back to article Fujitsu: Ammonia could power datacenters in the near future

Fujitsu says it is making progress on a cleaner method of producing ammonia, which it believes is a strong candidate for an alternative power source for datacenters. The company said it envisions the machinery to produce the clean ammonia fitting into a shipping container. The Japanese multinational announced in April that it …

  1. cawfee

    versatile

    can clean disks in addition to floors

  2. Little Mouse

    Good luck to them and everything, but...

    ...as projects go, this one is still very much in the "concept stage".

    Although if there's money being chucked around, I've got a great idea for a special pill that turns water into clean burning petrol. I just need lots of help, and money, to figure out the details.

  3. Dimmer Silver badge

    And meanwhile in Texas...

    110 in the shade.

    ERCOT " Could you please not plug in your electric car or use your air conditioning from 2 till 8 tonight? The wind is not blowing."

    I hope I live long enough to see us crack the energy storage / retrieval problem.

    Just for reference, I am for solar and wind - when properly designed to handle the load and has redundancy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And meanwhile in Texas...

      "Just for reference, I am for solar and wind - when properly designed to handle the load and has redundancy."

      North America could in principle produce all its electricity from wind power (and maybe some solar) - it would need a properly interconnected grid (which would have its own benefits) and massive overcapacity properly sited, but in principle it's always windy *somewhere* in North America. Can't find the references at the moment, sadly.

      Also sadly, the same "it's always windy enough *somewhere*" doesn't apply in e.g. Europe, and certainly not in the UK. It's entirely possible for the whole of the UK (and/or much of Europe) to be subject to calm weather at the same time.

      Back to the article: ammonia is not a primary source of power. It may be a suitable way to store energy for a while, but the energy has to come from somewhere in the first instance. How's that work then?

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: And meanwhile in Texas...

        "It may be a suitable way to store energy for a while, but the energy has to come from somewhere in the first instance. How's that work then?"

        As I understand, this is exactly what they are working on. If it's possible to use wind-power electricity to create ammonia directly from Nitrogen and Hydrogen using a specific catalyst (without needing source fossil fuel and waste CO2 to produce ammonia), then instead of needing, say, 10X over(peak)capacity of wind farms to account for calms, you only need, say 2X, because you can reliably store the excess energy as ammonia (which as mentioned in the article is easy to store and transport) instead of batteries (expensive, heavy/immobile).

        Even if they crack it it's no magic bullet but always good to have one more tool in the locker.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And meanwhile on Wer wird millionar (German edition)

          There was once a question about the Haber Bosch process. 500K Euro or something.

          " create ammonia directly from Nitrogen and Hydrogen using a specific catalyst "

          That's kind of what the Haber Bosch process has done for years, but a better catalyst might be handy.

          Here's an article f (in English, fortunately) about the subject. There'll be more elsewhere:

          https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24

          extract:

          " the Haber-Bosch process represents a huge technological advancement, it’s always been an energy-hungry one. The reaction, which runs at temperatures around 500 °C and at pressures up to about 20 MPa, sucks up about 1% of the world’s total energy production. It belched up to about 451 million t of CO2 in 2010, according to the Institute for Industrial Productivity. That total accounts for roughly 1% of global annual CO2 emissions, more than any other industrial chemical-making reaction"

          Actually maybe it would help to use less intensive farming and therefore need less fertiliser.

          1. jmch Silver badge

            Re: And meanwhile on Wer wird millionar (German edition)

            Wow!!

            "...sucks up about 1% of the world’s total energy production... accounts for roughly 1% of global annual CO2 emissions..."

            I had no idea! Screw using ammonia as an energy store, simply having a more efficient way of producing ammonia alone would be a giant energy saver.

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: And meanwhile in Texas...

          >"you now have an energy commodity that is very transportable"

          Following the logic in the article, that transport will need to be ammonia fueled...

          >"easy to store and transport"

          Only if you discount the safety data...

          Remember, it isn't 'if' but 'when' there is an accident involving the spillage of concentrated ammonia.

          I suspect the emergency services will take petroleum over ammonia everytime...

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: And meanwhile in Texas...

            "I suspect the emergency services will take petroleum over ammonia everytime..."

            Indeed. Spilling 100 gallons of diesel would annoy the greenaholics ... but spilling 100 gallons of ammonia could conceivably kill many of them and permanently damage many more for life.

            I can assure you the safety requirements/standards for handling ammonia (fertilizer) here at the Ranch are a hell of a lot more stringent than handling fuel pretty much anywhere.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            came here to say this

            Ammonia is useful stuff. Ammonia chillers are still the most efficient we have. They are also only used in a very small percentage of installations because ammonia leaks are LETHAL. That is in systems that are only using it as closed loop refrigerant. Moving and storing large volumes of this stuff is not much better or safer than hydrogen, it's just cheaper. When a hydrogen tank dumps the gas can vent up and rises so fast that even if it ignites the heat at the release level may not be that high.

            Ammonia is lighter than nitrogen and heavier than oxygen, and in an enclosed environment can pose pose a "one and done" inhalation hazard. It produces oxides when combusted that are already regulated in exaust regulations. Lack of CO/CO2 emissions isn't the only decision in balancing the impacts of things. Ammonia is also lethal to aquatic life in very small doses, so the immediate impacts are potentially quite large.

