I Dunno
Browsing the BBC News website I came across the headline
Climate change: Fertilizer could be used to power ocean-going ships
"Ocean-going ships could be powered by ammonia within the decade as the shipping industry takes action to curb carbon emissions."
Apparently "the industry hopes ammonia will help it tackle climate change, because it burns without CO2 emissions."
Yes. Well.
Remembering when I studied Chemisty, for 'O' level, let alone 'A' level, when Ammonia, chemical symbol NH4, burns it does indeed produce no carbon dioxide (CO2) Mainly because, it contains no carbon (C), as inspection of the chemical formula will show.
What ammonia does contain, however, is nitrogen (N). Therefore when it burns it will produce water (H2O) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), or if incompletely burned nitrous oxide (NO) - which are a couple of major polluting gases. NO2 is the brown 'smog' one sees over cities sometimes. NO is otherwise known as 'laughing gas', a mild analgesic and euphoric. So I suppose seabirds trailing the ships might be happier? For that matter, the inhabitants of major port cities (like where I live) might have something more to laugh about (besides suggestions like this!)
But seriously, Dear Reader, using ammonia rather than diesel to fuel shipping would result in an improvement in air quality etc because . . ?
The observant Reader, having read the linked article, will now know that the production of ammonia is VERY energy-heavy. Apparently ammonia production currently creates 1.8% of global CO2 emissions - the most of any chemical industry. For comparison, all shipping worldwide is reckoned to produce around 2% of global carbon emissions - about the same as the whole German economy.
There are thoughts that ammonia could be produced using renewable energy - solar/hydro/whatever, which would reduce VAST CO2 emmissions involved, possibly to nearly zero. But replacing 1.8% of CO2 emissions worldwide with nitrogen oxides? I don't think so.
Mind you, there is a Green, totally renewable way to power shipping - it's called Wind, using masts, ropes and sails.
Some cargo ships already have masts and sails to assist their engines when the wind is in the right direction, thus reducing fuel consumption.
But even this probably won't catch on because:-
i) winds blow against the desired direction of travel as well as the same
ii) it's slower, particularly in the absence of wind, or winds from the 'wrong directions', which would adversely affect the transport of perishable goods and might lead to more foodstuffs being flown places. (Can you power planes with ammonia?)
iii) ammonia generates a lot less power than diesel fuel ( about 29-35% of the power.) So ships would need to carry more - reducing cargo-carrying capacity. Not to mention greatly increasing nitrogen oxides emissions - not a Good Thing at all (see para 6, above.)
iv) it would be more expensive. See points i)-iii)
Back to the drawing board, I think. Ah well.
Y'all have a good, and slightly Greener if possible, day now!
Climate change: Fertilizer could be used to power ocean-going ships
"Ocean-going ships could be powered by ammonia within the decade as the shipping industry takes action to curb carbon emissions."
Apparently "the industry hopes ammonia will help it tackle climate change, because it burns without CO2 emissions."
Yes. Well.
Remembering when I studied Chemisty, for 'O' level, let alone 'A' level, when Ammonia, chemical symbol NH4, burns it does indeed produce no carbon dioxide (CO2) Mainly because, it contains no carbon (C), as inspection of the chemical formula will show.
What ammonia does contain, however, is nitrogen (N). Therefore when it burns it will produce water (H2O) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), or if incompletely burned nitrous oxide (NO) - which are a couple of major polluting gases. NO2 is the brown 'smog' one sees over cities sometimes. NO is otherwise known as 'laughing gas', a mild analgesic and euphoric. So I suppose seabirds trailing the ships might be happier? For that matter, the inhabitants of major port cities (like where I live) might have something more to laugh about (besides suggestions like this!)
But seriously, Dear Reader, using ammonia rather than diesel to fuel shipping would result in an improvement in air quality etc because . . ?
The observant Reader, having read the linked article, will now know that the production of ammonia is VERY energy-heavy. Apparently ammonia production currently creates 1.8% of global CO2 emissions - the most of any chemical industry. For comparison, all shipping worldwide is reckoned to produce around 2% of global carbon emissions - about the same as the whole German economy.
There are thoughts that ammonia could be produced using renewable energy - solar/hydro/whatever, which would reduce VAST CO2 emmissions involved, possibly to nearly zero. But replacing 1.8% of CO2 emissions worldwide with nitrogen oxides? I don't think so.
Mind you, there is a Green, totally renewable way to power shipping - it's called Wind, using masts, ropes and sails.
Some cargo ships already have masts and sails to assist their engines when the wind is in the right direction, thus reducing fuel consumption.
But even this probably won't catch on because:-
i) winds blow against the desired direction of travel as well as the same
ii) it's slower, particularly in the absence of wind, or winds from the 'wrong directions', which would adversely affect the transport of perishable goods and might lead to more foodstuffs being flown places. (Can you power planes with ammonia?)
iii) ammonia generates a lot less power than diesel fuel ( about 29-35% of the power.) So ships would need to carry more - reducing cargo-carrying capacity. Not to mention greatly increasing nitrogen oxides emissions - not a Good Thing at all (see para 6, above.)
iv) it would be more expensive. See points i)-iii)
Back to the drawing board, I think. Ah well.
Y'all have a good, and slightly Greener if possible, day now!