16 сағат бұрын
16 сағат бұрын
28 күн бұрын
Пікірлер
@Buy_YT_Views.129 13 күн бұрын
Your skills as a creator continue to impress me.
@Rushu770 20 күн бұрын
Hi I am Ayesha akther I analisis your KZfaq channel.i see you uploaded Huge amount video .but you don't have enough views for some issues.can i share with you?
@TheToolHall Ай бұрын
Thanks for the tips regarding advertising e-commerce businesses versus service businesses. Great distinction!
@EggsThePodcast 20 күн бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@Rushu770 Ай бұрын
Nice show
@EggsThePodcast 20 күн бұрын
Thanks
@COM70 3 ай бұрын
Very interesting, it’s difficult to listen to someone shouting at you for longer periods though.
@steveharman8907 5 ай бұрын
Yet another amazing video to take my learning up into 7th gear, thanks Carl...and you huys at EGGs
@EggsThePodcast 4 ай бұрын
Thanks Steve!
@r2deizer681 5 ай бұрын
So wich is the most efficient, easy and chep to crack the ammonia to produce hydrogen
@kiddo_kids_craft_Crew 5 ай бұрын
hi dear I want to talk a important topic how can I contact you
@philipfreeman72 7 ай бұрын
Anyone who has used a cutting torch knows oxygen is necesary . HHO & lean burn diesel works .
@dougriedweg9002 8 ай бұрын
Spot on. A Canadian fella years ago ran his car on straight ammonia he couldn’t find interest. Farmers inject ammonia into soil as fertilizer. Edison motors is proving a generator with an electric drive works for heavy hauling. Even with a diesel generator they calculate double the fuel mileage. Rock on keep up the good work
@anonymousradioshow 8 ай бұрын
Infinite scroll?? 😮
@eduardodaquiljr9637 8 ай бұрын
It's good if you show visual aides so we can see what you are talking about.
@darldemon5319 8 ай бұрын
he's right, but the problem is making ammonia ("reverse cracking"), which is not easy to do with renewables.
@ml.2770 8 ай бұрын
Ammonia has some big challenges to overcome first, but it does hold great promise. Ammonia engine N2O tailpipe emissions as low as 20ppm are equivalent to a gasoline engine greenhouse gases from CO2. N2O is 300x worse of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's just one issue. Ammonia is also a pretty dangerous chemical to human health, has a slow flame propagation and very high ignition temperature. It really isn't suited to cars but would be better in big marine applications.
@rickhobson3211 8 ай бұрын
The Devil is in the details. Right now the best way we have of getting ammonia in the quantities large enough to replace hydrocarbon fuels is the Haber-Bosch method, which is energy-intensive. In order to be useful in lowering our need for hydrocarbon fuels, new ways of generating ammonia will be needed. People are researching new methods, but it's a long way off.
@mike61704 8 ай бұрын
This guy cant answer a straight question. "So the car you built starts with gasoline for a few seconds then burns ammonia?" then goes on a huge rant on his best idea for a powertrain. If you cant answer a simple question with a simple answer, there is some BS hiding in there somwhere. Thats is probably why the "Tech" never went anywhere. There were Red flags in all his facts starting with -500c to liquify hydrogen. Oh and 90-98% of the byproducts of a garbage dump is methane, not hydrogen.
@markbarber7839 9 ай бұрын
Like locomotives. Toyota recently spoke of a ratio 1:6:30 meaning of every EV battery you could make 6 plug in hybrids or 30 regular hybrid
@chrismuir8403 9 ай бұрын
While it is technically possible to run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen or ammonia, it's a really bad idea. Using the difficult to store and expensive hydrogen fuel in an inherently inefficient internal combustion engine vehicle results in absurdly short driving ranges and insanely high fuel costs. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are more efficient so get reasonable ranges, but still have high fuel costs. The advantage of ammonia is it is much easier to store as it liquifies under pressure, so it can achieve reasonable driving ranges with IC engines. Leak detection is very easy due to its distinctive odor. Unfortunately, it's even more expensive than hydrogen as a fuel, and produces extremely high NOx emissions.
