Cycling in London (again)....

[MikeyBikey]

Please consider supporting the TfL consultations on the North-South & East-West 'Superhighways'. Not perfect but better than nothing!
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/northsouth/consult_view
https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/eastwest
Being discussed on many sites like
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/

 

[axolotl]

flecc - Having read your subsequent posts, I don't think our opinions are actually that far apart on the broader issues. However, I have to say something on the ammonia idea - from a scientific and engineering standpoint, it's completely bonkers. Hell, it even makes hydrogen look good (and hydrogen isn't all that great). There are basically no advantages to this technology and some massive disadvantages. Conversion efficiency is very poor (unless you use fossil fuels when it's only fairly poor, but with a horrendous CO2 output). It's far more toxic than most other fuels in the event of leaks. And perhaps worst of all, there's the fact that we rely so heavily on ammonia for our food supply (this is where most of it is used currently). Any fuel system that impacts our food supply is very bad news - just look at the problems biofuels are causing and they're still a tiny proportion of total fuel use.

No, if you want a fuel that we can efficiently make from abundant materials you really want to be looking at hydrogen or hydride-based fuels. Relatively safe, efficient, proven and compatible with both IC engines and modern fuel cells.

More information on ammonia as a fuel and why it won't work here:

http://theenergycollective.com/geoffrey-styles/46324/ammonia-alternative-fuel

 

[flecc]

More information on ammonia as a fuel and why it won't work here:

http://theenergycollective.com/geoffrey-styles/46324/ammonia-alternative-fuel

I agree that hydrogen is a definite prospect. However, those arguing against ammonia are usually out of date on the issue, this article for example is riddled with mistakes and missed points. For example the claim that two fuel tanks are necessary is nonsense, even the Belgians didn't have to do that with 1940s technology. And the proposal that 40% of the energy density of petrol makes it unacceptable in a world where we are promoting electric cars with battery energy densities a minute fraction of that is also nonsense. His arguments are vacuous, on range for example, what is stopping a fuel tank from being double the size? Nothing of course.

The clear bias of the author's view is shown by that deliberate 40% anyway, when in fact that applies to the diesel fuel comparison, with petrol it's 50%.

I say wait for the outcome of current research into the production and use of ammonia for this purpose before passing judgement. If it does fall short of the alternatives it will not be adopted, but we should be exploring all avenues and not condemn prematurely.
.

 

[axolotl]

For example the claim that two fuel tanks are necessary is nonsense, even the Belgians didn't have to do that with 1940s technology.

You'd need dual tanks if you were going to maintain compatibility with conventional fuels, just as you do if you get your car converted to run on LPG. As for creating a vehicle that would ONLY run on ammonia, now that would be nonsense.

And the proposal that 40% of the energy density of petrol makes it unacceptable in a world where we are promoting electric cars with battery energy densities a minute fraction of that is also nonsense

Again, it's not nonsense - there's a reason why hydrogen cars have not become ubiquitous - BMW developed a hydrogen powered version of their 7-series 20 years ago. The main reason it was rejected was lack of range.

Of course, it's true that electric cars are even worse, so I'll grant you, it's somewhat puzzling that both governments and the public have started to embrace EVs while rejecting the much more practical hydrogen vehicles. C'est la vie.

I say wait for the outcome of current research into the production and use of ammonia for this purpose before passing judgement.
.

Well, there's the thing: no one sensible is going any research into ammonia as a fuel because, to anyone with a science background, it's a dead duck. There are easier, cheaper, safer ways of achieving the same thing.

 

[axolotl]

One other thing regarding the hydrogen BMW - there were reports at the time wringing hands about safety, conveniently ignoring the fact that petrol isn't exactly safe. Comparatively, in most situations, hydrogen is actually a lot safer. Of course, it's still an explosive gas, so there is certainly a degree of risk. But the same is true of any energy source sufficiently potent to drive a vehicle, even one as light as a bike. Even fuel-less energy storage like compressed air and flywheels can be dangerous in certain failure modes.

 

[neptune]

A major problem with hydrogen is its distribution. An articulated road tanker can deliver enough petrol to a filling station to refill 300 cars. If the same tanker were to carry hydrogen, the tank walls would have to be 6 inches thick to withstand the pressure. The weight of the tank would be such that it could then only carry enough hydrogen to refill half a dozen cars.

