Climate-change solved

New green ammonia-powered fuel cells can fix climate change. You know the problem with hydrogen fuel cells: hydrogen is hard to cleanly produce, store, and distribute. And you know the problem with ammonia: it's hard to cleanly produce. Both problems are now solved. Recent advances mean that Aammonia can now be made cleanly and efficiently, and used to power hydrogen fuel cells cleanly and efficiently. Green ammonia: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-air-ammoniaone-world-important-chemicals.html Ammonia-powered hydrogen fuel cell: https://apnews.com/article/ammonia-fuel-diesel-amogy-shipping-60beccfb8894c79ddc624026fbf0a8e5

Third world countries will still burn the oil coal and gas that we don't burn. Go ahead, tell Mongolia why they should freeze all winter in their yurts instead of burning the coal they have under their feet. Beside, the conservation of energy is an universal rule. To get one joule worth of this ammonia, you have to spend more than one joule to produce it. It's only a way to store and transport energy, something renewable need to function properly but it can not be the center of our grid.

>>42677 Valid points. We'll have to wait and see how much impact it has. Got a laugh out of your picture and stole it. Big oil might be interested because it's something they can make money with. They already have the tanker trucks, and gas stations could add ammonia tanks and pumps. Car manufacturers already know how to make hydrogen fuel cell cars, and adding ammonia tanks isn't a big leap. Solar can now be used to generate ammonia instead of charging batteries.. Raw materials are air (for the nitrogen) and water (for the hydrogen). Waste products are nitrogen (back into the air) and water. It solves so many problems that I don't see how it can fail to have a big impact. But you never know. Using the green ammonia for fertilizer, explosives, and other things will also reduce carbon emissions.

Ammonia is too risky. A spillage in the ocean would be potentially worse than an oil spill. Might be okay for the railroad though. Biobutanol is a biofuel that can be produced by fermentation so while that is a toxic alcohol that may become viable in future but currently not. Since it involves fermentation there is less you have to do to process.

That article is ten years old. Has industrialization of the process made progress yet?

the problem with all of these is that unless there are large natural deposits its just an energy storage system. No one talks about batteries as the solution to the energy problem; they're not. This is a different sort of battery, maybe its better than hydrogen, hydrogen has a lot of problems. But it doesn't solve the basic problem which is that it isn't a fuel by itself, it is not an energy source by itself. You need this together with coal or nuclear or whatever.

>>42679 >Ammonia is too risky. A spillage in the ocean would be potentially worse than an oil spill The ammonia storage and transportation infrastructure has alread been in place and widely used for a long time, including tanker ships. Ammonia is the world's second-most widely produced chemical. >Biobutanol is a biofuel... Biofuels emit carbon... >>42680 >That article is ten years old. Has industrialization of the process made progress yet? "Green-ammonia exports are expected to surge from virtually none today to 121 million tons per year by 2050" https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/77/3/17/3267374/Green-ammonia-can-be-a-clean-energy-sourceThe Green Ammonia Market Explodes with 72.9% CAGR, Reaching $4.5 Billion by 2030, Says Persistence Market Research https://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-ammonia-market-explodes-72-121000094.html >>42681 >...its just an energy storage system...it isn't a fuel by itself In addition to its use for storing and transporting hydrogen, ammonia actually is a practical fuel. "Ammonia produced from renewables is widely seen as viable liquid fuel replacement for many current-day uses of fossil fuels, including as a shipping bunker fuel, as a diesel substitute in transportation, as a replacement fuel in power turbines, and even as a potential jet fuel." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435120301732

>>42686 > are expected to According to a study.... Experts says.... Might... We were told that photovoltaic and wind turbines are cheaper energies than fossil fuel and 20 years after, look at us. There is a reason why the replication crisis exist: this sort of studies are made by the people who produce what is studied and it show what profit require to be shown. This is the bit you need to know: >In 2023, the global market for green ammonia reached a valuation of $97.8 million Like electricity and hydrogen, it's only a mean to stock and transport energy and we still have to produce it, something that renewable currently can't do. We can dream of something like France with 70% nuclear, a good part of renewable and fossil to fill the holes, with a good capacity of production of hydrogen/ammonia to eat the excess of production and regulate the grid it would work, but we can't have 50% of solar and wind.

>>42686 >viable liquid fuel replacement what they mean is that you can use it to run cars or planes. Great, I'll take their word for it, but so what. There's not a great big vein of ammonia to dig up, there are no places to dig wells that I am aware of. You can use it to run a car just as you can use batteries to run the car, but you must charge the batteries, and you must generate the ammonia. Oil by itself is a fuel. You dig it up in massive quantities, it burns, releases heat. Great. Sure to make jet fuel and stuff it needs processing and quite a bit of it, but as it is its already a mass of energy. Uranium likewise. You can just go outside and dig it up some places, its already spitting out little bits of energy. No one needs to make uranium, though to make it into useful form it does take quite a bit of energy. But oh boy when you've got it working it puts out a ton of power and thats just whats in the rock you pick up off the ground. To make this ammonia you will have to be putting energy into it to store it in the ammonia. Energy that comes from somewhere. Where does it come from ? The oil ? are you trying to make climate people sound retarded ?