@notjuniorrr 10 ай бұрын
i still don’t understand 🏴☠️
@joreyfunari8978 11 ай бұрын
'Promo SM'
@vjekoslavpavicic6575 Жыл бұрын
Way dont yuzit laser plags for amonia
@hseinb Жыл бұрын
thanks Bassem, great insights
@ricardomorales3096 Жыл бұрын
For Jorge Contreras how do you feel about Bitcoin/Crypto? Also would like to see you collaborate W/ Mr.Pineda
@MB561 Жыл бұрын
Great Questions! You guys asked much better questions than most pods. And really helpful answers.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
Thank you for the compliment. We're thrilled the show was helpful for you. :)
@stanleymcomber4844 Жыл бұрын
This is not very clear of what or how this is going to be put together? Hydrogen system, ,with a combustion system, and with an ammonia system, a long with an electric system, in one vehicle? Sound like this is going to be very expensive. How about we just use nuclear to generate synthetic gas or diesel, made from co2 pulled from the air or other systems and run that in the vehicles with have currently no new vehicles.
@unitedteststrips4272 Жыл бұрын
One of the best interviews I've seen in a while!
@EggsThePodcast 4 ай бұрын
Thanks!!
@ChristophePochari Жыл бұрын
Ammonia is a fine idea for storing energy from intermittent sources, but why develop an alternative to liquid hydrocarbons when there is no evidence CO2 warms the planet?
@vjekoslavpavicic6575 Жыл бұрын
Yoo Idiots way yoo frget Indigo Hidrulick cars man get wan milon dolar wewrd end yoo damheds ignored this tenolge end not sey pipoll ey NH3 it is clen fyull end we can ran this car
@gregoryryan762 Жыл бұрын
Hydrogen is what piles up storage costs much more than ammonia storage. What about putting a second parallel pipeline to the ex-LNG/now-NH3 pipeline to deliver H2 separately as a gas, and then mix at the point of combustion just as you would an ammonia engine? Also, another good transporter that would also be a consumer is if the freight rails (+cargo ships) were willing to convert their engines to NH3-H2 internal combustion/compression. Those methods tend to be able to arrive at their delivery points on time and with much less legal resistance. Unfortunately, especially as of the recent railway drama, RR billionaires aren't known to be a compromising lot even when the deal hardly impacts the bottom line.
@deandeann1541 Жыл бұрын
Why so complex? Just run the internal combustion engine on anhydrous ammonia. Current automobile engines programmed for ammonia run fine off it. They then emit no CO2 - ammonia engines emit water vapor and nitrogen gas. As in any ice small amounts of nitrogen oxides can be produced, which can be controlled in the same way as nitrogen oxides are now controlled. Why over complicate it? Over complicating a simple concept raises prices for the consumer and can reduce reliability. Over complexity can turn a winning idea into a loser. Mass production of ammonia is well understood and the needed H2 has been obtained by electrolysis commercially at a profit - the last ammonia plant that operated off hydro electricity closed just a few years ago. Ammonia is cheaper than gasoline. I think the real reason we have not started the process of transition to an ammonia economy (which would be the simplest, most workable transition of our transportation system) is that it is the quickest way to fix things and the most likely to work well. Oil is owned by influential people who are politically very powerful. These people want all that oil to be burned before any transition occurs, regardless of the consequences for everyone else - otherwise they lose a significant part of their wealth. This is why nothing truly useful at reducing our carbon emisions ever happens.
@jamescampbell8482 9 ай бұрын
What I gather as to why we don’t use it is for health reasons. An anhydrous ammonia leak is extremely hazardous to humans. The other thing is that the energy density per unit of fuel is about half that of diesel. That’s why it’s good to use with an electric drivetrain.
