Ammonia fueled Ranger project is now on the road

[WildSide]

There is a solution available right now and I am using it although controversial the gas has been produced and in use by industry for years and remains to be the best viable solution to date towards a feasible automotive ‘hydrogen’ system. The conversion costs are in line with propane/CNG systems and Infrastructure studies have been completed showing that NH3 could be the first logical step towards the so called hydrogen economy.
The gas is anhydrous ammonia, this high octane fuel produces zero CO2 tailpipe emissions and sufficient fuel can be stored on board without expensive high pressure tanks as compared to pure hydrogen. There are special concerns however being that NH3 is hazardous in its stored form.

While I am not going to go into specific technical details on special tank design or details on engine modifications that I am using I will welcome questions and disregard non believers.

The research vehicle is a 1999 Ranger with a modified 4.0

[gotmudd]

don't come into my neighborhood, if the dope heads find out that you're running anhydrous ammonia, they'll steal your fuel, tank and all:annoyed:[ it's the main ingredient in "crank"]

[reno]

There will be those that will say this the most dangerous thing in the world, and will not speak of the harmful effects of gasoline. I responded to the "intellectual" HHO sticky here about some of this here. I would like to here more from this conversion, how long has this study been going on? I am all for a different fuel other than fossil. And a fuel we can produce ourselves if we want versus big oil or any other big corp controlling the market producing it and controlling any price they want to charge, brag about major record breaking profits every month, all the while claiming supply and demand has raised prices is far better.

Another infamous the government does not lie to you scenario, how do you make a record profit, when the cost is so far greater and the supply is far less than the demand? Please share this info, there are those of us that are willing see something new at work and the trial and errors before saying it does not work, it is not worth it. Look at some old footage of when the car was first invented, people laughed that it would replace the horse, then along it came, you had a hard time starting the engine, then the steering was not all that great, then people were being hit by the automotive, then gas was not readily available, then auto wrecks and just keeps going all the way until now. It takes progress and time and intuitive thinking of minds experimenting to make something better than what it currently is.

[MAKG]

It may make zero CO2 emissions, but it sure as heck is going to make a HELL of a lot of NOx. Or where did you think all that nitrogen went?

CO2 isn't the only pollutant nor the only greenhouse gas. And CO2 dissolved in water (such as in rain clouds) makes weak acid. Some NOxs make NASTY strong acids.

[AllanD]

Not to mention that Ammonia must be "made" the same way Hydrogen must be.
Unless you own an enormous fish farm and are seperating the ammonia out of
the water?

Ammonia simply side-steps SOME of the storage issues of Hydrogen.
(and replaces it with others, Ammonia agressively attacks some metals,
notable copper and nickel)

It's ALL about getting MORE hydrogen in a smaller space without
using cryogenic storage (LH2 or Methane)

Frankly I think Hydrazine shows more promise as a Hydrogen storage means,
but Hydrazine also has serious "issues" (like it's toxic as hell)

Hydrogen in all it's varied forms is NOT a source of energy, it is a means
of energy STORAGE.

I still believe that the BEST replacement for gasoline as a personal vehicle
fuel is Butyl Alcohol (Butanol) as it offes a similar energy density to gasoline
(Range) a higher "octane" AND it can be produced cheaply from NON-edible
biomass and even agricultural byproducts.
the STALKS from corn produce MORE butanol per ton than the GRAIN of corn can produce ethanol. and people (and cattle) still get to eat the corn!

[inferno94]

Hydrogen in all it's varied forms is NOT a source of energy, it is a means of energy STORAGE.

I still believe that the BEST replacement for gasoline as a personal vehicle
fuel is Butyl Alcohol (Butanol) as it offes a similar energy density to gasoline
(Range) a higher "octane" AND it can be produced cheaply from NON-edible
biomass and even agricultural byproducts.
the STALKS from corn produce MORE butanol per ton than the GRAIN of corn can produce ethanol. and people (and cattle) still get to eat the corn!

Gasoline is also a means of energy storage (any chemical fuel is) it's just that it was stored by the plants and animals that it came from long ago.

Alcohols would be another relatively cheap fuel for combustion type engines and can be produced now. I don't believe that if alcohols are adopted as our main fuel (as gasoline/diesel now are) that they would be a transitional thing. Industry and people wouldn't want to change over from combustion powered vehicles, so as you said it would be a replacement.

This would not really be in the long term interests of humanity as I see it. Issues with exhaust emissions, though different, would still exist. We would still be running complex mechanical engines that wouldn't capture even 40% of the energy they are consuming.

I congratulate the OP on his efforts to modify an existing vehicle into a less polluting one that runs on a sustainable fuel source. I do believe however that a switch to producing vehicles of that nature is not the best course of action. I believe that electric drive train vehicles are the way to go due to; simplicity, few parts to wear, better torque curve than combustion engines, and overall greater efficiency of energy transfer from fuel to the wheels.

This is not to say we don't have an energy storage (battery, fuel cell etc) problem to solve but isn't that the problem we are trying to solve with our current mechanically powered vehicles? Were running out or oil to make gas so what do we replace it with? How about taking this opportunity to upgrade to an entirely better drive system?

