How ammonia could help clean up global shipping...

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 12:02:19 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-09-02 19:37, John Larkin wrote:

I think there was once a piston engine that sprayed powdered coal into
the cylinder.

How about wood chips?

What about the ashes?

Probably the ashes from ammonia burning are N2 gas and H2O vapor,
so go out the \'smokestack\' looking like... steam. And from a wood chips
burner, also out the \'smokestack\' smelling like a forest fire and looking like soot.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-09-02 21:37, whit3rd wrote:

On Friday, September 2, 2022 at 12:02:19 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2022-09-02 19:37, John Larkin wrote:

I think there was once a piston engine that sprayed powdered coal into
the cylinder.

How about wood chips?

What about the ashes?

Probably the ashes from ammonia burning are N2 gas and H2O vapor,
so go out the \'smokestack\' looking like... steam. And from a wood chips
burner, also out the \'smokestack\' smelling like a forest fire and looking like soot.

I\'d expect ashes to play havoc with lubrication. That
doesn\'t look good for a piston engine.

Anecdote: Nicéphore Niépce, one of the early inventors
of IC engines, ran his invention on lycopodium.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 5:06:50 AM UTC+10, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-09-05 20:01, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful.

The alternative being... what? The burning of coal and oil wastes CO2,
and that waste, building up in the atmosphere, cooks the planet.
Agriculture is already suffering (and agriculture is NOT just
someone else\'s problem, if you want to survive).

I think we all agree that the days of cheap fuel just coming
out of a hole in the ground are numbered. We\'ll have to find
alternatives and it will be more expensive.

It isn\'t. Solar cells are now the cheapest electricity source around and by a wide enough margin to cover the extra cost of the grid storage you need to make it work. Wind turbines are the next cheapest source. Utility power generators aren\'t looking at anything else when they invest in new generating capacity. They\'ve got a lot of legacy investment in generating equipment that burns fossil carbon, and some recent investment in fast start gas turbine powered generation which is a tolerable substitute for grid storage in coping with intermittent generation, but the long term trend is obvious.

In my opinion, all the ado about CO2 is exaggerated. There have been times in the
past where the concentration was much higher than even the most
pessimistic current projections, and flora and fauna survived
just fine, in fact, did very well indeed.

It\'s an ill-informed opinion. You are referring to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

\"Fossil records for many organisms show major turnovers. For example, in the marine realm, a mass extinction of benthic foraminifera, a global expansion of subtropical dinoflagellates, and an appearance of excursion, planktic foraminifera and calcareous nanofossils all occurred during the beginning stages of PETM. On land, modern mammal orders (including primates) suddenly appear in Europe and in North America. \"

We are likely to be one of the species who would have a hard time coping with the changes in the environment. The sudden appearance of \"new orders of mammals\" does imply that the older orders of mammals who had been occupying the relevant ecological niches had gone extinct.

> Yes, there will be change. Nothing ever stays the same, whatever we do. Some will lose, some others will gain.

We are the dominant species at the moment, so we are pretty much certain to be one of the losers. We are famously adaptable, but we are changing the climate about a hundred times faster than it changed back then which is a very severe test.

Chemistry allows us to make quantities of molecules that we do not
find in nature. That\'s called \'chemical engineering\', and it\'s a useful
discipline; it\'s possible to re-engineer a ship motor, or to clean up
atmospheric CO2, and... it makes sense to consider those, and
other options. If our technology has to be stretched to cover
some novel processes, then let\'s stretch it.

It\'s not a simple matter of doing some chemistry. The process needs
to be economically viable, not waste more energy than we already do,
and not produce more and/or nastier pollutants than we already do.
That\'s a pretty tall order, or we\'d already be doing it.

Generating electric power with solar cells and windmills doesn\'t generate any pollution at all. Making the solar cells and digging up the minerals we need to make the solar cells and the wind turbines is less innocent, but we should be able to cope.

Current ship\'s motors are filthy, even the little ones. It shouldn\'t
be too hard to clean them up a bit. And you should see the stuff they
burn in the big ones! It\'s not even liquid enough to be pumped around
at room temperature and it hasn\'t been desulfurized either. Disgusting,
but cheap. That\'s economy in action.