>Biofuels emit carbon... In theory, no. The carbon emitted during the combustion is carbon that was taken from the atmosphere during production (by photosynthesis). Of course machinery uses diesel, that probably isn't biodiesel but it could be. That said, converting land to biofuel production is plain stupid since the yield is a lot worse than solar. For example, in the UK, you can expect to produce about 63MWh/ha yearly in biofuel [1]. In the UK still, you can expect to produce 480MWh/ha yearly from solar panels [2]. That's nearly 8 times more, and that's before counting the conversion efficiencies. [1] https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/biomass-energy-resources/reference-biomass/facts-figures/potential-yields-of-biofuels-per-ha-p-a/ [2] https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2022/10/11/which-is-better-a-hectare-of-solar-or-wheat >ammonia actually is a practical fuel. It's not. At least, not in the sense that wood or gasoline are fuels. To produce ammonia, even green ammonia, you need to spend a lot more energy than you will get by burning it. According to [3], the efficiency is 50% in the best case (for comparison, lithium batteries are close to 100% for short-term storage. Of course, these have other issues) [3] https://ammoniaenergy.org/articles/round-trip-efficiency-of-ammonia-as-a-renewable-energy-transportation-media/

>>42687 >We were told that photovoltaic and wind turbines are cheaper energies than fossil fuel and 20 years after, look at us. Power from renewables has been cheaper than fossil fuels for some time now. https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2024/Sep/Record-Growth-Drives-Cost-Advantage-of-Renewable-Power >>42688 >Oil by itself is a fuel. You dig it up in massive quantities Crude oil has to be refined. There are no natural deposits of fuel oil, diesel, or gasoline, And you don't have to dig up air, water, sunshine, or wind, the ingredients for green ammonia. >To make this ammonia you will have to be putting energy into it to store it in the ammonia. Energy that comes from somewhere. Where does it come from ? The oil ? The energy to make green ammonia comes from renewable energy like solar and wind, which are already cheaper than fossil fuels. There are even small-scale processes for making ammonia by spraying nitrogen and water through a mesh coated with a catalyst, with no extra electricity applied at all. >>42689 >(Biofuels emit carbon...) >In theory, no. But in reality, they do. The carbon released by burning biofuels is carbon that would have been stored harmlessly and not released back into the air, where it causes climate change. The use of ammonia for energy releases no carbon at all.

>>42691 biofuels also are carbon stores, like it kinda all works out. You put carbon in, you take it out. Whats wrong with that. Even if you're a climate nut the problem seems to be quantity in the athmosphere total, it would be fine except we're burning significant amounts of preserved vegetable matter every year without preserving a commensurate quantity of vegetable matter for the future. >There are even small-scale processes for making ammonia by spraying nitrogen and water through a mesh coated with a catalyst, with no extra electricity applied at all. I want to see the guy who has found out a way to do this that is cost effective. No cheating, if you use distilled water have to figure out the cost to distill it and all that. I have a vision now of river dams spraying water through these meshes and dumping out massive quantities of ammonia. >no extra electricity applied at all Dear sir you will note that I carefully used the term energy and this process clearly uses energy these are different terms. >crude oil has to be refined the energy you put in is smaller than the energy you take out though, and you get these lovely side products like vaseline and plastics. Crude oil is a fuel already its just not a very nice one, and once its been cleaned up a bit it can be very nice.

>climate change is now solved >technological advancement continues >mining, research, extraction, production, consumption speeds up to unprecedented levels as a result >technological singularity reached sooner than expected, rendering all factors into perfect binary mediated by the system idiots the issue is technology itself

I'll believe it when I see it. >>42698 >it would be fine except we're burning significant amounts of preserved vegetable matter every year without preserving a commensurate quantity of vegetable matter for the future. Sort of true, but they're not very efficient fuels, and you also need other things besides just carbon, such as nitrogen, to grow biofuels. One also needs to consider the cost/benefit analysis of clearing land or ocean resources for growing fuel. Farming has its own ecological downsides. >Crude oil is a fuel already its just not a very nice one, and once its been cleaned up a bit it can be very nice. Depends *a lot* on the particular crude. Different deposits produce oil with different chemical properties, some requires more refinement or different refinement methods. >>42677 >Third world countries will still burn the oil coal and gas that we don't burn. "someone else is gonna murder people even if I stop, so I should murder people" stupid line of reasoning. >Beside, the conservation of energy is an universal rule. To get one joule worth of this ammonia, you have to spend more than one joule to produce it. Did you know there is a giant fusion reactor in the sky with billions of years worth of fuel that blasts us with exajoules of radiation every day? Did you know there are biological and technological processes that can store that energy and turn that it in to usable work for us? Did you know that oil, natural gas, etc. are examples of such biological/technological processes? >something renewable need to function properly but it can not be the center of our grid. Why not? The only requirement for providing base load is reliability, and dams can do that just fine. Damming rivers is pretty bad for fish and other wildlife though so I agree that in most cases nuclear power would be preferable.