@deandeann1541 9 ай бұрын
Anhydrous ammonia is lighter than air, it can be used to fill balloons which float like helium balloons. It is toxic, but when released outside it rises and disperses. Inside it can be quite dangerous. Outside it is very difficult to ignite ammonia, it ignites in a very narrow range tht is easiest to achieve in an internal combustion engine. While it is toxic if you are quite close to an outdoors leak, gasoline fumes are alsoquite toxic to the nervous system yet we simply accept that as a risk of driving. Also there are a number of people who burn to death in accidents every year in the United States, we also accept that. Anhydrous ammonia will very, very rarely ignite and virtually never explode, it likely would lead to less fatalities than we already accept as normal, the fatalities would likelybe less but would be of a different nature, there will be less fatal explosions. It would, as you pointed out, require fuel tanks of about 1/3 greater volume than we are used to for the same range, it would be cheaper per mile, renewable, and less polluting though. Anhydrous ammonia was about $0.80/gallon when I checked last, it is more now due to the war in Ukraine etc, but it is a well understood technology that can be produced for less than we paynow for gasoline. It wins from every angle, the fact that it is never seriously considered is, in my opinion, purposeful and a crime. As cheap as anhydrous ammonia is as a bulk commodity now, it can only get cheaper with cheaper sources of base load electricity as is expected via further development of wind, solar, and gen 4 nuclear power. High temp nuclear is particularly useful for the process heat used for haber bosch ammonia production.. The answers to our problems are obvious to those who are trained in the appropriate physical sciences, it is not chance, imho, that the obvious solutions are never considered. EG a lot of money is spent to find a substance that can store hydrogen and we are not allowed to use the substance we have had for over 50 years that perfectly works to store hydrogen, it is lithium hydride, our government bans the use of it in hydrogen storage because it is a substance used in the production of h-bombs as a source of hydrogen for the fusion reaction. Again the human community's political class has shot us in the foot. We avoid the correct substance as a matter of law and spend money trying to develop storage hydrides from the wrong part of the periodic table. Research dollars are handed out for pointless research that does no help at all in the end, the companies that get the majority of the research dollars and grants are the ones able to contribute the most to our election campaigns and it is all legal. It turns my stomach.@@jamescampbell8482
@melh2798 Жыл бұрын
Why go to all that trouble, just build a GTL plant and make gasoline from captured CO2! Then use all the existing infrastructure….ammonia and hydrogen are both extremely dangerous chemicals!
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
This is the first I'm hearing about GTL. Are you aware of any experts in the space that we could invite to the show?
@24haikus Жыл бұрын
wow
@Dream.big.dreams Жыл бұрын
Hydrogen could be recovered on the fly just prior to the moment of combustion. Rather than having a metal tank to store the hydrogen,a plastic tank the size of 2 liters could store the hydrogen in a gaseous form. And then the hydrogen can just be burned off in a regular combustion engine. Moreover, since the byproduct of burning hydrogen is water it would become a great benefit to drought stricken areas such as Arizona and California. Because every car burning hydrogen will have water droplets coming out of the exhaust pipe. The sun will heat that up and creates clouds and then rain down on those drought stricken areas. The only problem is how does the government tax us by having cars burn hydrogen. Do you see the EV cars are taxed on the electricity put back into the batteries from EV charging stations. But by having a hydrogen powered car they’d have to tax water. And we could all get by that tax by just peeing into the fuel tank. So that problem has to be solved for the government to buy into the idea of having hydrogen powered cars. Personally I think if you own a hydrogen powered car then at the end of the year you would have to pay a fee on your taxes, so that money then goes towards road maintenance and such.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
We just had a guest, Stacey Smith, talking about solid state hydrogen storage, eliminating the need for tanks altogether. Might be of interest to you.
@Dream.big.dreams Жыл бұрын
@@EggsThePodcast can you send me the link?
