonia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it more as a battery. Solar cells produce ammonia during the day and ammonia turned to electricity during the night kind of thing. A lot easier to transport as well.
And they're producing electricity from the reaction, not burning it so the waste is nitrogen and hydrogen. I'd assume the hydrogen is diluted enough to not be a hazard.
Re: Source of ammonia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
If you see a modified Delorean with no Mr. Fusion (Score:3)
Oh dear God, no! (Score:2)
releases toxic nitrogen oxide gases
Not plant food!
Doesn't the production of Ammonia release CO2? (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
spacecraft uses? (Score:2)
Ammonia is made from oil and gas (Score:2)
Oil companies are behind all kinds of "green" fuels like this and hydrogen. It's more efficient to just burn the natural gas directly.
Battery (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Under pressure ammonia liquefies. The stored energy density of ammonia is *much* higher than hydrogen. It behaves more like propane than hydrogen.
Hydrogen is also the 'leakiest' gas, because of the extremely small size of the molecules.
TFA glosses over a huge point (Score:2)
"We have an established infrastructure for distribution of ammonia, which is already mass produced from nitrogen and hydrogen in the Haber-Bosch process," says Michael Trenerry, a graduate student and author on the paper. "This technology could enable a carbon-free fuel economy, but it's one half of the puzzle. One of the drawbacks of ammonia synthesis is that the hydrogen we use to make ammonia comes from natural gas and fossil fuels."
This trend is changing, however, as ammonia producers attempt to produce "green" ammonia, in which the hydrogen atoms are supplied by carbon-neutral water electrolysis instead of the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process.
Uh, this is a big issue. Ammonia doesn't occur in nature in any great quantities. It takes energy to create it, either with Haber-Bosch [wikipedia.org] or green methods and it takes more energy than you get out by reacting it in a fuel cell. Breezily saying we'll go green is kind of like saying a honey badger is a great pet, all we have to do is breed them to be less vicious. This is the same problem which keeps us from using hydrogen as a fuel, it takes too much energy to create the fuel in the first place.
Let's
Re: Group VIII Catalyst (Score:2)
Also reported on Nature, which is a one of those magazines that every now and then publish something remotely scientific, to appear more reputable - instead of being perceived to be for nudists only.
Re: Group VIII Catalyst (Score:1)
Re: Group VIII Catalyst (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the drawbacks of ammonia synthesis is that the hydrogen we use to make ammonia comes from natural gas and fossil fuels.
They completely skip over any discussion of the ruthenium. Which is rare, expensive, and based on a 10 second search potentially quite toxic.
Re: (Score:3)
Ruthenium is relatively expensive ($25k/kg), but not that bad. It is rare, but that usually changes when something becomes useful. Currently, estimated mining reserves globally are around 5000t. That is around 1/10 of Gold and around 1/15 of Platinum (very rough personal estimates from a few minutes web-search). Hence also not that bad.
Since it reacts with almost nothing, it will probably keep forever in this application and not a lot is needed anyways. So skipping that discussion is not an oversight and no
Re: (Score:2)
Theft could be a problem like it currently is with catalytic converters.
Re: (Score:3)
Theft could be a problem like it currently is with catalytic converters.
Maybe, but this would presumably be somewhere in the car that's not so easily accessible. Of course, catalytic converters need to be cut off, so if someone is going to that much effort, they can use tools to get under the hood too. On the other hand, more modern cars could have more sophisticated theft detection devices. If the car can realize what's going on and automatically alert the owner and the police as well as record video of the theft, that would probably cut down a lot on those sorts of thefts.
In
Re: (Score:2)
US problems. In the rest of the world you can just buy the stuff. As to catalytic converter theft, this is mostly targeted at ships and heavy vehicles, not ordinary cars. Ordinary cars will just go electric.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of catalytic converter thefts from cars/trucks in driveways here in Canada. With a battery operated grinder with a cutoff wheel, they can steal one in minutes. And they're worth close to a C$1000 so the motivation is there.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of catalytic converter thefts from cars/trucks in driveways here in Canada. With a battery operated grinder with a cutoff wheel, they can steal one in minutes. And they're worth close to a C$1000 so the motivation is there.
As I _also_ said, this tech is not aimed at cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I misread your statement, combined with others talking like this was a solution for cars led to a misunderstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I misread your statement, combined with others talking like this was a solution for cars led to a misunderstanding.
Ok, that I can understand. My take is this is not intended for cars at all.
Re: (Score:2)
When the subject started to be about stealing catalytic converters from cars, I started talking in terms of cars too.
Re: (Score:2)
And they're worth close to a C$1000 so the motivation is there.
That's the replacement cost. It's like with copper thieves like the ones who kept targeting a house that my sister owned (without even the decency to turn off the water, flooding the basement multiple times). The cost to fix the damage they did was high, but they probably didn't even get $50 of copper at scrap prices. It will be the same for catalytic converters. At scrap prices, or even resold as full catalytic converters, the actual profit to the thief won't be anywhere near the replacement cost.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick search shows this, likely in US$, https://chris-front.vehiclehis... [vehiclehistory.com] up to $800 which is about C$1000, some of those metals are worth a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
I can find new catalytic converters for 2002 Honda accords for a lot less than that, and the person in the very next post below said that it was only $200, but that there appeared to be a specific one worth a lot more. So I'm guessing some use a nickel catalyst and some use platinum and some use maybe even more platinum. In any case, it looks like the average is going to be a lot lower. Thieves may also get a lower since most of the people buying scrap from them are going to know that they're buying from th
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it seemed to vary which is why I said up to. Bigger, newer engines may well have more expensive cats too. I originally got the numbers from the local news, with various news outlets reporting similar.