To sum up Yay Electric vehicles!:shout:

[reno]

With the naysayers disagreeing because of greenhouse gasses and such, I sure as hell hope you ride a bicycle, have no electricity, use no chemical what so ever, read no newspapers or write letters and so on....this can go on forever. Every Alternative fuel source you such down and dont want it, but you have all the luxuries that are currently causing these, so before you state you are trying to get a non green house effect fuel in motion and to keep going on the same path, shut your mouth, get out the blackboard and start inventing a alternative fuel source and help out instead of belly aching and crying the blues all the time. It is those of you that are the problem and not part of the solution. Open your mind to this, there is an Alternative fuel source, just has to be found and manipulated.

[MAKG]

No, it's not every alternative. Just every harebrained scam.

There are a few alternatives that look promising, but you haven't latched onto any of them.

[reno]

No, it's not every alternative. Just every harebrained scam.

There are a few alternatives that look promising, but you haven't latched onto any of them.

And you have not lived up to your title here by introducing them.....

[Bent Bolt]

There are a few alternatives that look promising, but you haven't latched onto any of them.

I'm curious , what would those alternatives be ??

I agree with Inferno on electric vehicles. The only real problem with them is the fact that current ( get it ?? Current ?? LOL , bad pun ) battery technology is far behind that of the vehicle.

[MAKG]

I'm curious , what would those alternatives be ??


The really good ones are all centered around electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells, improving batteries, etc. Basically, moving the generation step OFF the vehicle. Except perhaps for a correct hybrid (the current ones are bass-ackwards and FAR too complex). I.e., two or four electric motors at the wheels, and an engine acting as a generator. No differentials, transmissions, or driveshafts. And you can tune the engine for a specific RPM, which gives a lot of room for improvement since you don't care anymore that the powerband would be really peaky.

The current crop of hybrids get most (not all) of their benefit from making the vehicles very light. This is a really obvious dead end.

As for an improved fuel, if you want it to work as well or better than gasoline and still burn it, for the most part, you need to make it heavier. Like, Diesel. Rocket fuels (e.g., hydrazine or hydrogen peroxide) are VERY BAD to put in a car; they are extremely dangerous as they can burn even in an airtight tank!

[AllanD]

Gasoline is also a means of energy storage (any chemical fuel is) it's just that it was stored by the plants and animals that it came from long ago.

Alcohols would be another relatively cheap fuel for combustion type engines and can be produced now. I don't believe that if alcohols are adopted as our main fuel (as gasoline/diesel now are) that they would be a transitional thing. Industry and people wouldn't want to change over from combustion powered vehicles, so as you said it would be a replacement.

This would not really be in the long term interests of humanity as I see it. Issues with exhaust emissions, though different, would still exist. We would still be running complex mechanical engines that wouldn't capture even 40% of the energy they are consuming.

I congratulate the OP on his efforts to modify an existing vehicle into a less polluting one that runs on a sustainable fuel source. I do believe however that a switch to producing vehicles of that nature is not the best course of action. I believe that electric drive train vehicles are the way to go due to; simplicity, few parts to wear, better torque curve than combustion engines, and overall greater efficiency of energy transfer from fuel to the wheels.

This is not to say we don't have an energy storage (battery, fuel cell etc) problem to solve but isn't that the problem we are trying to solve with our current mechanically powered vehicles? Were running out or oil to make gas so what do we replace it with? How about taking this opportunity to upgrade to an entirely better drive system?

To sum up Yay Electric vehicles!:shout:

Yes, but the oil was made and the hydrogen stored in it long ago.
I don't see ammonia, alcohol or hydrazine being pumped out of any holes drilled in the ground, it all must be MADE, in geological terms it must be
made immediate to it's use

Electric vehicles? Great, IN USE no pollution from the vehicle.
But that ignores that most electricity is produced by burning coal and much of the rest by burning Oil, Natural gas or Uranium thus there is "hidden" pollution and energy use, it isn't free and it MUST come from somewhere.

wind generation? Gotta deal with the NIMBY's
GREENPEACE picketed the site of a proposed windfarm in rural vermont.
a friend in vermont was denied a permit to put up a wind generator
sued the township to get the permit anyway and was promptly sued by a local environmental group... does this make sense?
Solar power? still gotta deal with the NIMBY's
Commercial Geothermal? Try drilling a deep hole and see how quickly greenpease is on your ass!
Nuclear? Don't even ask (NIMBY/Greenpeace/Obama and anyone else who isn't busy)

And that also doesn't adress the limited range of electric cars.
and that related ENTIRELY to energy density.

that is a hurdle that will likely NEVER be overcome.
(unless you STEAL the hydrogen from the Bearded Spock
alternate universe and store it in another (unocupied) alternate universe)
and "burning" the fuel in a fuel cell is STILL burning it

LONG RANGE transportation will required liquid fuels The fact that
hasn't been grasped as reality by many here is only proof that you
just don't understand how dense an enegy storage media liquid
fuels are.