 

[flecc]

You'd need dual tanks if you were going to maintain compatibility with conventional fuels, just as you do if you get your car converted to run on LPG. As for creating a vehicle that would ONLY run on ammonia, now that would be nonsense.

That's what the Belgians did successfully, running on ammonia based fuel with no dual fuel tank. And anyway, why are dual tanks a problem, they already exist on a number of vehicles.

Again, it's not nonsense - there's a reason why hydrogen cars have not become ubiquitous - BMW developed a hydrogen powered version of their 7-series 20 years ago. The main reason it was rejected was lack of range.

Of course, it's true that electric cars are even worse, so I'll grant you, it's somewhat puzzling that both governments and the public have started to embrace EVs while rejecting the much more practical hydrogen vehicles. C'est la vie.

As I made clear, there is nothing to stop an ammonia fuel car having a tank twice the size, so range is not a problem. It's only a problem if, like BMW, a standard car is used with resistance to changing it's current facilities.

I agree about the electric versus hydrogen issue. Maybe it's short term thinking on the part of government, electric being possible now on a small to moderate scale with no infrastructure change, while hydrogen would take a lot of setting up.

Well, there's the thing: no one sensible is going any research into ammonia as a fuel because, to anyone with a science background, it's a dead duck. There are easier, cheaper, safer ways of achieving the same thing.

As I replied before, don't rule things out at this stage, all the options should be investigated, they are easily discarded if necessary. History is littered with discarded ideas which were later found to have promising futures in the light of later developments.

We are after a all a very long way from actually needing a petrol/diesel replacement.
.

 

[axolotl]

A major problem with hydrogen is its distribution. An articulated road tanker can deliver enough petrol to a filling station to refill 300 cars. If the same tanker were to carry hydrogen, the tank walls would have to be 6 inches thick to withstand the pressure. The weight of the tank would be such that it could then only carry enough hydrogen to refill half a dozen cars.

Not necessary. Bulk hydrogen isn't currently stored in compressed tanks - it's stored as a cryogenic liquid instead. We already have some infrastructure for moving around large quantities of hydrogen in this way.

Piped hydrogen is also a possibility for the future but hasn't yet been developed on a large scale, but the technology is well understood and proven in various applications like the LHC.

However, the real beauty of hydrogen as energy storage is that you don't have to move it around as hydrogen: as long as you've got a source of water, you can simply move your energy around in the form of electricity and use it to make the hydrogen on site, as needed. Potentially, we could wave goodbye to all those wasteful fuel tankers rolling up and down the country.

 

[axolotl]

And anyway, why are dual tanks a problem, they already exist on a number of vehicles.

Ask anyone with a dual fuel petrol/lpg car.

Maybe it's short term thinking on the part of government, electric being possible now on a small to moderate scale with no infrastructure change, while hydrogen would take a lot of setting up.

Both will require major investments in new infrastructure for deployment on any significant scale but I think you're probably right - it's the short term, small scale thinking of our useless politicians again, thinking that electric cars will be the easiest option.

As I replied before, don't rule things out at this stage, all the options should be investigated, they are easily discarded if necessary.

People have looked at ammonia as a fuel. Some people have tried it. And now it's been discarded as a rubbish idea. Time to move on.

We are after a all a very long way from actually needing a petrol/diesel replacement.
.

No, actually, we needed one yesterday. Right now the need is critical if we're going to have any hope of averting the worst effects of climate change.

 

[flecc]

In need terms I was speaking of availability of course, I despair of getting anything effective done about climate change.

Of course two tanks are an inconvenience, just as charging an e-car is and even filling a fuel tank, but two tanks are better than nothing at all.

As for ammonia, clearly it hasn't been discarded yet since it's being researched again. Even from your point of view on it, if someone wants to waste their time on it, let them, why the fierce objection? Are you frightened they might actually find a successful way of using it?

The opposing view
.

 

[neptune]

What will be the transport of the future? That is a thorny question, with many answers. Much of the travelling we do is totally unneccesary. Often we travel because we enjoy it, and I am as guilty as anyone. If there were less people on the planet, there would be less transport problems. I might be wrong, but I think travel is more expensive than it used to be, and will continue to cost more.

As I can no longer drive, I travel by bicycle, and less often by public transport. There will always be a need for private cars. More car sharing, along the lines of this "Uber" thing would keep costs down. It would appear that in London at least, less young people are learning to drive. I think part of the solution is changing the way people think about cars, and transport generally.

