Fixation of Nitrogen (N2) to Ammonia (NH3) is an essential process for maintaining life on earth. Currently, Ammonia (NH3) production is dominated by the Haber–Bosch process. It operates under conditions of high temperature 400–500 °C and pressure 200–250 bar, and its production has a huge carbon footprint. The H2 precursor, usually obtained by steam reforming of methane, also has a very large carbon footprint. Notably, the entire energy required to prepare the reagents and to operate the Haber-Bosch process amounts to 1–3% of the global energy supply. In stark contrast, in the natural world, plants and bacteria have been producing NH3 from N2 and solvated protons under ambient conditions, enabled by the FeMo cofactor of the metalloenzyme nitrogenase (N2 + 6H+ 6e-→2NH3). Inspired by this biological nitrogen fixation process, intensive efforts have been devoted to finding ways to mimic the process under similarly mild conditions.
Haber Bosch enables fertilizer and supported world population growth from 1.6 billion to 7.6 billion
The Haber-Bosch process uses a catalyst or container made of iron or ruthenium with an inside temperature of over 800ÌŠF (426ÌŠC) and a pressure of around 200 atmospheres to force nitrogen and hydrogen together. The elements then move out of the catalyst and into industrial reactors where the elements are eventually converted into fluid ammonia (Rae-Dupree, 2011). The fluid ammonia is then used to create fertilizers.
80 percent of the global increase in consumption of nitrogen fertilizers between 2000 and 2009 came from India and China.
New nanomembrane process could save 2% of world energy
Today chemical fertilizers contribute to about half of the nitrogen put into global agriculture and this number is higher in developed countries.
To this end, the electrocatalytic N2 reduction reaction (NRR) conducted in an aqueous media has recently been receiving increasing attention. This approach offers multiple merits:
(i) use of water as the hydrogen source,
(ii) operation under ambient conditions, and
(iii) utilization of renewable electricity to drive the process
For the first time that hierarchically structured nitrogen-doped nanoporous carbon membranes (NCMs) can electrochemically convert N2 into NH3 at room temperature and atmospheric pressure in an acidic aqueous solution. The Faradaic efficiency and rate of NH3 production using the metal-free NCM electrode in 0.1 M HCl solution are as high as 5.2% and 0.08 g m2 h-1, respectively. Upon functionalization of the NCM electrode with Au nanoparticles (Au NPs), the efficiency and rate are boosted to a remarkable 22% and 0.36 g m-2 h-1, respectively. These performance metrics are unprecedented for the electrocatalytic production of NH3 from N2 under ambient conditions.
Ammonia, key precursor for fertilizer production, convenient hydrogen carrier and emerging clean fuel, plays a pivotal role in sustaining life on earth. Currently, the main route for NH3 synthesis is via the heterogeneous catalytic Haber-Bosch process (N2+3H2 – 2NH3), which proceeds under extreme conditions of temperature and pressure with a very large carbon footprint. Herein we report that a pristine nitrogen-doped nanoporous graphitic carbon membrane (NCM) can electrochemically convert N2 into NH3 in an aqueous acidic solution under ambient conditions. The Faradaic efficiency and rate of production of NH3 on the NCM electrode reach 5.2% and 0.08 g m-2 h-1, respectively. After functionalization of the NCM with Au nanoparticles (Au NPs) these performance metrics are dramatically enhanced to 22% and 0.36 g m-2 h-1, respectively. These efficiencies and rates for the production of NH3 at room temperature and atmospheric pressure are unprecedented. As this system offers the potential to be scaled to industrial proportions there is a high likelihood it might displace the century-old Haber-Bosch process.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
This might be better
This might be better
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180716145900.htm
They have always been predators. But if you insist that they be of an higher type then fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, parasitic worms of all types, Blow flies, other type of blood sucking flies, hippos, alligators, crocodiles, large snakes, sharks, poisonous snakes, man hunting lions and tigers. Would protozoans be okay as predators?