REAL Mass transit would solve much of the problem
However other associate issues with those make them problematic.

the infrastructure cost of extending mass transit lines makes them cost prohibitive (essentially not gonna happen) Add to that Most mass transit systems are near useless unless you are moving "radially" to or from the "hub" of the urban center.
There are no meaningful concentric lines to complete the "web"
(you can add here "Ain't gonna get fixed either")

so if you need to move across the circle the only way to do it
is travel to the core then back out.

Most people don't want to spend two HOURS commuting 10 miles because the cross connections don't exsist.... "becase they aren't economically viable"

Electric vehicles are "toys", playthings for those amused by such.
The lack of basic understanding about how people actually move outside of an urban area and how vehicles are actually used outside of a dense suburban area makes me kinda grim about the future possibilities bycause I KNOW in both my head and my heart that the engineers and those paying them simply don't get it.... and I doubt to the core of my soul that they ever will.

That and the general lack of understanding about energy density....

Frankly there is no getting away from liquid fuels and any and all methods to do so are doomed to failure by simple reality.

If you don't understand that then there is no hope for you.

A Prius is "great" for driving from your suburban home
to the "Park & Ride" at the commuter train station.
Getting in one for a long highway trip? demonstration of stupidity.

The simplest fact is that pure electric vehicles are great for
City dwellers and mabey 1/3 of suburbanites.
PURE electric vehicles are utterly useless for the vast
majority of people that live in Sub-Rural and true rural areas
with the marginal exception of retired people who only
need to mae a twice weekly run for groceries and the
pharmacy and to church on sunday.

I'm gonna say it again to hammer it home, it's all about
energy density and other than liquid fuels of one form or
another, nothing else will do what needs to be done.

RENEWABLE liquid fuels ARE the future.

If you GAVE me an electric car I couldn't really use it....
it doesn't do what I (or the majority of others) NEED to do.

What I WANT to do is a FAR higher standard.

AD

[inferno94]

Maybe I come into this with a different mindset given I live in Ontario the most nuclear energy friendly place on earth, we also like our wind and hydro electric generators here. So given that I come from a place where most energy is generated through renewable and nuclear sources, I may not be considering the situations surrounding energy generating methods employed elsewhere. It sounds like some of your special interest groups have some screws loose, glad we don't seem to have so many of them.

I do recognize that the current crop of batteries don't meet everyone's range needs. They are something that is developing rapidly but currently meet the needs of most commuters. Electric vehicles like the Tesla roadster (http://www.teslamotors.com/) CAN travel 200+miles on a charge that costs $4-6 TODAY, think about what their capabilities could be in 20 years. Granted they are expensive now but so were microwaves and computers when they were first coming out (yes I know electric cars predate gas ones).

Propane is world wide becoming the next big thing in fuel, you just need a little bigger engine or a turbo to get the same power as a gas engine. Evidence can be found in places like India and Australia where new cars are offered in a gas or propane configuration. Propane is stored in liquid form therefore the density you were looking for. It could still be an available thing for those who need range and quick fueling while producing relatively harmless exhaust. The best part is, though not optimal, current gas fueled vehicles can be made to run on propane (or other combustible gasses).

Combustible gasses like methane can be generated by garbage fueled devices called methane digesters. When Toronto had a decision about what to do with it's garbage they were one solution but considered too expensive. If an energy company built some was paid by cities to take their garbage then sells the garbage gasses back as fuel that seems economically viable to me.

Though the idea that long range transport requires liquid fuel is really referring to refueling times (if you had to refuel 2x as often but it cut your fuel bill by 95% I would still be happy with it). You are assuming there will be no such thing as a quick charging battery. 10 yrs ago a cordless drill took 8hrs to charge and could drive 3-4 screws with that charge, now it takes 1 hr (for some) and can work for hours.

I agree that transit systems are inadequate, European transit is wonderful many go a lifetime without driving and are not inconvenienced by it. Maybe we should try modeling their transit systems?

I don't see the point in current hybrids myself and make no argument for them other than to say, many trains are diesel electric hybrids and have been so for some time.

Current gasoline engines are far from their potential efficiency as is being shown with some "new ideas". Everyone blames stoplight idling as a waste of fuel, Mazda has developed a system by which the cars engine shuts off as you stop and restarts immediately when throttle is applied. This system does not use the starter to restart and saves 8% on the average fuel bill. There are many "new" ideas like this coming out now to save gas and prolong the use of oil based fuel.

The ideal vehicle I could envision would be electrically powered with main power coming from batteries with a normal 500-700km range backed up by a methane powered turbine generator.

[reno]

The really good ones are all centered around electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells, improving batteries, etc. Basically, moving the generation step OFF the vehicle. Except perhaps for a correct hybrid (the current ones are bass-ackwards and FAR too complex). I.e., two or four electric motors at the wheels, and an engine acting as a generator. No differentials, transmissions, or driveshafts. And you can tune the engine for a specific RPM, which gives a lot of room for improvement since you don't care anymore that the powerband would be really peaky.

The current crop of hybrids get most (not all) of their benefit from making the vehicles very light. This is a really obvious dead end.

