Ars Technica brings us water and air are all you need to make one of world's most important chemicals
Researchers have developed a method to produce ammonia starting only with air and water. Not only is it more energy efficient than the century-old Haber-Bosch process that's currently in use, but it's also greener.
The ability to mass produce Ammonia made up of three parts hydrogen and one part nitrogen (or NH3) has had a momentous impact on society. Without the ready availability of this chemical, it is estimated that as many as a third of us won't be alive. This is because its main use is in fertilizer production, which has helped improve crop yields and sustain a large population.
Developed in 1909, the Haber-Bosch process often cited as the most important invention of the 20th century involves heating nitrogen and hydrogen gas at very high temperature and pressure in presence of an iron catalyst. The presence of the catalyst, which doesn't take part in the reaction but lowers its energy threshold, is vital. Haber-Bosch was used to produce about 140 million tons of ammonia in 2012, but it consumes nearly two percent of the world's energy supply.
These are not all that make Licht's method attractive. Some of the energy involved can be supplied by another technology Licht has developed called solar thermal electrochemical production, or STEP. STEP is able to use most of the spectrum of incoming solar energy, making it relatively efficient.
So an improvement over an old and well exploited process; that will reduce global energy consumption - is there really a chance we might be able to cheat our way out of global climate change?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday August 12 2014, @04:57AM
This could prove to have a greater impact on our world that most people might realize. There is a process that was announced in June that can turn Ammonia into pure hydrogen for fuel.
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-hydrogen-breakthrough-game-changer-future-car.html [phys.org]
With a cheap conversion from air/water to ammonia, which can be transported and stored easier than pure hydrogen, and the process to generate hydrogen fuel on site or on an as needed basis this could be the game changer to make the transition from fossil derived hydrocarbons to cleaner carbon neutral fuels.
Electric cars can be adapted to fuel cells once that tech is mature enough and there is already a process to convert hydrogen and CO2 into methane that most contemporary internal combustion engines can run on with only minimal modifications.
All we need now is a clean, cheap and safe supply of power.
Oh wait, we have those. Solar, wind, hydro/geothermal and nuclear. (OK, nuke isn't perfect but it is far safer than coal)
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1) by richtopia on Tuesday August 12 2014, @05:50AM
I looked into ammonia cars and one of the largest issues is that if you need hydrogen as a feedstock, then why not use hydrogen (same argument can be made to nat gas, as hydrogen is made from nat gas, so why not use nat gas)?
I do agree this is could be a huge advancement, and one of the few articles I see that claim to be earth shattering and I believe. I wonder how well this will scale to industrial scale.
I doubt that we will see this process much beyond pilot plant in the USA as natural gas is so cheap and there is so much ammonia capacity already. However countries with little natural gas can take advantage of this, particularly if electricity is cheap. With the feedstocks being air, water, and lots of power this could be a candidate for relatively remote locations with cheap hydro power.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday August 12 2014, @07:04AM
Ammonia and natural gas are both easier to compress/liquefy/store than hydrogen which has to be kept really cold and/or under such a high pressure that the hydrogen can literally seep out of a tank through the molecular structure of the metal making the tank. It has been one of the biggest hold backs of using hydrogen for any application smaller than an industrial plant or space center.
Ammonia also has the advantage that it is non-flammable, unlike natural gas and hydrogen, so it would be easier and safer to store and transport. Though a leak could cause some health issues if anyone/anything got caught in the cloud of ammonia gas it would disperse quickly once the leak was fixed.
Natural gas may be cheap but it is still a fossil derived hydrocarbon, burning it is adding carbon to the air and affecting the climate. There are also the safety and health issues surrounding some methods of recovering natural gas in the USA. The ammonia/hydrogen tech could result in a carbon neutral fuel that can be used in existing internal combustion engine and fuel cell powered vehicles. And if the process can be scaled small enough you could equip electric cars with ammonia tanks and hydrogen fuel cells to extend their range between recharges.
I think the biggest question right now is not how to scale it to industrial but can it be scaled down to home/auto/marine use, that is where it would be the big game changer. No more gasoline needed, fill up on liquid ammonia and the hydrogen gets generated as needed. Much safer.
