By-product of combustion is N2O..arguably 300times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Am I missing a step here?
-
-
-
If you read the article, you'll see they're working on a "reactor [that] will 'crack' ammonia into its two constituents: H2, to be gathered up for sale, and N2, to waft back into the air."
-
Would have loved to read it but the paywall seemed a bit excessive. That does sound like a good idea, though I would love to check out the %conversion rate and how much unwanted product occurs.
-
It's still early in the development phase now but those are good questions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
but will some of it burn to NO compounds? not so great?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Reality check. The device described by the authors converts N2 and H2O to ammonia using electricity at ambient conditions with 60% efficiency but very low (impractically low) yields. 3x better yields at 30% efficiency. This is not very scalable.
-
“Liquid Nuclear” is a much better approach. Use nuclear heat/electricity to split water for H2 and Haber-Bosch to make ammonia from H2 and N2. Both processes have been highly optimized. Ammonia synthesis is currently done on a massive scale with high efficiency.
-
Ammonia upgraded to hydrazine H2N2 and mixed with 5-10% water makes a fuel with an energy density closer to gasoline. The water stabilizes the hydrazine and adds to combustion pressure when burned. Quite a practical zero carbon fuel.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
To clarify: I like many average people, can't see how this is a viable energy alternative. Someone posting a link, to a site, where you have to pay, to read the proofs of their argument, is no argument at all to me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.