Ammonia fueled Ranger project is now on the road

[bobbywalter]

i have played in a prius....


there is no way i would have one over an escort. roomy? midsize? a taurus or malibu to me is midsize.

i would take a butanol or amonia anything over a prius.


where are the emmission stats on the amonia 4.0?

 

[AllanD]

The alternative fuels that are being discussed NOW are on the same PRACTICAL level as discussing jet engines would have been in the 1890's with the creation of the first marine STEAM turbine power plant.
Or talking about Nuclear power while standing next to Enrico Fermi's graphite pile
at the University of Chicago in 1940.
Or talking about Nuclear propulsion standing in the desert before
the Trinity test.

Is it possible? Yes.

will any of the discussed alternatives ever be practical?
it's impossible to tell AT THIS TIME.

Depending on it for "a week from next tuesday" like some people seem to want to is dilusional at best, and at worst?

someone was harranguing me over the past weekend about
"fusion power" (which is still "Science Fiction") as being superior
to "fission power" which is what is currently powering numerous
nuclear plants across the country.

Fusion power is REAL only when I can plug my appliances into it.

How about this, you GIVE me a hydrogen (or ammonia) fuel cell powered vehicle and I drive it out to wyoming to see my brother.... But you'd better give me a cell phone so I can call you and tell you where to send the diesel powered tow truck to get it, because at this time there is NOWHERE to refuel it between here and there.

and frankly I wouldn't bet a single bent penny that there will be
even ten years from now.

Fifteen years from now? Ok, I'll bet HALF the price of a can of pepsi.

20 years from now? I'd only bet a six pack of DOMESTIC beer on that, but I reserve the right to review and possibly retract my bet at the ten year halfway mark... because I'm reasonably sure that something easier like Butanol will be available by then.

As things stand the idea of an E80 fueled vehicle MAY appeal to some, but reality is while Dollars per gallon "look good" if you simply look at dollars per mile you'll see you are getting Royally-Fooked, and if it weren't for government subsidies and tax breaks it would be about as popular as... well... Congress?

And incase yo've forgotten you paid for those subsidies already....

Most of what is seen in the press about various aternatives exaggerate the advantages and either ignore or LIE about the disadvantages and costs.

Alternative fuels will only be "Real" when you can get them
at every exit across the country on I-80 where you can buy Gasoline and Diesel fuel NOW.

Until then it is all a highly imaginative fantasy.

I'm not saying it won't happen.

I am saying it isn't going to happen this year.
I am saying it isn't going to happen this decade
I am saying it probably isn't going to happen NEXT decade either.

Refusing to acknowledge that as fact and insisting
that ONLY alternatives be persued is simply insane.

Insane being defined as "out of touch with reality"

saying "I reject your reality and substitute my own" is cute on
a T-shirt worn by Adam Savage on Mythbusters, but when the
same thing is spoken by a politician? With a straight face?

I find that not only a cause of concern, but alarming.
More alarming than the crisis being discussed.

Doing the wrong thing is usually far worse than doing nothing at all.

Energy density, simplicity, reliability, cost of implementation?

All of these point to contnued use of ICE engines but with renewable "bio" fuels.
and frankly the most practical of the bio fuels is Butanol.
Because of it's energy density, the ammount that can be produced
and what it is produced from (cellulose rather than starch or sugar) and being a fuel produced from biological source materials it it carbon-neutral for those that actually believe in "man made global warming".

Butanol could be available commercially in 5years or so
and phased in gradually to replace gasoline entirely over the following ten years.

Current gasoline fueled vehicles will run better on a gasoline butanol blends (even blends of ~70% butanol)
than they do on 10% blends of Ethanol

Eventually as current vehicles are retired in favor newer
"Gasoline Direct injection" powered vehicles of the gasoline
could be eliminated entirely.

It's practical, demonstratable and implementable.
and would result in a minimum of economic disruption to consumers, by NOT forcing everyone to buy new vehicles
(cars, trucks, tractors, etc) before their useful life is exhausted.

and many more could be retrofitted to burn the newer fuels further reducing the economic impact

Nothing else is all of those things.

Most other things are firmly in the realm of the "Tin Foil Hat".

Frankly I'd love to drive to Sears or BestBuy and buy a brand new
Kenmore or Whirlpool "Mr Fusion home energy unit" capable of
producing my 1.21Gigawatts of electricity.

But since I haven't been sniffing any model glue lately I know that isn't real, nor is it likely to be.... EVER, let alone in my lifetime.

AD

 

[WildSide]

OK, you produce gasoline from carbon dioxide and water? Find ONE plant that does that.

That's what "gasoline is produced just like ammonia" means. It is a FALSE STATEMENT.