As for an improved fuel, if you want it to work as well or better than gasoline and still burn it, for the most part, you need to make it heavier. Like, Diesel. Rocket fuels (e.g., hydrazine or hydrogen peroxide) are VERY BAD to put in a car; they are extremely dangerous as they can burn even in an airtight tank!


But you are saying all these are wrong to use as well. Where are the good Alternatives that we have not yet latched onto? Remember, we are looking at experiments here that we want to try or see what results come from a few that do try.

[reno]

I forgot to put this in my last post. If power consumption is the problem with HHO, why would a Audio amp Capacitor not work? It stablizes a 1000W + amp and that is FAR more than the upto 30 amps HHO pulls? I mean if we were able to have power delivered that is stored, and uses very little power from the battery and charging system, then why not on any thing else? AllanD used a Capacitor to help with power to a transmitter and he had 4 heavy Duty Batteries and a 150amp alternator and stated that the Cap helped tremendously. So why not?

[Jason]

A Prius is "great" for driving from your suburban home
to the "Park & Ride" at the commuter train station.
Getting in one for a long highway trip? demonstration of stupidity.

I saw one with California plates on it the other day. Last month I saw one with Alaskan plates. At work i saw one with Texas plates. I live in Buffalo, NY. I am thinking they handle road trips just fine. I mean, Toyota only tested them to 500 thousand miles though, who knows what would happen if you tried to drive a Prius on a 40 mile commute. ;missingteeth; It'd probably explode around the 10 mile mark.

[MAKG]

Actually, Prii work just fine on the highway. It's the plug-in electrics that really don't. What might change that is a battery that can be fully charged in seconds instead of hours. That technology doesn't exist at the moment. This is where hydrogen fuel cells MIGHT help (but they aren't there yet either).

You won't get ridiculous high mileage like you do in the city, but they can road trip just fine.

The advantage to remote generation is that it's FAR more efficient to run one big generator than thousands of little ones that all have to go through warm-up phases and don't always get repaired or maintained. And the generation method can be just anything; it can even be shifted around dynamically.

As for commercial geothermal not existing, next time you're in northern California, visit a place called Geyserville. Or Mammoth Lakes.

[AllanD]

I forgot to put this in my last post. If power consumption is the problem with HHO, why would a Audio amp Capacitor not work? It stablizes a 1000W + amp and that is FAR more than the upto 30 amps HHO pulls? I mean if we were able to have power delivered that is stored, and uses very little power from the battery and charging system, then why not on any thing else? AllanD used a Capacitor to help with power to a transmitter and he had 4 heavy Duty Batteries and a 150amp alternator and stated that the Cap helped tremendously. So why not?

The problem with HHO run off of "onboard power" is that energy out can NEVER equal energy input.

This because of the simple truth that to Split water into
Hydrogen & Oxygen takes more energy than you'll
get by burning the hydrogen.

So it is completely irrelevant how much energy you pour into
it if it's always going to be at a 70% loss.

Do you get it yet?

You will ALWAYS pour more into it than you can get back

In principle it's like having a gas tank with a hole in it
the harder you try to pump it full the more fuel you will waste.

It's just that simple

Capacitors don't create energy, they can't, but they charge up when demand is low and dump it when demand is high, they are great for swallowing spikes
and filling in troughs, but they can no more power anything than they can support the weight of a car without a spring. Capacitors is nothing more than an electrical shock absorber.

"short term" energy storage delivery. I'm talking miliseconds here.


I saw one with California plates on it the other day. Last month I saw one with Alaskan plates. At work i saw one with Texas plates. I live in Buffalo, NY. I am thinking they handle road trips just fine. I mean, Toyota only tested them to 500 thousand miles though, who knows what would happen if you tried to drive a Prius on a 40 mile commute. ;missingteeth; It'd probably explode around the 10 mile mark.

You must work hard at it to be a complete freaking idiot...
Or are you being obtuse on purpose?

A Prius is great for getting city mileage on short trips where the electric motor can come into play, but on longer trips or even at highway speeds the battery runs out and you are running purely on the gasoline engine
and at that point the Prius isn't as good as MANY other moderatly efficient
NON-Hybreds.

Yeah they get better mileage than the upscale SUV (Escalade?) they
probably replaced, but are about on par with a midsized Volvo
on a long trip.

Yeah you can drive one long distances, but it isn't what they
are designed for or what they are best at.

MAKG,

you are also more hyped on furthering your agenda than actually READING what was said and responding to it.Instead you are reading what you WANT and responding to that.
And I have just caught you doing it...I didn't say Commercial Geothermal didn't exsist, anyone who has ever heard the name "Iceland" knows it does.

what I said was if you try to Develop it anywhere in the US you'll have the NIMBY's on your ass so fast you'd swear that god put NIMBY's up your ass via evolution..

Either that or Greenpeace will have a picket line out to protect some little plant that grows on the hot spring you want to want to drill into to tap for energy.

and don't tell me it hasn't happened or won't happen again.

even the most "Green" people on earth scream in outrage if you suggest doing something "green" next door to them.