That said, I\'m pretty confident that economy alone will prevent
ammonia from going anywhere as a fuel. Maybe, just maybe, it can
serve as a medium for energy storage in an industrial setting,
although I believe there are far better ways to do that. The problem
will be governmental mandates. I have little confidence that our
collective governments will be able to do the right thing.

When the coal mining and oil extracting interests largely dictate what governments end up doing, your pessimism is understandable,
As the electorate gets a better grasp of what\'s gong on, those kinds of governments do tend to get kicked out.

Australia now has a Labour government (left wing) rather than a Liberal government (right wing). Both parties lost votes in the election to greener candidates, but the Liberal party lost more.

Jeroen Belleman (who still remembers when natural gas was just wasted,
because it wasn\'t economically viable to actually use it.)

Some of it was flared off, but not a lot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[rbowman]

On 09/05/2022 07:44 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:18:36 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 11:01:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful.

The alternative being... what? The burning of coal and oil wastes CO2,
and that waste, building up in the atmosphere, cooks the planet.
Agriculture is already suffering (and agriculture is NOT just
someone else\'s problem, if you want to survive).
Not suffering:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x44favedrugwpvx/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?dl=0

Yeah, that\'s a stupid argument. The production of grain is adjusted by the producers to suit market
conditions, and a population expands along with ... the market. That indicator doesn\'t measure
arable land or favorable climate. Beef production in Texas shows lessening since 1975,
which DOES speak to grazing land not doing well in a changing climate.

https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg

Bushels per acre is economically important for growers: they have to pay for acres, but get paid
for bushels. That argument means improvement in management, or soil treatment, or prediction,
or speaks to less-productive land (parched, too hot?) going OUT of grain production entirely.
It tells us nothing about total land area being productive.

https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/YieldTrends.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXvG0SMP7tw

 

[Robert Latest]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

If you were really interested you\'d just read the cited \"chemistryworld\"
article which gives a pretty good overview of the potential benefits of the
method as well as its shortcomings and risks. It answers or at least addresses
every question you\'ve come up with so far.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-09-05 18:05, Robert Latest wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On 1 Sep 2022 14:30:05 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Burning ammonia is how nitric acid is made. A major industrial
product, but not a useful, safe IC engine fuel. That would be madness.
Nobody suggested using ammonia as combustion fuel.

How would a ship use ammonia for propulsion?

If you were really interested you\'d just read the cited \"chemistryworld\"
article which gives a pretty good overview of the potential benefits of the
method as well as its shortcomings and risks. It answers or at least addresses
every question you\'ve come up with so far.

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful. You can\'t simply burn it, because that would produce
nitrogen oxides. It not a viable alternative to petroleum. It\'s worse. Much
worse. Don\'t believe the green hype. They\'re wrong.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful.

The alternative being... what? The burning of coal and oil wastes CO2,
and that waste, building up in the atmosphere, cooks the planet.
Agriculture is already suffering (and agriculture is NOT just
someone else\'s problem, if you want to survive).

Chemistry allows us to make quantities of molecules that we do not
find in nature. That\'s called \'chemical engineering\', and it\'s a useful
discipline; it\'s possible to re-engineer a ship motor, or to clean up
atmospheric CO2, and... it makes sense to consider those, and
other options. If our technology has to be stretched to cover
some novel processes, then let\'s stretch it.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-09-05 20:01, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful.

The alternative being... what? The burning of coal and oil wastes CO2,
and that waste, building up in the atmosphere, cooks the planet.
Agriculture is already suffering (and agriculture is NOT just
someone else\'s problem, if you want to survive).

I think we all agree that the days of cheap fuel just coming
out of a hole in the ground are numbered. We\'ll have to find
alternatives and it will be more expensive. In my opinion, all
the ado about CO2 is exaggerated. There have been times in the
past where the concentration was much higher than even the most
pessimistic current projections, and flora and fauna survived
just fine, in fact, did very well indeed. Yes, there will be
change. Nothing ever stays the same, whatever we do. Some will
lose, some others will gain.

Chemistry allows us to make quantities of molecules that we do not
find in nature. That\'s called \'chemical engineering\', and it\'s a useful
discipline; it\'s possible to re-engineer a ship motor, or to clean up
atmospheric CO2, and... it makes sense to consider those, and
other options. If our technology has to be stretched to cover
some novel processes, then let\'s stretch it.