I agree with you. Because of the possibility of “Black Swan” events, tornadoes, hurricane and blizzards it is prudent to always have a stockpile of necessary goods. It might sound a little paranoia to some but most prudent people buy insurance.The government itself should stockpile goods like MRE just in case of a natural disaster.
They have always been predators. But if you insist that they be of an higher type then fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, parasitic worms of all types, Blow flies, other type of blood sucking flies, hippos, alligators, crocodiles, large snakes, sharks, poisonous snakes, man hunting lions and tigers. Would protozoans be okay as predators?
I agree with you. Because of the possibility of “Black Swan” events, tornadoes, hurricane and blizzards it is prudent to always have a stockpile of necessary goods. It might sound a little paranoia to some but most prudent people buy insurance.
The government itself should stockpile goods like MRE just in case of a natural disaster.
I think the problem is more subtle than that.We DO play lotto with science. Vast numbers of projects are done on a huge variety of different things, most of which have no known “practical use” (though of course practical uses turn up fairly regularly for the most esoteric things (just think how “impractical” prime number theory was considered only a couple of generations ago, now it’s the basis of who knows what % of world trade and communication.))BUT, ~95% of this “pure” research is in the form of students doing undergraduate and postgrad theses. Which means- any project that doesn’t look like getting a solid question → answer within 3 to 4 years is too risky even for a PhD. For a masters you want 1-2 years, and realistically 6 months max for undergraduate. Remember you have to write it up and do other stuff as well within the total time you spend on the project.- Only post-doctorate work has the researchers STARTING as being an “expert” in the field. So most questions need to be simple enough for a non-expert to get a handle on to even get started. Now such research tends to be directed by a lead researcher, a professor or so who takes the complex questions and breaks them down into bite sized pieces that students can work on. But this has to have limits. There is definitely going to be whole areas of work that just can’t be broken down into such bits. And this means they won’t be addressed.To some extent things don’t get ignored forever. Just because something is a 15 year project in 1980 doesn’t mean that improved tools and methods won’t make it a 3 year project in 2018, and then it can appear on a list of PhD projects.But I wonder if there isn’t stuff that is just irreducibly long term, that may never get looked at in our current system. To mention just one possibility that has been brought up by others, it has been suggested that some mental stuff like hard core meditation is like this. It just takes a minimum 15-20 years of practice to reach the level of ability to do certain things in achieving certain mental states. Who can study this in a 4 year project?
Thanks for the suggestions. I read a few articles. Searching for food crops that don’t need a lot of fertilizer should be done. Not every farmer can afford fertilizer. I believe in playing lotto when it comes to doing science. You have to be in it to win it. Lots of people are scared that they will get blame for wasting money if a line of research doesn’t pan out. So we play it safe and spend billions of pounds for penny improvements that are surer. That is ridiculous. Lost time is money. Lets us open parallel lines of inquiry. You may not know it but we don’t have much time to double the amount of food we can produce.
I think the problem is more subtle than that.
We DO play lotto with science. Vast numbers of projects are done on a huge variety of different things, most of which have no known “practical use” (though of course practical uses turn up fairly regularly for the most esoteric things (just think how “impractical” prime number theory was considered only a couple of generations ago, now it’s the basis of who knows what % of world trade and communication.))
BUT, ~95% of this “pure” research is in the form of students doing undergraduate and postgrad theses. Which means
– any project that doesn’t look like getting a solid question → answer within 3 to 4 years is too risky even for a PhD. For a masters you want 1-2 years, and realistically 6 months max for undergraduate. Remember you have to write it up and do other stuff as well within the total time you spend on the project.
– Only post-doctorate work has the researchers STARTING as being an “expert” in the field. So most questions need to be simple enough for a non-expert to get a handle on to even get started.
Now such research tends to be directed by a lead researcher, a professor or so who takes the complex questions and breaks them down into bite sized pieces that students can work on. But this has to have limits. There is definitely going to be whole areas of work that just can’t be broken down into such bits. And this means they won’t be addressed.
To some extent things don’t get ignored forever. Just because something is a 15 year project in 1980 doesn’t mean that improved tools and methods won’t make it a 3 year project in 2018, and then it can appear on a list of PhD projects.