Maybe driving simulators could play a part, allowing people to do their fast aggressive driving on a computer instead of on the street. Just some random thoughts...

http://www.nh3car.com/FAQ1.htm some facts about ammonia as a fuel.

 

[NZgeek]

BMW has a fleet of hydrogen powered 7 series cars that run between Munich Airport and BMW HQ - they've been doing it for years - It's pretty cool - must cost them a fortune in R&D, setup etc.

 

[flecc]

BMW has a fleet of hydrogen powered 7 series cars that run between Munich Airport and BMW HQ - they've been doing it for years - It's pretty cool - must cost them a fortune in R&D, setup etc.

And here in London we have had Mercedes hydrogen powered fuel cell single deck buses running since 2004. At first it was a trial of three buses from 2004 to 2007, but then from 2010 to date more have been bought, bring the total to eight, all running on route RV1.

The latest double deckers though are diesel electric hybrids, and it seems hydrogen will not be a major player yet for Transport for London.
.

 

[NZgeek]

We have Massive diesel/electric hybrid busses running around town here too: They are SOOOOO big, that they have to use both lanes to get around corners (and sometimes wait for other traffic to move!), and they are mostly empty - we used to have small old busses that fitted in town, and were often 1/2 full (because they were so small). I'm sure the old ones weren't as "Green", but they actually worked FAR better, cost less and were cheaper to buy. People could almost afford to use them.

I travel 6 miles to work. Driving costs me NZ$25 per week in fuel. Taking the bus costs me NZ$50 per week!, and I have to travel over 2 miles to be able to catch a bus anyway

You'd think our council would encourage cycling, instead of making it difficult with poorly designed/shared/dangerous/missing/half-assed cycleways.

 

[axolotl]

As for ammonia, clearly it hasn't been discarded yet since it's being researched again. Even from your point of view on it, if someone wants to waste their time on it, let them, why the fierce objection?

It's not a "fierce objection", it's a dismissal based on knowledge of science and engineering. And just because a concept flies in the face of scientific reason and will never work, that does not stop some oddballs from wanting to do research on it. Look at all the crackpots out there trying to build things like perpetual motion machines and nuclear fusion reactors. Occasionally, some of them manage to fool a venture capitalist or two (not as hard as you might think) and actually get funding for their crazy schemes. It doesn't actually mean they're to be taken seriously.

Actually nuclear fusion annoys me far more than trying to use ammonia as a fuel, because it's quite an expensive technology to research and wastes a lot of money that could be spent on far more worthwhile research, like better solar PV panel and better batteries, both of which have made massive leaps forward in the last 20 years.

 

[trex]

I am all for nuclear fusion! only wish I could see the first proof of production plant going online before I die.

http://www.iter.org/factsfigures

Q = 10
500 MW
The goal of the ITER fusion program is to produce a net gain of energy and set the stage for the demonstration fusion power plant to come. ITER has been designed to produce 500 MW of output power for 50 MW of input power—or ten times the amount of energy put in. The current record for released fusion power is 16 MW (held by the European JET facility located in Culham, UK).

 

[flecc]

Actually nuclear fusion annoys me far more than trying to use ammonia as a fuel, because it's quite an expensive technology to research and wastes a lot of money that could be spent on far more worthwhile research, like better solar PV panel and better batteries, both of which have made massive leaps forward in the last 20 years.

Totally agree on this, the potential energy of fusion does seem to blind some to the realities.

Your position on ammonia though is a bit extreme to say the least, aligning it with technologies that will never work like perpetual motion! It has worked and in a practical application, so could do so again. Whether it will be a worthwhile option one day is a different matter, time will tell. Maybe glycerine will be next diesel fuel?
.

 

[axolotl]

The goal of the ITER fusion program is to produce a net gain of energy and set the stage for the demonstration fusion power plant to come. ITER has been designed to produce 500 MW of output power for 50 MW of input power—or ten times the amount of energy put in. The current record for released fusion power is 16 MW (held by the European JET facility located in Culham, UK).

That's all very well and good. It still does nothing to solve the tritium problem though.

Frankly, I'd pull the plug on fusion research tomorrow.

We already have a perfectly good fusion reactor, fully fuelled for several billion years, complete with gravitational confinement and highly effective radiation shielding. It's called the Sun.