Automated Accounts Payable provider Glantus Holdings raises 14M and successfully floats on AIM. Watch the full video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Hey ho Salesale,
We're past 26,000 so far..
74,000 to go!
Sorry for the number of links and reference to links within links ! Interesting article in Oil Price
Worth reading as it covers many aspects . Regarding shipping it has a link to the Maritime Executive website with a topic of shipping decarbonisation.
A link within this article below references World Bank report entitled “The Potential of Zero-Carbon Bunker Fuels in Developing Countries” In summary " The analysis concludes that green ammonia, closely followed by green hydrogen, strikes the most advantageous balance of favorable features among a range of different zero-carbon candidate bunker fuels. These crucial features relate to the fuels’ lifecycle GHG emissions, broader environmental factors, scalability, economic viability, and the technical and safety implications of using these fuels. "
Just think of the number of electrolysers to produce hydrogen to make ammonia fertiliser for the world food production and also hydrogen /ammonia for shipping.
Hi McBoat, what is going on with the petition? N°27
Hi again tiqtiq,
Ah yes, Ballard..
Well it's good to know that we have friends across all ponds. ITM and ourselves are grateful for your efforts in spreading the word. Have a look at other methods in terms of extracting energy from the ammonia (NH3).
There are ammonia based fuel cell systems that could be utilised at the back end of the Gordon process. So rather than burning in an Internal Combustion Engine the fuel cells power an electric motor instead.
Look through the links attached to the "Ships Powered by Hydrogen" thread below more closely and perhaps join Ammoniaenergy.org if you haven't done so already.
This forum always has interesting h2 related inventions, applications and one degree separate links posted. I do recall us talking once before and though I may be teaching you to suck eggs; I'm just trying to help.
For instance, there is a link to a study from the University of Ohio regarding extracting ammonia from human waste and then utilising fuel cells to generate power from it. It's not related to electrolysis per se or Mr Gordon's method. The notion is only just past the proof of concept/ theoretical phase.
Thanks for that McBoatFace - part of my tribe live in and around Mississauga so I'll pass some info on and they can they get in touch with Linde through some of their business colleagues. It's quite a large business community there but they have all these clubs and associations where everybody gets to know what's going on in their area!
As far as I can make out FuelPositive have identified Iberdrola, Orsted, EDF, Brookfield, Boralex, HydroQuebec and PG&E as Green energy producers. Re Fuel Cells, I think they would prefer to keep it in the Canadian family so I would assume Ballard rather than Plug Power.
I think Plug Power is probably the greatest rival. Toronto..it's on the coast so alkaline fuel cells are a threat also. Linde does have a head office mailing address in Ontario..
1 City Centre Drive
The question now is - How do we get ITM interested in pushing as a potential supplier for their Large Scale Commercial Production units? Have they, or Linde, got representation in or near Toronto?
Deaa Tiq tiq,
Thanks for the kind words and the information about fuel positive; I am already an investor in the stock.
My interpretation of your reply was just that. As you have enlightened me as to your thinking, I apologise unreservedly for misinterpreting you. Now that you have more detail as to how it works you might as well know that the Ticker symbols are NHHH and ZNNMF. The former is available through Hargreaves. Share price currently is $C0.30 and $0.24. The company has only just listed as FuelPositive. I can send you a copy of the webinar presentation, if you like, if you let me know where to send it. I can't post it on here as the rules don't allow it.
Who has poo pooed it?
I just did some light night internet wandering and found his stuff. The information that I was after markbantam kindly supplied this morning. Mr Gordon's process is not like the LICHT method utilising wet air though molten poisons and oxides; better. I was expressing quite a natural fear about deadly agents and their management. I think I'm entitled to that worry. Mr Gordon maybe utterly professional in dealing with such dangers, but the truck on the highway delivering may not have such good surroundings or luck.