But I wonder if there isn’t stuff that is just irreducibly long term, that may never get looked at in our current system.
To mention just one possibility that has been brought up by others, it has been suggested that some mental stuff like hard core meditation is like this. It just takes a minimum 15-20 years of practice to reach the level of ability to do certain things in achieving certain mental states. Who can study this in a 4 year project?
Thanks for the suggestions. I read a few articles. Searching for food crops that don’t need a lot of fertilizer should be done. Not every farmer can afford fertilizer.
I believe in playing lotto when it comes to doing science. You have to be in it to win it. Lots of people are scared that they will get blame for wasting money if a line of research doesn’t pan out. So we play it safe and spend billions of pounds for penny improvements that are surer. That is ridiculous. Lost time is money. Lets us open parallel lines of inquiry. You may not know it but we don’t have much time to double the amount of food we can produce.
Since when are infections predators? You’re stretching things there.
That’s why it’s insanity that our government doesn’t encourage people to stockpile a month or two of long lasting supplies, food, water, toilet paper, that sort of thing; There’s no better way to stop an epidemic in its tracks than having everybody hole up for a while.
Obviously we are not the apex predator since they are predators that feed on us like malaria, HIV, hepatitis and venereal diseases.
CSP plants get hotter than 500C.
Virus and bacteria have no long term plans. They just randomly mutate. And some of those random mutations can be quite deadly. I watched “World War Z” and though that a fast acting Rabies virus would make a terrifying weapon. All it has to be is to work fast enough to overwhelm our healthcare system so we can’t contain it.
That’s why it’s insanity that our government doesn’t encourage people to stockpile a month or two of long lasting supplies, food, water, toilet paper, that sort of thing; There’s no better way to stop an epidemic in its tracks than having everybody hole up for a while.
Obviously we are not the apex predator since they are predators that feed on us like malaria, HIV, hepatitis and venereal diseases.
CSP plants get hotter than 500C.
Virus and bacteria have no long term plans. They just randomly mutate. And some of those random mutations can be quite deadly. I watched “World War Z” and though that a fast acting Rabies virus would make a terrifying weapon. All it has to be is to work fast enough to overwhelm our healthcare system so we can’t contain it.
Adding nitrogen fixing to food crops is a significant and long term area of research. It isn’t easy apparently.Google “nitrogen fixing corn” for example.
Arguably, the fastest growing new species that preys on humans is spambots.
Adding nitrogen fixing to food crops is a significant and long term area of research. It isn’t easy apparently.
Google “nitrogen fixing corn” for example.
Arguably, the fastest growing new species that preys on humans is spambots.
There’s also the separation of nitrogen from air, heating and pressurizing the hydrogen and nitrogen to perform the reaction, various pumps, condensers, etc etc. All of that requires energy. But yes, it can all be driven by other energy sources.
Chances are the whole process of turning water, and atmospheric nitrogen into NH3 could be done electrically, at lower energy cost than this. Use electrolysis to liberate H2, and heat the reactants electrically. The only reason natural gas is used now, is because it’s cheaper.
Obtaining the raw materials is where most of the energy cost in making NH3 is incurred. Compressing the reactants, and heating them is less energetically intensive than liberating hydrogen from water.Oddly, the chemical reaction N2+3H2 –> 2NH3 is energetically favored, it’s just the kinematics are bad. At room temperature the reaction rate is so low, it’s imperceptible.If you think about it, much of the energy used in the compression, and heating of reactants can be reused. The initial heating of reactants is done in their compression, by the compressor itself, the electricity used to power the compressor does double duty. The reactants are then heated further by passing them through a countercurrent heat exchanger, with the reaction’s products on the other side. Only then must you add fresh heat to get to the temperature where the kinematics of the reaction make it economically viable.
Yeah resistance to antibiotics is one thing, but I don’t see us giving headroom for any creature to evolve to eat us as we are the apex predator. Our end will be crowding, pollution, famine… boring stuff like that. No flying vampire lizards a la Netflix
We’re working on it.
