Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that still just hypothetical? I have seen various schemes suggested, but to my knowledge nobody has actually demonstrated a continuous, scaled-up ammonia process based on renewable energy.

It seems like, too, if we actually could produce ammonia from renewable energy, our greatest need for it would be for fertilizer. You point our in your article Ammonia and Biofuels that it would take 77,600 wind turbines to produce the amount of ammonia that we currently use for fertilizer. We would need a huge multiple of that amount to produce the amount of ammonia we would need for any reasonable amount of replacement fuel.

if we are talking about sustainability then ammonia is better used as fuel rather than fertilizer while biomass is better used as (feedstock for) fertilizer rather than biofuel (unless it is a byproduct from a digester). it will be a huge undertaking to solve our energy problem no matter which way we pick.

We don't need to recover all the ammonia we just need to recover the loss plus demand growth. One other point, did anyone notice the article about the farmer redirecting exhaust from his tractor to fertilize his fields? He noted a 75% reduction in his need for chemical fertilizer.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2006/06/23/mb-farm-exhaust-20060...

I thought the idea was very interesting, if it could be made to work. I have read several times about people adding carbon to the soil, and increasing fertility, and this seems to follow the same principle.

Well, according to the article, the farmer modified his equipment and then noted the lessened need for fertilizer to produce comparable yields. So according to the article it worked. Doesn't seem to be difficult to scale -- slight modification to tractor exhaust -- and works with existing infrastructure.

Short term solution that adds efficiency and reduces demand to a depleting supply. Sounds like a win-win.

if that indeed works as claimed, wouldn't that also sequester CO2 from the exhaust?

"Carlisle said testing has shown the system collects approximately 95 per cent of his equipment's emissions, and has reduced his need to add nitrogen and other fertilizers."

This seems to imply that it does. But I don't honestly know. It's novel ideas like this that I really like. Hopefully, the process works as claimed and becomes more widely accepted practice.

I think it's the nitrogen oxides in the exhaust, of which there are plenty because of a diesel's high combustion temperature, that is doing the fertilizing, not the carbon. If this is so, this could be a huge breakthrough in reducing fertilizer need. NOx must be finding some way to bind to the soil particles and be converted to usable nitrogen through microbic activity. Somebody should find a grad student who's looking for a dissertation research topic. For small grains (wheat, barley, rye) nitrogen is the primary fertility need. Usually there's enough phosphate and potash in the soil that little of those need to be added. (This is not the case for corn.)

It would be limited to air-seeder seed delivery systems, which have become the standard for small grain farming on the plains. Air seeders are a combination of field cultivator and seed injector. Tillage, planting and fertilizing are done in one pass through the field. Seed is kept in a big hopper, towed behind the cultivator, and is injected through plastic hoses, exiting underground just behind each cultivator shovel. Air seeders are usually 40 to 60 feet wide. They can plant over 40 acres per hour.

Some more thoughts on what might be happening. NO2 and NO3 don't like to stay in the soil. Perhaps the relatively high 150 F cooled-down exhaust temperature plus the abundant water vapor in the exhaust are helping the NOx stay put. That, in addition with the low ground temperatures (on the Northern Plains small grains are seeded as early as possible after the frost comes out of the ground) and low rainfall (S/W Manitoba gets about 16 inches total moisture per year) could be keeping these gases in place long enough for the nitrogen to get fixed.

My goodness. That's a lot more technical knowledge on the subject than I could hope for. But reading your post does give me a more distinct idea of the problem. I wonder if saturating the seed with NOx is what's causing the fixing/fertilizing to take place? Do you think this is a technique that could be used in the US or other places around the world with certain crops and farm sizes?

It's not saturating the seed; it's going into the soil. The fact that this is being done while seeding the field is incidental. The same technique could be used with any ground preparation that is separate from seeding. I don't know if it would work with no-till row-crops since the injection points are so far apart. Small grain is seeded on 6" to 7" row spacing, and row crops are done on a 22" to 30" spacing. On a wide spacing, as the roots spread out underground beyond the row, they would become nitrogen starved. That's one reason corn is side-dressed with nitrogen fertilizer after it is well leafed out.

That's not a correction; it's a validation of what I wrote: "nobody has actually demonstrated a continuous, scaled-up ammonia process based on renewable energy."

Also, doesn't ammonia combustion produce NOx and nitric acid? What is the plan for dealing with them?

From the article:

"The potential, however, is far reaching. Collectively, all of the wind turbines that now generate electricity in Minnesota have a bit less than 1 gigawatt of capacity. According to Reese, it would take only double that capacity for wind power to produce all of the nitrogenous fertilizer used by every farm in the state."

Again, as I said: Has not been demonstrated. It is sort of like saying there is enough biomass to run all of our cars on. Then why aren't we doing it? Because there are many complicating factors in the details.