            This smacks of a way to cut costs and dodge regulations. Companies that want to do that are exactly the sort that SHOULDN"T be playing with large amounts of ammonia.

    2. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: And meanwhile in Texas...

      "ERCOT " Could you please not plug in your electric car or use your air conditioning from 2 till 8 tonight? The wind is not blowing."

      If there was only some source of power generation that could be used when the sun is shining.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: And meanwhile in Texas...

        "If there was only some source of power generation that could be used when the sun is shining."

        My big, whole-house gensets run on either propane or natural gas (depending on jetting). The little, easily portable units are on gasoline, although a couple have been converted to ethanol with the rest to follow Real Soon Now. The mid-range units are mostly diesel and/or used cooking oil.

        HTH

  4. Paul Crawford Silver badge

    If this magically avoids the need for natural gas as an input to ammonia production is has massive ramifications for food production using fertilisers.

    1. jake Silver badge

      To say nothing of explosives ... hardrock mining for the components of batteries becomes cheaper. As does the armaments needed to take over the rocks being mined.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    A whole new meaning to

    Taking the piss.

  6. Jim Mitchell
    Alert

    I'm not a chemist, but I'd rather have a tank of diesel at the work site instead of a tank of ammonia. Clean or not, ammonia is nasty stuff.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Some of us are old enough to remember dealing with ammonia refrigeration. Not fun.

  7. DS999 Silver badge

    What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

    If they had on site generation then maybe, but when the inevitable occurs while transporting ammonia it results a big evacuation. We shouldn't be wanting to do anything to increase the need to transport ammonia whether by rail or tanker truck.

    But I wonder how much ammonia you'd have to store to account for on site solar's peaks and valleys? Or simply to account for loss of grid power for however long you feel is the maximum you should plan for? I suppose you could put the tanks underground so you don't have to worry about terrorism or accidents, but it seems questionable to me whether this would be better than a flow/redox type battery unless it has a huge power density advantage.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

      Strangely enough, it's quite a bit higher. However, the storage and dispensing requirements are far, far more stringent ... and engines running on it need to achieve complete combustion at all times ... unless you're planning on killing tailgaters. To say nothing of the inherent corrosion problems.

      If ammonia were a good source of fuel, the airlines would be looking into it to replace jet fuel, the railroads would be looking into it to replace diesel, and international shipping would be looking into it to replace bunker fuel.

      1. Crypto Monad Silver badge

        Re: What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

        > If ammonia were a good source of fuel, the airlines would be looking into it to replace jet fuel, the railroads would be looking into it to replace diesel, and international shipping would be looking into it to replace bunker fuel.

        Exactly what I was going to say. If it's a good fuel, then there's no reason to target it just at data centres. Conversely, if it's a bad fuel, then I don't see why data centres would want it when nobody else does.

        Personally, I'd say synthetic methane or methanol are a better goal than ammonia. Of course they release CO2 on combustion, but only what was used in its production.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

          >Of course they release CO2 on combustion, but only what was used in its production.

          This is a nuance that is currently lost in the carbon debate, in part because the urgent need is to maintain clarity of message - we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

          However, assuming CO2 levels can be reduced to acceptable levels ie. we've removed most of the fossil/long-cycle CO2 then there is no reason not to have "short cycle CO2".

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

          I'd agree in general, but methanol is also nasty. Isobutanol (a heavier alcohol than ethanol) is closer in energy density to gasoline, and has been investigated as one possible synthetic fuel that would run in many engines/generators with few modifications. Synthetic methane is already very much a thing. Either would be easier and faster to integrate than ammonia, methane, or to a lessor degree, hydrogen.

          At the end of the day, all rely on a significant amount of cheap surplus power from another renewable source of your still better of eating direct fueling and just doing more to manage the exhaust stream. That could be useful in a data center where power loads often cycle daily, and backup power is needed in short bursts, but it wouldn't help without the nearly free power supply when you look at global use. No free lunch right?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

        Also, the oxides produced when fully combusted are already restricted emissions. NOx is more regulated in diesel exhaust then CO2 and Carbon monoxide is. Emitting 1/3 NOX and water vapor isn't a magic wand, it's just a shortcut to smog. Also, the energy for this has to come from somewhere, even better catalysts don't trump entropy, thermodynamics, and conservation of energy.

        In net effect, this would at best be net energy storage at a significant loss of energy, and with emissions that would need to be handled as well. Pumped storage, batteries, etc likely not losing sleep on this one.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

          While there is a little NOx produced in virtually every internal combustion engine (air + heat + pressure will do that), the basic byproducts of burning ammonia in air are water and nitrogen.

          4 NH3 + 3 O2 → 2 N2 + 6 H2O

          Assuming proper and full combustion, of course.

          I'm not holding my breath, if you'll pardon the expression.

      3. RichardBarrell

        Re: What's the power density of ammonia compared to diesel?

        > unless you're planning on killing tailgaters

        More of a feature than a bug.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like