I look forward to seeing how this tech gets applied. Though I suspect its going to be blocked/challenged by groups interested in preserving the current fuel model for their own benefit/profit.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by BradTheGeek on Tuesday August 12 2014, @11:23AM
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/nh3_paper.pdf [energy.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @04:29PM
Nobody likes to click on a PDF.
If you are going to link to one of those, at least give a summary,
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 12 2014, @11:34AM
"Ammonia also has the advantage that it is non-flammable"
Kind of. You're correct in that the flammability level is ridiculous compared to dangerous stuff like hydrogen and it doesn't burn or ignite well without a catalyst.
On the other hand, it does burn. Excellent source of nitrogen oxides for nitric acid production. This makes it a fascinating PITA to think about for a fuel, because the raw fuel if it touches moisture makes a strongly basic corrosive solution that'll eat stuff not stable in bases, like aluminum, or eventually glass/glazings/enamels/porcelains and once you burn it you get a nice strong acid that can oxidize and nitrate organic compounds which will ruin stuff that isn't acid stable, or at least stable in nitric. And catalysts to "clean up" nitrogen oxides in a vehicle exhaust are a PITA. So it's not exactly replacing liquid gasoline as a vehicle fuel any time soon. Now as a feedstock for a fuel cell or for your magic H2 producing gadget, that might get somewhere, but its not as simple as propane where you modify the carb/fuel injectors and its all good.
And on the third hand, its not argon or a halon. I wouldn't go replacing it in halon fire extinguishers as an ozone layer friendly fire extinguisher. Its too flammable for that.
"Though a leak could cause some health issues"
Looking at the safety regs for old fashioned giant ammonia adsorption chillers I don't honestly think we'll ever, ever, see this deployed for home use. With trained drivers, this could be the bus / train fuel of the future. And there's nothing wrong with that, either.
(Score: 1) by theronb on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:19PM
Small correction: Ammonia does have a flammability range in air of 15-25% [wikipedia.org] but that's a lot narrower than hydrogen, plus ammonia has great warning properties - that nasty smell means that a leak will not go unnoticed.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday August 12 2014, @07:11AM
TFA says
Depending on how much gas it takes to melt the potash, this is probably cheaper than even extraction from gas directly. To the extent you can use solar, it could be way cheaper and we could leave the gas in the ground for the future.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @09:00AM
lolwat?
(Score: 2) by RaffArundel on Tuesday August 12 2014, @01:14PM
It is the "hydro-" part of "hydrocarbons" of which natural gas is one. The extraction is called "reforming" and is the major way we create hydrogen.
Going back to PinkyGigglebrain's post, I was under the impression we were creating all that hydrogen to create ammonia (primarily for fertilizer) so it is interesting that this approach stores hydrogen in ammonia, cracking it for hydrogen powered cars... and just releasing the nitrogen? So, you still don't want to keep your car running in an enclosed space. Storing ammonia is a lot easier than storing since it is a liquid at room temperature.
Hopefully we are talking fuel-cell cars, and not ICE's, since I vaguely recall the ICE performance was horrible. If all the processes (converting air and water to fuel, storing that fuel, cracking the fuel for hydrogen with a catalyst, using that in a fuel cell, powering a car) are as easy as these links suggest, then this may show promise. Then again, we could be talking about that classic "in the near future" that always seems to "in the future". From TFA no one is sure if it can be scaled up, but the good news is that producing ammonia is a very profitable business - so I suspect someone is going to try.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:44PM
I think he was laughing at the "made from" part. Nobody "makes" hydrogen from natural gas. Hydrogen is extracted, split off, reformed, whatever ... it isn't "made".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @04:32PM
By that definition, nothing is "made" it all exists in another form.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Pseudonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @07:39AM
Except, AFAIK:
* solar and wind energy isn't viable.
* nuclear (fusion/thorium/liquid salt) is where it's at.
* I can't be assed to get me some citations
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 12 2014, @09:04AM
Or even enassed enough to be an authentic Anonymous Coward! This is the lowest I have seen, here or elsewhere!