I also treated Mr Gordon's idea with respect and did not come out with any final solution for or against his method because I did not know what it was. I asked the question, 'is it like the LICHT method?', and now we know it isn't. My last words regarding, 'something isn't right about all these numbers', related to all the MWh per tonne numbers being thrown around. Expansion and observation is key Mr Gordon's system and I hope it's as cheap and manageable as he says it is.
There is one thing, the smell, some perfect method needs to be developed because people don't want to go around smelling like **** all the time :D.
I'm surprised you actually used the workbench contents to poo-poo the suggestion that Roger Gordon is a viable person to think of a different way to produce Ammonia then the Haber Bosch process. Roger is a Chemical Engineer and is the CEO of a Canadian Company which produces ingredients for global Pharmaceutical customers. As such I don't see why anyone would be surprised that he has such dangerous chemicals in his workshop. Nowhere in the said video does it say that these chemicals are used to produce Ammonia.
Additionally, there are a number of working, scaled up, producing systems at some of the Universities in US and Canada - some of which are producing 500 litres of Carbon Free Green Ammonia per day.
markbantam's posting identifying the patent application shows the exact process, in full detail, of producing the product. And yes a full scale commercial Electrolyser to produce the Hydrogen will be required for every installation - that is where I see potential for ITM.
Incidentally the Patent doesn't expire till 2033!
McBoatface Re tiqtiq post.- As I see it , Mr Gordons process uses electrolysers to produce hydrogen (good news!) . His patented technology is aimed at replacing the conventional Haber Process to form ammonia from H2 and N2. Website and patent link below
Damn it broke my promise..
You mean the above Youtube video? The blurb says Mr Gordon's factory makes 20ml a day and that that particular pick-up requires ordinary petrol to start and then runs on NH3 later on. Nonetheless, do you reckon his method for producing NH3 is similar to Licht's; in which he "bubbles 'Wet Air' through a mixture of tiny particles of iron oxide and molten chemicals (made up of sodium and potassium hydroxide) that is zapped with electricity)"?
I do have reservations at such incredibly toxic chemicals being used in large quantities to facilitate the production of NH3 (Ammonia) If you look closely at Mr Gordon's work bench you can see the labels ACID in large angry letters below it. These are deadly poisons in both vapour and liquid forms.
Then of course there is the amount of time it takes to produce. It reminds me of the heavy water plants in Germany. I'm not doubting the energy efficiency as I don't have the evidence to refute it. There is a more local Europe based method on the cards too from the third link supplied and it's apparent quoted energy cost per tonne.. (https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/the-ammonia-wrap-haldor-topsoe-and-aquamarine-to-deploy-solid-oxide-electrolysis-green-ammonia-to-carry-hydrogen-for-south-korean-steel-and-namibias-national-green-ammonia-strategy/)
"The facility would also represent a huge step forward in energy efficiency improvements for ammonia production. Topsøe’s SOEC technology (already reported on extensively at Ammonia Energy) aims to produce ammonia with an energy efficiency of 7.2 MWh/tonne when integrated with Haber Bosch units, compared to 7.8 MWh/tonne for best available technology today (steam methane reforming & Haber Bosch)."
The factory should be ready in 2024. This method uses solid oxide electrolysis combined with the Haber Bosch process
There's something not quite right with all these figures knocking about. The pro Ammonia website stated that current methods were between 8-12 MWh per ton. Steam reforming of methane is incredibly energy intensive no matter you tell me and Licht's method claims that it uses far less energy than the Haber Bosch technique. (((https://home.gwu.edu/~slicht/)))
Can you give us the name of the company thanks
A few weeks ago I posted a message about a small company in Canada which owned, through acquisition from the inventor, the patent to produce Carbon Free Green Ammonia by bypassing the regular Haben-Bosch process and using only Air, Water and Electricity. The response was minimal and consisted, mainly, of a youtube video link showing the Inventor, Roger Gordon, talking about the process he invented and how he uses green ammonia to power his Ford F150 Pickup etc. Things have moved on from there, to the extent that the small Canadian company is now planning to attack the commercial energy market within the next two years to produce Carbon Free Green Ammonia Fuel to power Ships, Trucks and proposing that the motor industry carries out minimal conversions to power existing Internal Combustion Engines.