When you produce your "fuel" from its combustion products -- which you MUST do with ammonia or hydrogen -- it is wildly incorrect to call it a fuel at all. You WILL consume more fossil fuels than you would have just burning them in the first place.

And that comment about NOx being no more than gasoline, prove it. Nitrogen goes somewhere, and reducing NOx costs energy.

No, it's not a horse and buggy comment. It's a flying saucer comment.

OK makg are you simply trying to be a smart ass or do I have pick words carefully to avoid retard comments? No where have I stated that gasoline is produced from carbon dioxide and water. Furthermore I did state that I will not discuss details with non believers so you can just go back to offering repair advice as far as I am concerned.

 

[MAKG]

Nonbelievers?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is technology, not a religion. If it requires belief, it's BS.

You drew a false analogy between "producing" gasoline and producing alternative "fuels" like hydrogen and ammonia. They are only analogous if you produce gasoline from its combustion products. That's not semantics. It's basic understanding.

 

[WildSide]

Nonbelievers?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is technology, not a religion. If it requires belief, it's BS.

You drew a false analogy between "producing" gasoline and producing alternative "fuels" like hydrogen and ammonia. They are only analogous if you produce gasoline from its combustion products. That's not semantics. It's basic understanding.

Yeah that's no problem Michael I would never expect anything progressive to come from you anyways.

 

[AllanD]

Wildside,

You are what we fight against.

Ignorant people with a belief.

Your believingsomething is possible even in the face of contrary reality is stagering.

YOU probably actually believe that Barak Obama can pull the magicians
rabbit out of his ass and actually DELIVER on his promise of alternative energy.

It isn't real, and all the things that people point to aren't technology
that's ready for the market place and can't possibly be until Barak
serves TWO terms and whoever replaces him is into their second term

But he might manage to steal credit for stuff that's already under way...
Stuff started by the current administration, because frankly the last
one didn't do shit.

if he doesn't steal credit he has two hopes of a second term,
Bob Hope and NO Hope.

Electric and fuel cell vehicles are,
depending on how you look at them either Fantasy or SLAVERY

Freedom to travel when and where you want to is meaningless
without the MEANS to travel as the whim strikes you.

Forciing me to drive an electric car and denying me
any reasonable alternative to gasoline is forcing me
to stay where I am.

I refuse to be restricted in that way.

It's about energy density, ONLY liquid fuels pack the punch needed
to propel me where I want to go, when I need to go there, without
restrictions (intentional or technical, intended or accidental) that
are implicit in electric or fuel cell vehicles.

I like being able to go anywhere within a 600mile radius anytime of
the day or night and being able to refuel as fast as my liquid fuel tank
can be refilled. and carrying as much as three tons of cargo.

But unless vehicles are built using cryogenic storage of hydrogen
fuel cells simply can't do what a gasoline engine can do NOW.

Granted a vehicle with 240liters (that's 68gallons) of cryogenic hydrogen would have essentially the range of a vehicle with an 60liter (17gallon) tank of gasoline ASSUMING the same weight, engine efficiency, aerodynamics etc...

The rub is that simply STORING liquid hydrogen requires slightly more energy than the total ammount of energy spent taking oil from the ground through all the steps to putting gasoline in your tank.

and Hydrogen takes about four times the energy to produce it
than it generates when burned.(this includes evaporation losses in transporting it to point of sale.)

so unless we undertake a MASSIVE build up of our nuclear power generation it cannot happen.

The other "rub" with liquid hydrogen is that it is impractical to store it for any length of time in a portable container, like the fuel tank of your car.

So the actual most efficient way to prevent pointless loss by boiling off is to plug your vehicle into your house, actually I should say plugging your house into your car, and running the fuel cell at whatever level is required to use the hydrogen as it boils off to power your lights, TV, referigerator, etc...

And remembering that your vehicle will need to be refueled every
three-five days even if it sits in it's parking spot.

And I'm sure MAKG will love talking about the dangers of cryogenic hydrogen storage, but in simple terms only liquid hydrogen is "practical" as a fuel for a vehicle used as
anything other than a short range commuter.

Hydrogen stored as compressed gas at 150atmospheres (2250psi)
manages to store at 13.5grams/liter, so to equal a liter of liquid gasoline will take ~5-1/4 liters of high pressure hydrogen storage (in a heavy walled tank)
it takes 284grams of hydrogen (4 liters of liquid hydrogen) to equal the energy of a liter of gasoline, so it'll take a tank aproximatly 30% larger But MUCH heavier walls to equal cryogenic liquid hydrogen and liquid hydrogen already takes a tank four times the size of the quivelent energy in gasoline.

a K-sized tank weighs 110# empty and holds ~10gallons volume
so that large high pressure tank will only hold about the same energy as that carried in the 2gallon gas can you probably have to fill your lawn mower....