Like I said in my first response, I am aware of the ideas. But someone is going to have to demonstrate that it works at scale. Splitting water, separating the hydrogen, getting it to where you want it - those are the sorts of details one has to work through.

let me quote John Holbrook - one of the experts on the issue:

There is no question that ammonia can be produced on a large scale using
renewable energy. The best example was Norway, where the company Norsk
Hydro used hydroelectric power to produce NH3 for six decades in the 20th
century. At peak capacity, a single Hydro plant was operating 150 MW of
electrolzyer capacity, which generated 64 tons of H2 per day (equivalent to
64,000 gallons of gasoline) and 365 tons of NH3 per day.

The question is not really whether large amounts of NH3 can be made using
wind, solar, or hydroelectric power, it's whether it can be done cost
competitively. The Norsk Hydro plant was mothballed about twenty years ago
because the electrolyzer approach for producing NH3 just could not compete
with NH3 produced using cheap natural gas. The relatively low efficiency of
the electrolyzes and their high capital costs essentially put them out of
business. It simply is cheaper to get your hydrogen for ammonia by
reforming natural gas than by cracking water using electrolysis, or at least
it was at that time..

The landscape has changed a bit for electrolyzer technology since then with
new technologies such as PEM electrolyzers, and new companies such as ITM
Power (UK) and GE getting into the area. In both of those instances, the
market driver has been to supply H2 to the Hydrogen Economy, not to
manufacture NH3, but the technology improvements and lowered capital costs
would still apply to NH3 production.

Is the cost reduction enough to make it competitive or marginally competitive with FF?

it all depends on where the price point of NG is or if NG should be used for such purpose at all. with the advent of new technology such as solid state ammonia synthesis (SSAS), producing ammonia from RE will be cheaper than producing hydrogen via electrolysis.

Also, doesn't ammonia combustion produce NOx and nitric acid? What is the plan for dealing with them?

ammonia combustion produces less NOx than that of FF. if further reduction of NOx is desired, ammonia or urea can be used for that purpose. http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/03/scr-sncr/Final_ralst... this is the way used in some of the high end cars made by Mercedes Benz.

do you have any referable source about nitric acid produced by ammonia combustion?

do you have any referable source about nitric acid produced by ammonia combustion?

Well, you can work out the stoichiometry. You are combusting a nitrogen compound with oxygen, you are going to end up with a nitrogen/oxygen compound in the product.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/chem/chem173/studyguide/chapter6bstudy.htm

The combustion of ammonia produces nitric acid according to the following equation:

4 NH3(g) + 5 O2(g)--->4 NO(g) + 6H2O(g)

What do you think the combustion reaction looks like? I suppose if there is an excess of oxygen, the nitric acid may oxidize to nitrogen, but if the reaction isn't fast, that's going to be a very corrosive step.

Has anyone actually used ammonia in any kind of engine in an extended application?

gee, i have to admit that i must have been left behind since i didn't attend one of these k12 schools. all i know is that the dominant reaction in the combustion is:

4 NH3 + 3 O2 -> 2 N2 + 6 H2O

Has anyone actually used ammonia in any kind of engine in an extended application?

people used ammonia in trucks and buses in Europe during WWII and never heard of any report of engine corrosion. GM and UC berkeley conducted extensive ammonia ICE researches during 1960s and 70s for the army, reported specifically that no corrosion was observed in the engines. there is a pick-up truck fueled by ammonia in operation for years now in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Do you have some links to the applications? I would like to read more. I don't discount anything before investigating (unless there is a clear knockout factor, or it violates thermodynamics). I have run across some wacky ideas that turned out to be promising.

sure. here are some links as a starter:

http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia.htm

http://www.memagazine.org/contents/current/webonly/webex710.html

talking about wackiness, NASA's X-15 rocket plane is ammonia fueled. for the publicly disclosed reports from the army funded ammonia fuel research, search

http://stinet.dtic.mil/str/quick-tr.html

with key words of ammonia fuel or ammonia combustion.

You might be interested in the guest essay I posted on my blog a little over a year ago by Dave Bradley on this subject:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/09/ammonia-and-biofuels.html

I thought it was an interesting and novel concept, but wasn't sure about viability.

Dave and i are in touch via direct channels. he has been following this thread. ;)

There was a small plant in Iceland (used 10 MW from memory) that made fertilizer from air for several decades, till aluminum smelters outbid them. and they needed major refurbishment.

Earlier plants in Norway (in the era when they had electric boilers, create steam with electrical resistance for industrial processes vs. creating steam to make electricity).

Also plans for the Grand Inga Hydroelectric Project (44 GW) include ammonia production on a seasonal basis (low capital cost when electricity is in surplus).

Alan