You should heard the howls of protest when a local farmer put up a wind generator, the transplanted city people across the road from him complained that it ruined their unspoiled view of the countryside
But they conveniently forgot that they sued him over the smell from his cattle heard shortly after they moved in, so he literally didn't give a cow's ass what they wanted and SAID SO in the township meeting. (that farm has been there for ~200years their house is 2004 construction on property from the break up of another farm)
those same city assholes complained about the dust that got on their car from his harvesting his wheat.

NIMBY=Not In My Back Yard

They are everywhere!

And I didn't say remote generation wasn't more efficient
I said that people buying an electric car seem to FORGET
that the electricity has to come from SOMEWHERE.

I had someone berating me for heating with Oil and Coal
they seem to forget that if I had electric heat it would
heat my house LESS efficiently in addition to costing more.

Using heat directly as HEAT is actually quite efficient.
(more efficient than converting the heat to mechanical energy then to electrical energy THEN transmitting it t my house...)
and considering that BOTH my furnace and my coal stove
are "forced draft" there is actually very little heat loss.
(you can hold your hand against the coal stove chimney)

AD

[Jason]

A Prius is great for getting city mileage on short trips where the electric motor can come into play, but on longer trips or even at highway speeds the battery runs out and you are running purely on the gasoline engine
and at that point the Prius isn't as good as MANY other moderatly efficient
NON-Hybreds.




AD
You said is was stupidity to drive one on a long trip. I am no more being obtuse on purpose than you are being opinionated on purpose in that statement. You wrote it, it was wrong or mis-worded at best.

So is it also stupid to drive a Volvo on a long trip? The Prius WILL get over 35 mph on engine alone. I know this because I have driven one as a rental from Buffalo to North Carolina. I averaged 45 mpg on that trip. Even on a downhill slant, the Prius is charging the battery. Everytime you lift you right foot a bit, it charges.

[AllanD]

You said is was stupidity to drive one on a long trip. I am no more being obtuse on purpose than you are being opinionated on purpose in that statement. You wrote it, it was wrong or mis-worded at best.

So is it also stupid to drive a Volvo on a long trip? The Prius WILL get over 35 mph on engine alone. I know this because I have driven one as a rental from Buffalo to North Carolina. I averaged 45 mpg on that trip. Even on a downhill slant, the Prius is charging the battery. Everytime you lift you right foot a bit, it charges.

I know two people who bought a Prius.
BOTH of them commute 60+ miles EACH WAY with them.

NEITHER gets as good mileage as the run of the mill economy car they replaced with the Prius.

So for spending all that money they get less mileage?

If that doesn't entitle everyone who knows them to buy an "I'm with Stupid" T-shirt I don't know what would qualify.

"Stupid" in this case is buying something (expensive) because it sounds "cool"
and sounds "Green" without really anaylizing that using it for OTHER than it's
original purpose is actually FAR LESS "GREEN" than simply keeping the car they had which actually burned LESS GAS.

And the downstream effects of all those Prius Nickel Metal hydride batteries?

What I'm saying is that people are making major choices based on EMOTION rather than Logic & Reason, and frankly there is no other name for that other than "stupid"

you can Choose your Giirlfriend/Wife based on emotion.

You can Choose what color you want your car based on emotion.

you MUST Choose your transportation equipment based on actual USE.

"Green" isn't about the FORM of energy you use, it's more
about HOW MUCH energy you use.

simply cutting back on unnecissary trips or COMBINING trips is much more "Green".

that throwing away a perfectly functional vehicle that
still has remaining service life than replacing it with something
"more efficient", usually only SLIGHTLY more efficient and
then ONLY under limited circumstances that the purchaser won't
actually use, is STUPID.
Contest this all you like, but you'll just be banging your head
against stone cold fact.


Hey, I have a perfectly good 1998 Escort-SE 4dr with
which I routinely get 40mpg. How did I get it? the Previous
owner traded it in on a Toyota Prius and they are disappointed
that the Prius doesn't get mileage as good as the Escort did
commuting back and forth to New Jersey, "and it's so SMALL!".

I told them "No shit Sherlock!", I had recommended they
get a TDI Jetta.

My personal best with the Escort is 525miles on a 12gallon
tank of gas.... that's 43.75mpg! not bad for a car that's got
just over 200K miles on the odo with an automatic trans.


AD

[85_Ranger4x4]

So did they need something as small as an Escort? A Prius is quite a bit bigger than an Escort.

They have their purpose, and the people you refer to buying them and being disapointed about the hwy milage is just as bad as someone buying an Excursion and being stunned at the in town milage. The people bought for the wrong application, it has nothing to do with the vehicle.

If you want a really stupid vehicle with no real point that greenies are all excited about check out a Smart... a two cylinder, two seat street legal lawnmower that gets lower 40's on the highway... and less around town. Even looks like it has been in several wrecks when new.

Aside from the fun of wacking it, I wouldn't touch a newer VW with a 10' pole.

[Jason]

I was unaware that in your part of the country that 22k is alot of money for a MID SIZED car. If you have ever been IN a Prius you would know it is quite a bit roomier than an Escort. I also think that type of mileage out of a mid size is pretty darn good.