It\'s not a simple matter of doing some chemistry. The process needs
to be economically viable, not waste more energy than we already do,
and not produce more and/or nastier pollutants than we already do.
That\'s a pretty tall order, or we\'d already be doing it.

Current ship\'s motors are filthy, even the little ones. It shouldn\'t
be too hard to clean them up a bit. And you should see the stuff they
burn in the big ones! It\'s not even liquid enough to be pumped around
at room temperature and it hasn\'t been desulfurized either. Disgusting,
but cheap. That\'s economy in action.

That said, I\'m pretty confident that economy alone will prevent
ammonia from going anywhere as a fuel. Maybe, just maybe, it can
serve as a medium for energy storage in an industrial setting,
although I believe there are far better ways to do that. The problem
will be governmental mandates. I have little confidence that our
collective governments will be able to do the right thing.

Jeroen Belleman (who still remembers when natural gas was just wasted,
because it wasn\'t economically viable to actually use it.)

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

mandag den 5. september 2022 kl. 21.06.50 UTC+2 skrev Jeroen Belleman:

On 2022-09-05 20:01, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful.

The alternative being... what? The burning of coal and oil wastes CO2,
and that waste, building up in the atmosphere, cooks the planet.
Agriculture is already suffering (and agriculture is NOT just
someone else\'s problem, if you want to survive).
I think we all agree that the days of cheap fuel just coming
out of a hole in the ground are numbered. We\'ll have to find
alternatives and it will be more expensive. In my opinion, all
the ado about CO2 is exaggerated. There have been times in the
past where the concentration was much higher than even the most
pessimistic current projections, and flora and fauna survived
just fine, in fact, did very well indeed. Yes, there will be
change. Nothing ever stays the same, whatever we do. Some will
lose, some others will gain.

Chemistry allows us to make quantities of molecules that we do not
find in nature. That\'s called \'chemical engineering\', and it\'s a useful
discipline; it\'s possible to re-engineer a ship motor, or to clean up
atmospheric CO2, and... it makes sense to consider those, and
other options. If our technology has to be stretched to cover
some novel processes, then let\'s stretch it.

It\'s not a simple matter of doing some chemistry. The process needs
to be economically viable, not waste more energy than we already do,
and not produce more and/or nastier pollutants than we already do.
That\'s a pretty tall order, or we\'d already be doing it.

Current ship\'s motors are filthy, even the little ones. It shouldn\'t
be too hard to clean them up a bit. And you should see the stuff they
burn in the big ones! It\'s not even liquid enough to be pumped around
at room temperature and it hasn\'t been desulfurized either.

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/03-1-March-carriage-ban-.aspx

 

[server]

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 11:01:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful.

The alternative being... what? The burning of coal and oil wastes CO2,
and that waste, building up in the atmosphere, cooks the planet.
Agriculture is already suffering (and agriculture is NOT just
someone else\'s problem, if you want to survive).

Not suffering:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x44favedrugwpvx/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?dl=0

https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 1:18:36 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2022 11:01:28 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 10:43:36 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

Using ammonia as a fuel is madness, I repeat. It\'s a nasty toxic substance.
It\'s nowhere found in useful quantities in nature. It has to be made, which
is inherently wasteful.

The alternative being... what? The burning of coal and oil wastes CO2,
and that waste, building up in the atmosphere, cooks the planet.
Agriculture is already suffering (and agriculture is NOT just
someone else\'s problem, if you want to survive).
Not suffering:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x44favedrugwpvx/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?dl=0

Yeah, that\'s a stupid argument. The production of grain is adjusted by the producers to suit market
conditions, and a population expands along with ... the market. That indicator doesn\'t measure
arable land or favorable climate. Beef production in Texas shows lessening since 1975,
which DOES speak to grazing land not doing well in a changing climate.

> https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg

Bushels per acre is economically important for growers: they have to pay for acres, but get paid
for bushels. That argument means improvement in management, or soil treatment, or prediction,
or speaks to less-productive land (parched, too hot?) going OUT of grain production entirely.
It tells us nothing about total land area being productive.

> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Yeah, most of those leaves are weeds. The parts of our crops that matter are not entirely
the chlorophyll-containing ones, we don\'t NEED reassurance of the presence of pigment.

Missing the ball, three strikes: John Larkin is out.