• Nommer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Same could be said for hydrogen since it’s a tiny bit flammable.

      • MaggiWuerze@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but ammonia chemically burns the eyes, lungs and skin of everyone that comes into contact with the resulting gas in a wide radius.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah that’s a problem. However, it might make more sense on balance if we have big nuclear power plants generating clean ammonia while off peak electric demand.

        • Railison@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ammonia is wayyyyyyyy easier to store and contains more hydrogen. Pity about the environmental and health dangers

        • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t have to store liquid ammonia under high pressure and it has a higher energy density by volume than hydrogen. Also, ammonia is already very useful beyond energy storage, such as for fertilizer. Maybe a hybrid system is the way to go, with hydrogen for smaller consumer applications and ammonia for larger industrial ones. I don’t know if there’s good way to produce ammonia directly by electrolysis yet, so the ammonia might still have to be derived from hydrogen anyway.