We do, in fact, care about toxicity, so do not e.g. expect to see ammonia powering cars.
NASA and ESA are phasing out use of hydrazine because of its unfortunate handling characteristics. But solid hydrazone might still find uses.
Among the chief attractions of ammonia is that it is very simply synthesized with free feedstock. You bond hydrogen stripped from water to nitrogen from air. Although toxic, it is a lot lighter than air, so if it leaks it goes up, and does not hang about poisoning people in a broadening area.
The main problem with hydrocarbons as synthetic fuel is that you need the carbon, which in air is at below 0.05% concentration. It is certainly possible, but seems unlikely to approach ammonia in cost.
> NASA and ESA are phasing out use of hydrazine because of its unfortunate handling characteristics.
I read about various 'green propellant' efforts over the years, but it seems in practice hydrazine is still used for orbital manouvering systems. Of course for those the volumes are small compared to the launch rockets themselves. For launch vehicles it seems only old Russian and Chinese designs still use hydrazine.
> Although toxic, it is a lot lighter than air, so if it leaks it goes up, and does not hang about poisoning people in a broadening area.
Eventually yes it will dissipate upwards, but typically ammonia accidents result in a vapour cloud traveling close to the ground. E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIi4_Poo2HY
> The main problem with hydrocarbons as synthetic fuel is that you need the carbon, which in air is at below 0.05% concentration. It is certainly possible, but seems unlikely to approach ammonia in cost.
There's certainly a largish cost to concentrating CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon Engineering, one of the companies in the DAC space, claims 8.8 GJ/ton. Just some back of the napkin comparison to the enthalpy of formation for CO2 and H2O (+ adding an assumed 70% efficiency for CO2 dissociation and water electrolysis), and assuming we're building hydrocarbons with a 2:1 H:C ratio, that would mean a roughly 40% energy penalty compared to starting with a concentrated CO2 feedstock.
One the plus side you get a fuel with cheaper and safer handling, better energy density, and compatibility with existing equipment. Hard to say which approach will win. Might well be as you said, that for large industrial users that can take appropriate precautions like maritime shipping or peaker power plants ammonia will be a better solution, but for other smaller scale usage synthetic hydrocarbons will win.
They still loft hydrazine on birds already designed, but plan to use a non-toxic, and otherwise actually better alternative in new designs.
Hydrazine is troublesome because it is readily absorbed through the skin, in liquid form, or the lungs, in vapor form, whence it destroys the liver and other internal organs. As vapor it is slightly heavier than air, so its vapor spreads out from point of release.
When you see dramatic videos of spilled ammonia, that is generally liquid, either boiling anhydrous or dissolved in water and spreading out on the ground. Purely gaseous leaks go up. But liquid spills can be pretty bad.
All that said, synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will clearly be better for small and consumer-grade use in places where batteries do not suffice.
"I'm pretty sure we can go through that iceberg."
--Captain of the Titanic, probably.
"Might as well go with hydrazine."
--Unknown, heard before explosion.
I missed the bit on ethanol when I skimmed through the first time, but you're right. That's actually fairly exciting if it's something that can be scaled.
The part that baffles me is that if you have a workable fuel like ethanol, from an efficient process that doesn't compete with arable land, why try to make petrol from it? Ethanol is perfectly fine, and inherently cheaper than any hydrocarbon you would make from it.
> The part that baffles me is that if you have a workable fuel like ethanol, from an efficient process that doesn't compete with arable land, why try to make petrol from it? Ethanol is perfectly fine, and inherently cheaper than any hydrocarbon you would make from it.
Indeed. Even replacing the current usage of ethanol in the gasoline pool would be a huge market, and AFAIU most Otto engines can be relatively cheaply modified to work on up to E85 fuel.
Perhaps they're trying to fly under the radar of the corn ethanol lobby?
If we don't care about toxicity, might as well go with hydrazine, which is liquid at room temperature and has higher energy density than ammonia. ;)
(No idea about the cost of hydrazine synthesis, though)
> most sane options for an e-fuel are methanol and ammonia
The article seems to say their process produces ethanol. If it really works as well as they claim it does, it could be a gamechanger.