How ammonia could help clean up global shipping...

[Fred Bloggs]

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8

 

[a a]

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 16:58:18 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:

global fake

H2O, water, water vapor, water retention, clouds account for 99.99% of so called GHG fake

don\'t waste our time

 

[server]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8

Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Hey, let\'s run those ships on batteries.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 11:32:38 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8
Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Maybe you missed the news: the port cities are already full of ammonia storage for agriculture. A container ship-ful is dwarfed by it. Explosions are almost always caused by human error. Things like we don\'t use dynamite to break up crust formed on things like ammonium nitrate.

Hey, let\'s run those ships on batteries.

They\'re working hard on hydrogen fuel cells to do just that. Hydrogen for the fuel cells is extracted from ammonia stored onboard.

https://www.science.org/content/article/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 11:19:51 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 16:58:18 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:

global fake

H2O, water, water vapor, water retention, clouds account for 99.99% of so called GHG fake

don\'t waste our time

The only one floating on a cloud around here is you.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 17.32.38 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8
Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

it is hard to store and transport and once you account for energy content it is only ~25% less CO2/KJ

burning ammonia seems like a recipe for making lots of NOx

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-08-31 18:40, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 17.32.38 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8
Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

it is hard to store and transport and once you account for energy content it is only ~25% less CO2/KJ

burning ammonia seems like a recipe for making lots of NOx

Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 20.26.58 UTC+2 skrev Jeroen Belleman:

On 2022-08-31 18:40, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 17.32.38 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8
Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

it is hard to store and transport and once you account for energy content it is only ~25% less CO2/KJ

burning ammonia seems like a recipe for making lots of NOx

Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.

you could wash the exhaust, Afaik the local coal fired powerplant here makes money on the sulfuric and nitric acid they get from the exhaust cleaning

 

[a a]

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 18:20:01 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 11:19:51 AM UTC-4, a a wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 16:58:18 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:

global fake

H2O, water, water vapor, water retention, clouds account for 99.99% of so called GHG fake

don\'t waste our time
The only one floating on a cloud around here is you.

thank you
I am the only real man here.
If you work with Prof. Mann, pres. Al Gore, UNFCC Bonn, UN New York, SIDS (Small Island Developing Countries), EPA, NOAA, ESA, NASA and meet thousands of scientists, researchers, VIPs , experts, as court expert,
you exactly know what is right and what is fake to make easy money.

GHG CO2 fake is the biggest fake generating $Bs in profit to just few
Trade in CO2 emissions is another fake

So remember:

--H2O, water, water vapor, water retention, clouds account for 99.99% of so called GHG fake

and at UN HQ there is a working model of Earth\'s climate and clouds are generated on the table by powerful ultrasound generators and clouds in the room are for real and rain drops are for real

Call UN HQ New York one day

 

[a a]

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 21:18:55 UTC+2, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:

onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 20.26.58 UTC+2 skrev Jeroen Belleman:
On 2022-08-31 18:40, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 17.32.38 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8
Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

it is hard to store and transport and once you account for energy content it is only ~25% less CO2/KJ

burning ammonia seems like a recipe for making lots of NOx

Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
you could wash the exhaust, Afaik the local coal fired powerplant here makes money on the sulfuric and nitric acid they get from the exhaust cleaning
fake

\"Synthetic gypsum - on an industrial scale - is obtained through the desulphurisation of flue gases generated in power and heating plants. Its largest customer is the construction industry. Worldwide In many countries flue gas desulphurisation programmes have been developed in accordance with EEC recommendations.


Flue-gas-desulfurization (FGD) gypsum
Synthetic gypsum is also called flue-gas-desulfurization (FGD) gypsum. It is produced through a chemical reaction in the chemical scrubbers that remove sulfur from the flue gases of coal-fired power plants.
Synthetic Gypsum | BuildingGreen
www.buildinggreen.com/primer/synthetic-gypsum
www.buildinggreen.com/primer/synthetic-gypsum

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 21.50.02 UTC+2 skrev a a:

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 21:18:55 UTC+2, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 20.26.58 UTC+2 skrev Jeroen Belleman:
On 2022-08-31 18:40, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 17.32.38 UTC+2 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure, including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas within the next few years, as several companies have promised deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened regardless:
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8
Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

it is hard to store and transport and once you account for energy content it is only ~25% less CO2/KJ

burning ammonia seems like a recipe for making lots of NOx

Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness..
you could wash the exhaust, Afaik the local coal fired powerplant here makes money on the sulfuric and nitric acid they get from the exhaust cleaning
fake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNOX_process

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.