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
@@Dream.big.dreams kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jLaUg7KUrdHWm5c.html
@BillSmith-su4jt Жыл бұрын
Just have a think. You say Extinction rebellion does good work. You say the sun has only a small effect on climate. ***You must think we are stupid***. Shame on you for taking Money to lie to the people. 😂😂😂😂
@semibiotic Жыл бұрын
Video is just a kind of teaser, without actual comparison. Shame.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
Feel free to watch the entire interview for a more in depth discussion. This video is just a clip from the longer show. Thanks for watching!
@TheSulross Жыл бұрын
so anhydrous Ammonia is corrosive and reading I've done on it that when comes to storage containers can go two ways: 1) Use stainless steel - the more expensive option, or 2) Use cheaper carbon steel but inject about 1% water, which acts to inhibit the corrosive action against the carbon steel. So to put a finer point on what this video is suggesting - using existing natural gas pipelines to transport Ammonia, looks like would likewise need to be mixing water to 1% to inhibit the corrosion of the pipe. Now the reading I was doing was on stationary storage tanks so hopefully the same guidance would apply to pipeline gransport. One tends to think that maybe this corrosion inhibiting is not 100% perfect and that over time there still might be some corrosion of the pipeline - anybody with expertise on this, please chime in. One thing too is do not use propane fittings with anything containing anhydrous Ammonia as Ammonia is very reactive with copper so it would corrode brass propane fittings. And the fumes are toxic so avoid inhalation of any plume arising from an anhydrous Ammonia leak or rupture - run the hell away before is too late. Because it is liquified under pressure it boils under 1 atmosphere and ambiant temperatures. The fumes are fairly dense and do not dissipate upward quickly like Hydrogen gas. So Ammonia leaks can form clouds that can easily over come people and kill them.
@eaglechawks3933 Жыл бұрын
I think what you have here is the prescription for hybrid 18-wheelers for long haul applications. You could also combine this tech with the direct ammonia to hydrogen for fuel cells tech to give your 18 wheeler its own charge station while the driver sleeps his mandated hours.
@ManyHeavens42 Жыл бұрын
You're still stuck in the beautiful Neanderthal days hahaha we don't need to burn fossil fuels. We only need Superfluids. That last forever. Hot or cold. That's all I'm going to say.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
What are superfluids? I'm curious. Maybe we need to talk to someone about them on the show?
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
The music is super quiet. We'll find another solution in the future. :) In the meantime, check out Mø at: momomoyouth.com
@wilfriedschuler3796 Жыл бұрын
Where do you get your ammonia? Just a humble question?
@sandman708 Жыл бұрын
they make it from natural gas
@wilfriedschuler3796 Жыл бұрын
@@sandman708 You mean they are making the hydrogen from natural gas, via steam reforming. This means they are releasing at least 6 kg CO2 per kg hydrogen. Now we have the hydrogen. And how to get ammonia from this hydrogen? Haber Bosch?
@kiefershanks4172 Жыл бұрын
I dunno, compressed hydrogen works. Not to mention that you could setup a heat exchanger at points exiting the fuel tanks where the pressure decreases to take advantage of the cooling effect to essentially have "free cooling" for the HVAC system. It would be the polar opposite to a combustion vehicle where there is waste heat on tap (assuming you are running a fuel cell). So while there would be losses compressing the gas, some of that energy could be harnessed again as the hydrogen decompresses. If we had a hydrogen combustion engine, this would mean that you would have no need for seperate heating and cooling systems, just heat exchangers. Waste engine heat for winter, waste cooling for summer. Heating and cooling on tap where it is required with relative simplicity. No more AC compressors or resistive heaters, etc. You could use the cold from the tanks to help cool the engine potentially which could reduce the size of the radiator and allow for increased aerodynamic efficiency. This could yield greater fuel efficiency which would alleviate the need for massive fuel tanks. The main issue I see with fuel cells is their need for advanced air filtration to prevent fuel cell fouling. A combustion engine is much less sensitive to dust and dirt. There is a Chinese built hydrogen combustion hybrid engine that was developed that has some impressive specifications and sounds like it is almost exactly like a Toyota Prius in how it functions. Add some of these heating/cooling subsystems I have suggested and you can further increase efficiency. And for those concerned about the dangers of hydrogen, I would suggest you take time to reflect on the dangers of gasoline. A leak in a gasoline tank will result in pooling fuel which is extremely dangerous. A leak in a hydrogen tank will result in the hydrogen almost immediately dissipating upward (remember it is the lightest element and extremely bouyant). So I would argue the hydrogen is much safer than gasoline and potentially even safer than a BEV with a compromised battery.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
Great info! Thanks for sharing!