>>42701 >agriculture has its own downsides sure ok well everything has its downsides so what do you want civilization to just suicide and give itself up to the wolves and the hyenas ? Solar farms have their downsides, wind turbines have their downsides, nuclear and coal and hydo and the lot of them have their downsides. We need energy.

>>42702 >so what do you want civilization to just suicide and give itself up to the wolves and the hyenas? No, obviously not, but it's important to acknowledge and consider the downsides that everything has. >We need energy. But how much exactly do we need?

>>42686 > The ammonia storage and transportation infrastructure has alread been in place and widely used for a long time, including tanker ships. Ammonia is the world's second-most widely produced chemical. Im just saying if it is on every ship those ships better not sink. >Biofuels emit carbon... Not all of them. Also carbon free while is technically ideal carbon neutral is still helpful too.

>>42717 >>42718 Darwinian selection is not survival of the strongest but survival of the ones who are the better to adapt to change. If the US decide to stop using fossil and nuclear energy, yes, it will even fall behind Pakistan, but more importantly, its SOI would fall to 0 and it would struggle to even maintain order inside its own borders while Pakistan will stay poor but with a moderate diplomatic power in its region. With high cost of energy, industry will abandon your country, all the qualified people who needed cheap energy to work will leave and you will be left with hillbillies and welfare queens. Good luck against the cartels. >(unless China decided to back it). And then it would not be more a country than Panama. Officially a country, in practice, a client state. >Brushing aside whether he is, the entire theory exists to be a moral justification. When you win a war or control the economy of another country, you don't need moral justification. China decided to create a fake island ti claim the oil deposits who were in the waters of another country and no one can say anything to them. That's how it work.

>>42675 I still prefer permablitzing, but I'll give this a bump.

>>42677 >Go ahead, tell Mongolia why they should freeze all winter in their yurts instead of burning the coal they have under their feet. its actually very funny you mention this country when it has been the fear throughout the lat 20c that it would be china who burned all the coal and didn't care about climate change when they were at it. this of course turned out to be wrong, now that china is no longer "third world". Which actually undermines the premise of first, second, and third world in the first place - these rankings were never strictly speaking a development index, they referred to the two political spheres of the mid-late 20th century and those who weren't really part of either. now that china has become a major economic player, i think its worth considering the premise that the countries they help to develop (or colonize) will do so with the same environmental cautions in mind. >>42678 good point, unfortunately the economy doesn't work that way. to understand how things work in capitalism you have to think about everything in terms of pure cost and then also risk as it might affect pure cost. even if it is similar, building out any new infrastructure (or refitting old) still represents an up front cost for an incredibly marginal consumer base - you're basically only looking at a fraction of people who would otherwise buy electric vehicles. this doesn't mean there wouldn't necessarily be eventual adoption but it would take a considerable amount of time, its likely that you would have to make it work in one city first as a test, and then scale up as a test too. even that represents a significant gamble for a technology that might no even pan out, at least in comparison to the alternative strategy: if you are part of an energy monopoly, it is much more efficient to simply buy new technologies and hoard the patents / IP rights to ensure that they never get used by your competitors. if you already have complete market saturation like car manufacturers do, then selling new models as cleaner can create unnecessarily hostile market conditions, as you are now not only telling your customers that the product you've been selling them has been bad, you are also spending additional money so they'll buy a new product instead of continuously buying the old one.

we should stall climate change by 1) phasing out coal immediately and then nat gas 2) replacing most cars with EVs 3) geo-engineering with iron fertilization, sulfur injection, and olivine accelerated weathing EVs have won. We're not going to switch automotive fuel systems to some ammonia based stuff.

>>46791 Electric vehicles are a bad idea because the batteries require more natural resources (and thus cause more pollution). The batteries are also much more expensive to replace. The electricity needs to be generated and stored somehow, too! There is no capacity to produce enough "green" electricity for all electric vehicles. The battery tech is not there (yet) either! Biofuels are the way to go for now (until issues with electric vehicles will be resolved).

>>46800 Batteries can get recycled though. The lithium that has already been mined can, and most likely will, be reused many times. Contrary to popular belief, most lithium batteries are already being recycled btw, and the rate is bound to increase as more car batteries reach eol (https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/battery-recycling-myth , I attached the source article) >There is no capacity to produce enough "green" electricity for all electric vehicles. Ever heard of nuclear? Uranium literally fluoresces green too Electric cars are far from perfect (cars are the worst transportation method in 90% of cases anyway), but they are already way better than thermic cars. Even biofuel isn't that good since it requires a lot of farmable land. to be honest, I'm not sure we would be able to avoid climate doom even if we were to give up all post-industrial technologies. The global +1/+2°C that are often advertised aren't alarmist enough imo. The last few years, Europe reached +7°C temperatures in summer compared to 50 years ago.

>>46800 there's plenty of lithium and the pollution is minimal really. there's a lot of lithium in South America, Africa, and Nevada. it doesn't have to happen overnight. we could deploy more solar, wind, and nuclear in phases. the battery tech is here. we have lithium metal batteries and cars with 500 miles of range will be available in the next two years.