Also, the Prius is not overly light, as someone eluded to earlier. It is however one of the most aerodynamically efficient vehicles on the road.

I will agree though that buying a Prius and bailing out of another vehicle is stupid and economically it does not make sense to anyone that can do elementary math. You will not come out ahead getting rid of one vehicle to get another unless gas hits like 10 bucks a gallon, or you are commuting long distances in an H1 Hummer.

[AllanD]

IT's funny you should see the looks my Sister-in-law used to get driving the vehicle my brother bought her for their 15th anniversary... a Ford Excursion with the V10:)

people looked daggers at here around here, but out in wyoming nobody
gives it a second look.

Shes's actually gotten confused when leaving Sam's Club when presented with no less than FIVE Excursions the same silver color... (and several others in different colors)

Funny thing is that Excursion averaged 18.4mpg on the trip out to Wyoming.
which was on par for the average mileage achieved with the 4.0AWD Aerostar
it replaced.

Yeah, it's got a 40gallon fuel tank, but she fills only every 6 weeks
(if then) it's only ever driven to the other end of town (<10mile round trip)
to go to Sam's on the weekend and 3/4mile (round trip) twice a day to
take the kids (Four of them) to the school bus stop.

a Prius "Much bigger" Coulda fooled me from having sat in one.
Different, but to me just as cramped.
but there are very few vehicles that will corner like that Escort.
It's lowered 1.5" and I have 205/50-15 Eagle GA's on it, so in
the twisties you kinda forget how cramped you are.

Taller? certainly. rear seat leg room? possibly.
But I think a Prius looks (aerodynamically) like a turd.
Granted not as bad as my truck, but...

The smart? a friend commented: "Damn! a two seat electric chair!"

Drive one on the highway? Not me brother.

I'm putting my Saab 900 back together because it can get into the low 30's
if I drive it carefully. AND it can blow the doors off of a 5.0 mustang when
I care to... and a turbo-charged car is a real hoot at altitude.

AD

[reno]

AllanD Your Explanation explains it well about using a Capacitor, Thank you Sir.

[Jason]

The vector for most aerodynamic drag is the undercarriage. The Prius and others aren't my cup of tea, but I can afford gas no matter how high it goes. Some people like little econo cars. I'll stick with fun cars like a MX-5 turbo or Mazdaspeed 3.

[AllanD]

I think their complaint about the prius's lack of interior space was related to trunk room
I'll ask them (If I remember) next tme I see them.

AD

[WildSide]

Well I don't know how all you ultra morons got so far off topic but this test vehicle now has 2600 miles on it with no issues so far. Nox emissions are no worse than a gasoline fueled engine.

[AllanD]

It's a GIMMICK.

The Ammonia must come from somewhere which means making it.

It isn't any cheaper to make than any of dozens of others of "alternative storage means"

the simple fact is this, there is no "alternative fueled vehicle" that could be put in dealer showrooms TOMORROW that could replace petroleum fueled vehicles should congress unanimously outlaw petroleum fueled vehicles 15min from now.

the most optimistic HONEST alternative fueled vehicle maker won't claim that alternative fueled vehicles could replace as much as HALF of exsisting vehicles in less than ten years and twenty years is FAR more likely.

There is just too much infrastructure that must be built up to support it.

This is the case if insistance on Ethanol or Hydrogen fuels is maintained.

Butanol could be introduced as a substitute fuel either by itself
for nev vehicles that are planned by the major manufacturers
(Ford is planning a Multifueled butanol capable Gasoline direct injection of it's 3.5 engine for the 2009 or 2010 model year)

Butanol could also be sold in an 80% Butanol 20% gasoline mix
that will run in EXSISTING vehicles without modifications!
Except for for vehicles driven in colder parts of the country and during winter months.
and even then a small cylinder of propane to use for starter fluid could get vehicles started in cold conditions

It's not about the fact that gas stations aren't willing to install an additional tank and pump it's about the fact that the fuel and the facilities to make it in sufficient quantities simply doesn't exsist nor will it for another 10-15years.

It's about the simple fact that less than 5% of vehicles on the road NOW ten years after the first ones were introduced are capable of burning E80 fuel

Meanwhile
People whine about the price of gasoline and the "profits" the oil companies make but conveniently IGNORE that here in the US the federal government alone makes three times (in taxes) what Exxon does on a gallon of gasoline (REALLY you can look it up) and state taxes account for making TWICE the profit that Exxon makes.

so the proposal that the government Tax Exxon (and other oil companies more) is basically rediculous

It's hard to believe that press releases from liberal members of congress is REALITY not a skit from Monty Python.

Starting drilling NOW probably won't reduce the price of gasoline at the pump for the ten years the liberals "peter puffers" say it'll take, but NOT drilling will perpetuate the continuing price increases.