One problem here is that there is a loophole for cats for scrap where the dealers don't have to take any info unlike most any other scrap and it sure seems common now whereas almost never hear about copper thieves and such anymore. Could just be news bias.
Re: (Score:2)
If the thieves know what they're doing, then they probably will go after specific cars that they know will have pricier catalytic converters. Of course, it's hard to know whether anyone smart will go into the business of cutting parts off other people's cars to sell for scrap. It is entirely possible that it's relatively lucrative for them, but the cost to whoever they rob is still going to be considerably higher than whatever profit they get out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
yea, the poor people getting ripped off is the tragedy. Even with insurance, there's a $300 deductible plus the hassle of no car and the thieves are pretty brazen about going into peoples driveways and such. For the thieves, even a hundred bucks for 10 minutes work is likely a good return. Shit they used to regularly take out the phone lines here and a couple of hundred feet of phone line can't be worth that much. Just waiting for them to hit the new fibre.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a fair compromise. How long until there aren't any left and we can stop the poisoning?
It's not a fair compromise. It's idiotic and it didn't work during prohibition. It did mean that the US government basically intentionally poisoned thousands of people (with the excuse that it was indirect, so it was ok), but it didn't put a dent in alcohol consumption.
As for how long until there are no users left and you would be able to stop the poisoning, the answer would be never. You would never be able to stop it, because such schemes never work. The problem with people who come up with them and appro
Re: Group VIII Catalyst (Score:2)
One Implication (Score:2)
Not sure how you could not see the implications for technology use.
Well, since ammonia is easily produced from urine instead of using a refuelling stop as an opportunity to take a bathroom break we'll be using a bathroom break as an opportunity to refuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:accident (Score:4, Funny)
It smells real bad.
Re:accident (Score:4, Informative)
It damages your lungs but this is not likely to happen because it smells badly much before it starts to damage lungs.
Liquid ammonia will cause chemical burns.
Overall, it is much worse than gasoline.
Re:accident (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, it is much worse than gasoline.
And also much, much better.
Here's a communication tip for you: Unless you specify your criteria, saying "worse" or "better" is pretty meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, go dump 20 gallons of gasoline on one part of your lawn and 20 gallons of ammonia on another.
Which one is the bigger problem? Which part of your lawn won't you be growing tomatoes on?
You're trying so hard to be edgy that you cut yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you are getting smart! I can respond in similar manner: Try to dip your hand in liquid ammonia and in gasoline. And compare the result. If you care about yourself you will not do it with ammonia. So rather don't do it!
But you reminded me of something:
One guy in a village few km away wanted to get rid off moles in his garden. So he poured about 20 litters of petrol into mole's hole in his garden ... and set it on fire. The whole ground in his and his neighbours garden's jumped during the explosion. Thank
Be carefull about ammonia! (Score:3)
But to everybody! Don't dip any part of your body to ammonia. Compared to gasoline, it is really dangerous. Also avoid ammonia vapours. Here are some samples to scare away stupid people ... I mean people who not clever enough to do as they are told and need also some pictures:
http://burnssurgery.blogspot.c... [blogspot.com]
It is not for fun that ammonia has NFPA health rating 3 of 4 (4 being the worst, 0 means no bad health effects)
Re: (Score:2)
People die. Same as with most other stuff that can be used to make energy. If it ruptures on a ship, you will kill fish locally, but you do not get anything near the problems that a ruptured oil-tank causes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, this is not a concern. This stuff _already_ gets transported in ships and rail-cars.
Re: (Score:1)
Family Guy version [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Population: The cause of and cure for all of our problems.
Yes, population is something we need to control. No, drastic population reduction is not the answer to all our problems.
First, in the current socio-political context, a major loss of population will even more heavily favour the elites, who will still be furthering their own causes at the expense of the environment.
Second, the smaller number of people will simply increase their resource use until it's maxed out - that's what we humans do.
The solution is a world-wide change in mindset and priorities. We need
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, population is something we need to control. No, drastic population reduction is not the answer to all our problems.
Actually, we will find out whether it is or not. Because it is pretty much assured. The world is on course for 3...5C with around 2 ... 2.5C pretty much assured already with nothing that can be done anymore about it anymore. At those temperatures, drastic "hard" population reduction (people dying from catastrophic effects) will happen, no matter what we want.
Re: (Score:2)
Population: The cause of and cure for all of our problems.
Indeed. Together with what drives population growth: Mainly religion with its desire to grow the number of its followers, no matter the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey fucktard! How does it feel to be the subject of scorn and derision while you're whining about your life?
Why don't you pick one of the gazillion topics you rave on about in your diarrheic posts, submit a story, and maybe start a worthwhile discussion? Oh, I get it - you're not interested in solution or accommodation - you'd rather stick your head up your ass and moan. Sucks to be you!