May you be fried in a photovoltaic accident!
(Score: 0) by Pseudonymous Coward on Friday August 15 2014, @11:27AM
So simply stating what I've heard is apparently being a "troll"?
wat
(Score: 1) by lil'wombat on Tuesday August 12 2014, @06:25AM
Bacteria can generate ammonia at standard temperatures and pressures. Some day people will have a garage based unit that will generate ammonia for pennies to power the fuel cell electrical generating systems installed in your home and cars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Tuesday August 12 2014, @07:17AM
Who needs a new scientific opportunity. Humans and other creatures produce vast quantities of ammonia in the form of urine that is allowed to become rancid. After all, why do you think the ancient Romans put urinals in their public toilets? The piss did not go into the rivers. It was used for washing clothes and hair. So, if fuel is going to be produced from ammonia, we ought to be pissing into our cars, or installing urinals in our houses. Women may have a problem with the latter, however.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday August 12 2014, @07:48AM
Why [wikipedia.org]? We life in a time of equal rights at all costs, don't we? (Of course, this wikipedia article could be FUD ;-))
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by mendax on Tuesday August 12 2014, @09:20PM
Very funny. My mom thought it was always unfair that she had to sit while my dad, my brother, and I could just "hang it out there" and whizz. Now she has a choice!
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 12 2014, @09:12AM
The secondary use for the process was fertilizer, the primary was for nitrates, of which Germany was in dire need in WWI, being cut off from the normal supplies of guano by the British Royal Navy! And one of the inventors went on to great things, chemically speaking, both in WWI and in WWII! So if we can just get rid of the old Nazi Arbiet Farben ways of doing things, that is a win all around. Godwin-ing on ammonia, I can't believe it. And good luck to the Texas town of West, served so well by the old process, until it exploded.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:50PM
http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/ [radiolab.org]
This is a great RadioLab episode about Fritz Haber -- here's the blurb:
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 12 2014, @09:52AM
"is there really a chance we might be able to cheat our way out of global climate change?"
What's cheating about that? Replacing a process with another that consumes less energy is not cheating, it's progress.
Are flat screens cheating because they use less energy than CRTs? Is it cheating to buy a refrigerator that keeps the food just as cool while consuming less energy? Is using a microwave cheating?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:46PM
This won't help with our overpopulation issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14 2014, @05:58AM
Go shoot yourself this will help definitely.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday August 14 2014, @03:53PM
I should probably save this one for an article which is actually about the 'overpopulation issue' but.. I feel like ranting.
What overpopulation issue? Sure, there has to be a maximum number of people that the Earth can support. So how many is it? Give me a number so I can do the math and see for myself how far over we are.
But.. where is your number going to come from? Is it based on observation of current population and consumption levels? If so then sorry, I don't accept it.
There is still a lot of work to do. As this article shows us there are discoveries to be made, ways to produce more with less and create less impact on the environment while doing it. Probably even bigger, there are all sorts of more social issues. We have people living wastefully. We have people living where they shouldn't. (like draining rivers to water deserts). We have people preventing people from producing food or destroying the food that they produce (war torn areas). We have people who want to work, producing food but aren't given a chance to do so. We have people who don't want to produce anything but are given food anyway. We have food rotting away which could be sent to places it is needed but can't due to patents. We have executives who don't really produce anything being given more resources than any individual could possibly consume.
The list goes on...
There are all sorts of things we can improve that will consequently increase the number of people that the Earth can support while at the same time lessening our burden on the environment. I'm sure our descendants will some day reach a point where there is just nothing which can be done to support their numbers on this one planet. Hopefully they will have more worlds available to them by then. But, lets make sure we are supporting the population we have in an efficient way before we start advocating sterilization, imprisonment for having too many children, just killing a whole lot of people off in WWIV or any other population reduction techniques.
Otherwise who are we even saving the world for?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by morgauxo on Tuesday August 12 2014, @02:53PM
Sorry to be cynical but it seems like whenever I read an internet article about some potentially world changing (for the better) discovery nothing happens. Either nobody can reproduce it or it is patented, not-developed and forgotten.