 

[a a]

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 23:25:35 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/
Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.
Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.

fake
ammonia is highly toxic
and should be banned

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 20.26.58 UTC+2 skrev Jeroen Belleman:
On 2022-08-31 18:40, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 31. august 2022 kl. 17.32.38 UTC+2 skrev
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest
emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/



The equivalent of an industry EUA:
\"The American Bureau of Shipping, which sets safety standards
for global shipping, recently granted early-stage approval
for some ammonia-powered ships and fueling infrastructure,
including a design from Samsung Heavy Industries, one of the
world’s largest shipbuilders. Such ships could hit the seas
within the next few years, as several companies have promised
deliveries in 2024.\"

These are not little fringe techie companies- they\'re kinda
massive players in the industry.

And there\'s no \"could\" to it, it\'s happening now.

A more level-headed description of the challenges being
overcome:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/how-ammonia-could-decarbonise-shipping/4014674.article

Quick summary of the ammonia production industry which has to be greened
regardless:

https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/ammonia-fuel-future/99/i8


Envision thousands of deaths in a port city.

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon
of long-chain gunk.

it is hard to store and transport and once you account for energy
content it is only ~25% less CO2/KJ

burning ammonia seems like a recipe for making lots of NOx

Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be
madness.

you could wash the exhaust, Afaik the local coal fired powerplant
here makes money on the sulfuric and nitric acid they get from the
exhaust cleaning

A bit late, since the bores and rings corroded away long before.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.

Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:33:18 -0700 (PDT), a a <manta103g@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 23:25:35 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/
Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.
Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
fake
ammonia is highly toxic
and should be banned

Babies make ammonia.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 5:33:22 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 at 23:25:35 UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/
Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.
Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
fake
ammonia is highly toxic
and should be banned

Your ignorance knows no bounds:
https://www.tfi.org/sites/default/files/documents/ammoniafactsheet.pdf

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

You\'re talking about an industry using a 100 year old process.

 

[Carl]

On 8/31/22 21:01, Fred Bloggs wrote:

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

You\'re talking about an industry using a 100 year old process.

And for 99+ of those 100 years researchers have been working hard to
find a process to replace it. Lots, if not most (too lazy to look up
the numbers) of that ammonia goes into fertilizer production and is a
significant portion of the cost of growing food. Whoever proves out a
lower cost, more environmentally friendly process will be Tesla-level
rich. There are some lab results using much more expensive catalysts
that work at lower temperature and pressure, and some electrochemical
cells that run for a while at the gram scale, but nothing remotely close
to being ready for scaleup. It\'s a very hard problem that many people
have worked on. It may happen faster than fusion power plants, but
maybe not .

--
Regards,
Carl

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 9:38:49 PM UTC-4, Carl wrote:

On 8/31/22 21:01, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 7:40:23 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:25:31 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 8:32:38 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 07:58:14 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considered as a country, global shipping is the 6th largest emitter of GHG.

Simple minded TR article, imparts awareness type of info:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/31/1058791/ammonia-fuel-clean-up-global-shipping/

Why not LNG? Between massive explosions, it has half the carbon of
long-chain gunk.

Half is more than zero.
Refueling time with hydrogen in intercalated tanks is long, but ammonia is a pumpable
liquid. Easier, I suppose, to pump with pipes than to swap in full tanks with a crane.
Both options require refrigeration at the port.

CO2 recovery at sea might be cost-effective, too; Iceland has a storage scheme with
good prospects, in the right kind of geology.
Wiki says

Ammonia production is energy-intensive, accounting for 1 to 2% of
global energy consumption, 3% of global carbon emissions,[150] and 3
to 5% of natural gas consumption.[151]

That doesn\'t sound efficient to me.

You\'re talking about an industry using a 100 year old process.
And for 99+ of those 100 years researchers have been working hard to
find a process to replace it. Lots, if not most (too lazy to look up
the numbers) of that ammonia goes into fertilizer production and is a
significant portion of the cost of growing food. Whoever proves out a
lower cost, more environmentally friendly process will be Tesla-level
rich. There are some lab results using much more expensive catalysts
that work at lower temperature and pressure, and some electrochemical
cells that run for a while at the gram scale, but nothing remotely close
to being ready for scaleup. It\'s a very hard problem that many people
have worked on. It may happen faster than fusion power plants, but
maybe not .

Stay tuned because it\'s already been licked.

--
Regards,
Carl