AD

[WildSide]

Kind of similar to what those said during the horse and buggy area don’t you think? While you sit there spouting off that it’s a gimmick Allen, this vehicle is on the road as proof of concept. Yes the fuel has to be produced - just as gasoline does, the numbers have been crunched by others showing that ammonia production would be the cheapest Infrastructure to set up even with carbon conversion technology included. Many will still want to whine and whine about such alternatives will cost more etc but the fact is that change is being made and it’s not going to revert so you might as well look forward instead of treading water.

[MAKG]

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.

[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. :stop:

[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? :icon_cheers:

[ryan]

CAMEO? :icon_cheers:

of course :D

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

[ryan]

just for fun i ran some basic models - this assumes a relatively large quantity of ammonia - 20 gals - and without reading specifics of your project i dont know how reasonable this is. assuming that you're fueling a vehicle exclusively with ammonia this doesnt seem like an unreasonable amount, but i'm guessing this would be the upper limit of reasonability. the results are sobering

Vapor cloud
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v186/ryan_nwu/ammoniacloud.jpg

Overpressure zone if it blows
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v186/ryan_nwu/ammoniablastzone.jpg

[Simple_serf]

Damn

I had to take some safety classes on Amonnia for refrigeration (why, I don't know, we use 404a. I had been around some large systems before that point though)... The ONLY thing I like about these systems is that they are usually built like a tank, and are pretty reliable.

I do know that jamestown Bolck Ice had a leak a few years ago (one large ammona system I had been around), and they were fined a HUGE amount of $$$ for not fixing it immediately.

[Hazmat Ranger]

Just a side note to ryans models - the threshold limit value (TLV) for ammonia is 25ppm. ppm = parts per million in the air. The yellow zone - definite injury to the eyes and respiratory system. The orange and red zones - death. So while it may have its uses as a cooling agent - there is no denying it is deadly.

[ryan]

Just a side note to ryans models - the threshold limit value (TLV) for ammonia is 25ppm. ppm = parts per million in the air. The yellow zone - definite injury to the eyes and respiratory system. The orange and red zones - death. So while it may have its uses as a cooling agent - there is no denying it is deadly.

and without a specific location i ran them with a slight breeze, mild temperatures, and moderate sunshine and humidity

basically, depending on atmospheric conditions, you'd be looking at a 500 yard death zone

with specifics i can put out a more realistic model, but regardless, traveling with large quantities of ammonia is very dangerous, and is probably illegal (for very good reason)

[Simple_serf]

I should find out how much you can legally transport without a Hazmat endorsement. I may be needing about a gallon for a project (Icyball!!!!), although I may be able to distill my own for that project.

I know that there are major restrictions on transporting Anhydrous for fertilizer use.

[85_Ranger4x4]

with specifics i can put out a more realistic model, but regardless, traveling with large quantities of ammonia is very dangerous, and is probably illegal (for very good reason)

I know it isn't uncommon to see a half ton pickup pulling two tanks down the highway for fertilizer, struggling for every bit of speed they can muster... with no trailer brakes or tongue weight to speak of. Evidently you don't REALLY need a 3/4 ton unless you are pulling two double tanks.:shok:

[WildSide]

just for fun i ran some basic models - this assumes a relatively large quantity of ammonia - 20 gals - and without reading specifics of your project i dont know how reasonable this is. assuming that you're fueling a vehicle exclusively with ammonia this doesnt seem like an unreasonable amount, but i'm guessing this would be the upper limit of reasonability. the results are sobering

Vapor cloud
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v186/ryan_nwu/ammoniacloud.jpg

Overpressure zone if it blows
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v186/ryan_nwu/ammoniablastzone.jpg

Interesting graphs Ryan although catastrophic failure would be an unlikely scenario. This toroidal tank has a capacity of 35 liters (and yes 20 US gallons could be used if not for the size) This tank does carry a DOT certificate. There is published data written by the US Department of energy related to NH3 you also may be interested in reading up on.

[Hazmat Ranger]

So the Rail cars carrying Anhydrous Ammonia around our great nation must never EVER have an incident where there are releases, or catastrophic failures? WOW those must be the best cars ever built - NOT. An unlikely scenario, maybe you have been around the NH3 too much already, I know it has Chronic Health Effects to the respiratory as well as Acute Health Effect, but I did not know it effects the nervous system specifically brain tissue.
ANY transport container on ANY highway or roadway has the "POTENTIAL" for a catastrophic failure. While the possibility of the tank just failing while sitting there undisturbed is truly unlikely, what about the "POTENTIAL" for an accident? Someone runs a red light one day, t-bones your vehicle severing the supply lines spewing forth a toxic cloud. Even if the accident may have not killed you, at that proximity the gas will. There is always the possibility that an incident could occur, why do you think Emergency Response Agencies train for 40 hours for initial HAZMAT certification, then attend additional courses that specialize in products such as NH3.
So, does this vehicle have dead man fill valves, double redundancy safety valves, pressure relief valves, and excess flow valves? And does the DOT certificate certify the tank for the storage AND transportation of NH3 and is the Hydrostatic Test date current as well?
Enough said, I'll just wait for the news reports . . .