So Yes, a hydrogen vehicle on compressed gas isn't actually "impossible", hey, it's been done, but for the use of most people it is "impractical"
but the practical UNreality of the much spoken of "hydrogen economy" makes hydrogen more of a sick joke (or a bald faced lie) than a practical alternative to gasoline

and even with a major reduction in the cost of electrical power generation AND elimination of burning fossil fuels for that electrical power generation. the engineering issues with USING hydrogen are inescapable.

And frankly there will NEVER be enough wind or solar generation to replace all other means of electrical power generation without considering subjecting that generating capacity to the MASSIVE increase that would be imposed by MAKING hydrogen for transportation uses.

a hydrogen fuel cell is better than a rechargable battery,
but as a replacement for a gasoline fueled engine? No.



AD

 

[WildSide]

Allan you may ramble on in your feeble attempt of... sorry what exactly is your point?
My vehicle is running right this minute while you post about maters insignificant and irrelevant to my particular project. The only belief that I have is that you seem to have some serious disorder that need to be addressed.

So what's the deal Allan? Too much time on your hands? Attention deficit disorder? Breathing in too many fumes? Your cat's refuse to play with you any longer?

What relevance does your post (s) have to my vehicle??

 

[MAKG]

Your vehicle is running on gasoline. More than it would be otherwise.

It is NOT a hydrogen fueled vehicle.

 

[WildSide]

Nothing has been stated that this is a hydrogen fueled vehicle makg and there is no gasoline tank, so your argument is?

 

[AllanD]

The attitude you came in with your refusal to provide detains and your claim that you will ignore disbelievers almost had me deleting your post (and this this entire topic)
from your initial post.

Basically this topic is still here because I decided MAKG and I would
have too much fun playing with you.

But like a well chewed mouse to a cat you are getting boring.

Your initial post REEKS of "trollery"

if you are REALLY running a vehicle using Ammonia as a storage
method for hydrogen and you DO NOT have the proper HazMat placards
on your vehicle AND the correct endorsements on your drivers license
You are in violation of multiple state and federal laws.

Basically Ammonia will NEVER be approved for a storage method for hydrogen in
motor vehicles because it is an extreemly hazardous material.

ammonia only sidesteps the issues of cryogenic or high pressure storage
of hydrogen, and adds it's own problems.

It does nothing to make hydrogen less impractical than it already is.


AD

 

[MAKG]

Nothing has been stated that this is a hydrogen fueled vehicle makg and there is no gasoline tank, so your argument is?

It's being used SOMEwhere.

Or perhaps something else, like coal, Diesel, etc.

For a hydrocarbon, pretty much all the energy comes from oxidizing carbon.

Frankly, for reasons Allan mentioned, I find it rather hard to believe this thing actually exists. And if it does, you're a huge toxic accident waiting to happen.

And I'm sure DHS will be interested in where you got all that ammonia. Along with the DEA.

 

[ryan]

if you'd like, you can tell me how much ammonia you carry on your vehicle and the dimensions of your tank, and i can do the plume modeling of the toxic cloud

that might be interesting to see

 

[Hazmat Ranger]

If you are REALLY running a vehicle using Ammonia as a storage
method for hydrogen and you DO NOT have the proper HazMat placards
on your vehicle AND the correct endorsements on your drivers license
You are in violation of multiple state and federal laws.
AD

Allan, that would be my number one concern as an emergency responder. I work for a company that responds to incidents involving hazardous materials and it is getting harder these days, even with increased regulation on transportation and storage devices, to identify these substances.
A recent incident in Baton Rouge, LA. involved a Toyota Camry driving down I-10 with two propane cylinders in the trunk, they overheated and started venting Anydrous Ammonia into the vehicle.
So my questions would be how is the products temperature regulated to make sure it stays cooled, is there a pressure relief device and is it set appropriately, has a capping device been designed to cap the tank in the event of a release, how do emergency responders know this vehicle contains NH3.
I am all for new and "better" ways to save money, be more efficient, and help the environment - but I am totally against the use of this product based simply on the TOXICITY of the substance. I teach emergency response classes specifically on this product to companies that make it, sell it, and use it for industrial purposes.

 

[Hazmat Ranger]

if you'd like, you can tell me how much ammonia you carry on your vehicle and the dimensions of your tank, and i can do the plume modeling of the toxic cloud

that might be interesting to see

CAMEO?

 

[ryan]

CAMEO?

of course

i have some better goodies too, but i've found that they aren't as reliable on my computer for some reason.

i like the CAMEO/ALOHA/MARPLOT package for how quick it spits out a reasonably accurate answer to what i need

edit - and i'm very serious. i'd like that info so you can get an idea of the possible impacts of these types of decisions. i think people need to calculate failure in their decision making when they think alternate fuels - not just MPG