@johnsamsungs5561 Жыл бұрын
Do I have a Bridge to sell you folks! Only 1 million dollars and I'll send you the Bill of sale.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
What is it you disagree with exactly? We're trying to learn this stuff too. Also, 1 million is a little rich for us, but how's $500? I'd love to add a bridge to our portfolio. :)
@johnsamsungs5561 Жыл бұрын
Yes, you can burn it but it is still not efficient! This bloke is full of sh*t! You are just against EVs!! F%$kwits! It will only be worth it in Ships and Huge Mining equipment etc. Thermal dynamics d%ckheads!
@dinaldcurchod3296 Жыл бұрын
This did not answer the question of comparing overall efficiency and cost between the two. One point is the NoX produced in the ICE is very low if the hydrogen air ratio is at an optimum level.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
Take a look at the show in its entirety to see if Andrew answered more thoroughly your questions. This is just a clip from a longer interview. :)
@Eduardo_Espinoza Жыл бұрын
But what's the efficiency of the fuel cell?
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
Great question! We have some more guests coming on to discuss further. Hopefully we can find an answer to this question.
@patdesautels488 Жыл бұрын
Ammonia power people!!!
@jamiemorgan2178 Жыл бұрын
What a happy find! Thank you for featuring this artist.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
Thanks for checking us out, Drew is an incredible talent!
@thenarrowroad7908 Жыл бұрын
Ugh, doesn't locomotives run that way??
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
Trying to get clarity on this as well. Someone said yes and explained, but I don't fully get it yet. :)
@Mike-hr6jz Жыл бұрын
Capacitors in series we already have them they work like a battery for the lag.
@notcherbane3218 Жыл бұрын
I totally disagree with him, the caveat that needs to be remembered is electric and battery development is in its early stages as battery quality improves and recycling improves on those the range will increase it will be a lot more efficient than not using a chemical to burn whether it's ammonia or hydrogen now while these I'm going to mention are in the early stages the lithium sulfur battery has a potential . from what I've read in articles on KZfaq lithium sulfur battery has a potential of 900 mi range now that doesn't mean they're going to use a 900 mi range. they might stop at 500 and just have a lighter battery a real issue is recycling the battery anything that is combustible or explosive is dangerous that includes lithium. so no this is not improvement this is not the best using ammonia. It's just another way to drag out the combustion engine the combustion engine is an old technology like steam engine or horse it had its time and now it's going to be replaced right now they're developing the infrastructure and they're improving to get a much better battery which will come.
@EggsThePodcast Жыл бұрын
This is a good point. Isn't it a good idea to make a better combustion engine while we wait for battery tech to mature as you've described though? I'm not sure there is a switch flip transition to electric, and even if there was, and we did it today, are we where we need to be in terms of efficiency and disposal? I don't know, just asking.
@jamescampbell8482 9 ай бұрын
The problem is banking on recycling of lithium, batteries, and as the batteries get higher range, they are using chemistries that have more oomph/explosion risk. I think ammonia fuel, self or electric drivetrain, would be pretty good, it’s only because it’s versatile enough to be a plug-in solution to our existing infrastructure and remove carbon from the system.