[WildSide]

Hazmat you must somehow think that this is the first project vehicle on the road, well it's not and the technology developed through the three companies involved is not something simply picked off the shelf either. If you have worries concerning this one tank then perhaps you should do some research on the 20 million plus tones used annually and the more than 3 thousand miles of NH3 pipelines within the US just for a start. Last time I checked the USA was still on the map ;)

[ryan]

Hazmat you must somehow think that this is the first project vehicle on the road, well it's not and the technology developed through the three companies involved is not something simply picked off the shelf either. If you have worries concerning this one tank then perhaps you should do some research on the 20 million plus tones used annually and the more than 3 thousand miles of NH3 pipelines within the US just for a start. Last time I checked the USA was still on the map ;)

...which is why there are rules regarding the transportation of hazardous materials

have you seen a book of pipeline regs before?

the model that i showed isn't a catastrophic failure - that's what would happen if something punched a moderate hole in the tank. i think i set it up for a 4" hole near the top of the tank for simplicity

design for failures, not for BAU

[Hazmat Ranger]

I have researched and I do research every day on issues of this type and others related to Emergency Response and the Transport of Hazardous Materials - specifically Toxic Inhalation Hazards (TIH) such as NH3.
Personally this is the first time I have heard of this type of tank "IN THE US" and I have done a search through US DOT and PHMSA and neither list a toroidal tank in their specifications. I am NOT saying there is not a specification for it, in the short time since I have read about it, I have been unable to locate any reference to this type of tank as being approved to transport this material. I have seen some listings for LPG conversions in the UK but so far nothing in the US as an approved container for the storage and transportation of NH3. To help clarify the issue of the tank certification - what is the US DOT number stamped into the tank and not the TC SP number (Transport Canada).

[Hazmat Ranger]

ryan - that tank looks like a doughnut and CAMEO does not give us the options for it. Probably since it has not been used extensively as a transport container in the US. That I know of - LOL.

[ryan]

ryan - that tank looks like a doughnut and CAMEO does not give us the options for it. Probably since it has not been used extensively as a transport container in the US. That I know of - LOL.

i didnt even pay attention to that part of the post at first

i'd suspect that there's not a real DOT process for transporting ammonia in a tank like that - maybe LPG

but LPG is a totally different beast

[MAKG]

Hazmat you must somehow think that this is the first project vehicle on the road, well it's not and the technology developed through the three companies involved is not something simply picked off the shelf either. If you have worries concerning this one tank then perhaps you should do some research on the 20 million plus tones used annually and the more than 3 thousand miles of NH3 pipelines within the US just for a start. Last time I checked the USA was still on the map ;)

Dude, stop NOW.

You have FAR more confidence in three unnamed companies AND yourself than you should.

That it is not "off the shelf" is a VERY bad thing. It means you have to analyze failure probabilities and mitigate them if they are too large. You clearly have not done so. Take this thing off the road and dispose of the ammonia safely, before you kill large numbers of people.

That there can be a DOT sticker for automotive transportation of ammonia is just ridiculous. A DOT sticker for another purpose doesn't count. Not all gasses and not all configurations represent the same risks.

You are being CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT. Stop now, before someone dies.

[WildSide]

Makg don't be criminally ignorant, this is not a typical back yard project. This vehicle has been inspected and has been certified otherwise insurance could not be obtained. The companies involved have over 25 years of experience in this field where as you have zero.

FYI emissions have now been reduced to 25% of the equivalent hydrocarbon fueled engine, before you start your foreseeable BS statement come visit the conference this fall.
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/Renewable/ammonia/ammonia/ammoniaMtg08.htm

[MAKG]

So tell us, what is your mitigated probability of failure, per operational hour or per mile?

If you can't produce a verifiable number RIGHT NOW (since you say it is on the road), you are -- very literally -- being negligent. And it really doesn't matter if there is a conference on it. There are conferences from time to time on cold fusion, and that doesn't work either.

People can go to prison for negligent deaths.

[WhiteBroncoII2WD]

Not to mention that Ammonia must be "made" the same way Hydrogen must be.
Unless you own an enormous fish farm and are seperating the ammonia out of
the water?

Ammonia simply side-steps SOME of the storage issues of Hydrogen.
(and replaces it with others, Ammonia agressively attacks some metals,
notable copper and nickel)

It's ALL about getting MORE hydrogen in a smaller space without
using cryogenic storage (LH2 or Methane)

Frankly I think Hydrazine shows more promise as a Hydrogen storage means,
but Hydrazine also has serious "issues" (like it's toxic as hell)

Hydrogen in all it's varied forms is NOT a source of energy, it is a means
of energy STORAGE.

I still believe that the BEST replacement for gasoline as a personal vehicle
fuel is Butyl Alcohol (Butanol) as it offes a similar energy density to gasoline
(Range) a higher "octane" AND it can be produced cheaply from NON-edible
biomass and even agricultural byproducts.
the STALKS from corn produce MORE butanol per ton than the GRAIN of corn can produce ethanol. and people (and cattle) still get to eat the corn!

This appears to be the only mention of butanol I can find thus far in our forums. This alcohol is defiantly a fuel to be taken serious when considering replacements for gasoline and or additives.