Yesterday the company presented a Global Webinar on its plans along with some pretty informative data on how they are planning to do this and also to address the current $70Billion Global Ammonia Market with a 35% saving on the cost of producing Carbon Free Green Ammonia. Identified potential customers include GM, Cummins and Hyundai/Kia as well as number of International Energy companies whose names would be familiar to ITM Investors. Additionally, it was pointed out that Carbon Free Green Ammonia would be a viable Storage Medium for Green Hydrogen:-
Uses 30% less energy to make Ammonia than to compress Hydrogen
• Ammonia stores 65% more Hydrogen than highly-compressed Hydrogen
• Increasing recognition of Ammonia as a carrier of Hydrogen
The current state of Ammonia fuel cell tech. The last article goes into solid oxide electrolysis that creates ammonia.
Thanks markbantam, I'll check it out.
To be honest I don't have the wherewithall to check the veracity of most findings. I recognise the various biases behind sponsored research and my cynicism bias makes my tendency toward decreasing good results and increasing bad ones more prevalent.
Hi McBoatFace: regarding costs of production, shipping including Boil off gas etc this may be a good place to start but data would need to be verified. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484720312312
International carbon tax on everything is going to be vital otherwise the blue mafia will suck in tax breaks and forget to pay out.
This article from 2017 states that ammonia fuel cells are also 50% efficient. So the crossover point between the front end adding Nitrogen to Ammonia and the back end LH2 costs of 1% per ton per day of voyage may be assessed similarly.
Not that it seems to matter much when the apparent energy density of Ammonia is 70% more than LH2.
According to Grigorii Soloveichik, program manager of REFUEL: “Ammonia fuel cell technology has the potential to be widely used in long term energy storage and the transportation sector (UAVs, range extenders, APUs). Fuel cells can convert ammonia, which can be easily stored in liquid form, to electricity with efficiencies higher than that using internal combustion engines (ICE). In addition, fuel cells, in contrast to ICE combustion processes, do not produce NOx pollutants. A variety of fuel cell technologies from low temperature AEM to high temperature SOFC could be used for this purpose.”
Let's hope the fuel cells are that efficient..
Nonetheless, the question has not been truly answered.
The boil off rate of 1% per day per ton of LH2 needs to be assessed for the length of a voyage in comparison against the initial higher cost of Ammonia production ( if the pro Ammonia site's figures are to be believed) with it's lossless storage over long ocean distances.
Later in the pro Ammonia article it gives roughly the same figures between 8-12 MWh per ton for renewable generation. So, at the moment we are not comparing apples with apples. The 12KWh per kg figure for LH2 is based on conventional grey methods with efficiencies of 35%. Thus, logically, with renewable power, 75% efficient electrolysis I suspect the overall energy figure of 12KWh/ kg would reduce by up to 20% (with my gut). So if you also imagine 12MWh per ton for LH2, with new tech additions 9.6 MWh per ton? I've not included 1% boil off per day after production. So you and your friend are probably right...
So this is a subset of studies from those pirates of the educational oceans ScienceDirect.
The study from 2009 states that the then current method was 35% efficient but that could be improved by using gas turbines to provide the power ;/ and improve efficiency up to 50%
Ignoring that rather counter productive advice I imagine electrolyisis efficiency at 75% would improve the then final figure of 12KWh/ kg.
My gut feels ammonia is a better material for long distance travel and also for energy. One of my friends is more into this subject than me and he sees ammonia as the natural material for shipping around the world.
Coal gas is that weird stuff we made in the 60s to heat homes. Ammonia is only a byproduct from that so we have to ask what the main product will be and all I can think of is CO2, after all there is no C in NH3. Can you see what is wrong with this picture?
So again the blue mafia has a pathway to pollute