Actually, no; 500C requires a high degree of light concentration to achieve. And thus high quality optics and a clear day.
There’s also the separation of nitrogen from air, heating and pressurizing the hydrogen and nitrogen to perform the reaction, various pumps, condensers, etc etc. All of that requires energy. But yes, it can all be driven by other energy sources.
Chances are the whole process of turning water, and atmospheric nitrogen into NH3 could be done electrically, at lower energy cost than this. Use electrolysis to liberate H2, and heat the reactants electrically. The only reason natural gas is used now, is because it’s cheaper.
Obtaining the raw materials is where most of the energy cost in making NH3 is incurred. Compressing the reactants, and heating them is less energetically intensive than liberating hydrogen from water.
Oddly, the chemical reaction N2+3H2 –> 2NH3 is energetically favored, it’s just the kinematics are bad. At room temperature the reaction rate is so low, it’s imperceptible.
If you think about it, much of the energy used in the compression, and heating of reactants can be reused. The initial heating of reactants is done in their compression, by the compressor itself, the electricity used to power the compressor does double duty. The reactants are then heated further by passing them through a countercurrent heat exchanger, with the reaction’s products on the other side. Only then must you add fresh heat to get to the temperature where the kinematics of the reaction make it economically viable.
We’re working on it.
Actually, no; 500C requires a high degree of light concentration to achieve. And thus high quality optics and a clear day.
Allright, what about mosquitoes then?
Couldn’t concentrated solar power be used to produce the ammonia. 500C should be easy to produce.
The government should support R&D effort to improve the efficiency of the process.
This is where genetic engineering could be worthwhile. Some plants like Soy Beans with the help of symbiotic bacteria fix their own nitrogen. It would be worthwhile to explore adding that ability to our food crops.
Once again, I tried to click Vuukle’s ‘Reply’ function and it just took me to the blog headlines, not even the article in question nor the specific reply field I wanted. This commenting system bites, big time!
Thanks Brett, I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. Cheers.
Allright, what about mosquitoes then?
Ammonia burning cars STINK. No thanks.
If this is real, the Watermelons are gonna scream, big time.
BTW the carbon footprint of the Haber process is large only because we are currently getting the hydrogen for it by reacting steam with coal or natural gas to produce hydrogen & CO2. Given some reasonably cheap non-fossil fuel energy source to split water, the Haber process can produce zero CO2.
Yes breathing in ammonia is distinctly unhealthy.However, forming ‘explosive mixtures with air’ is true for *any* fuel, and the range of proportions that is explosive is narrower for ammonia than for most other fuels. So from the POV of explosions ammonia is less dangerous.
Technology means that evolving to be a useful symbiote is a lot better strategy than “feeding” on us. Look at how phenomenally successful cows and chickens have been. Contrast that with wolves.If you can manage useful AND cute, that really seals the deal. Be suck-ups for the trifecta. See dogs for an example.Even at the bacterial level, our gut bacteria, symbiotes, are hugely more successful than pathogens like Tuberculosis.The last thing any organism that wants to avoid extinction should do is get on our bad side; We can cause the extinction of lifeforms just by not caring about them. Actively wanting them dead? Not a smart strategy to adopt.
All creatures evolve to use the resources at hand. The greatest resource available now is us. Expect that Mama Nature’s creature will evolve to feed on us. Some already do like HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. These will get better at feeding on us. But there will be new creatures.
Couldn’t concentrated solar power be used to produce the ammonia. 500C should be easy to produce.
The government should support R&D effort to improve the efficiency of the process.
This is where genetic engineering could be worthwhile. Some plants like Soy Beans with the help of symbiotic bacteria fix their own nitrogen. It would be worthwhile to explore adding that ability to our food crops.
Once again, I tried to click Vuukle’s ‘Reply’ function and it just took me to the blog headlines, not even the article in question nor the specific reply field I wanted. This commenting system bites, big time!
Thanks Brett, I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. Cheers.
If it fixes nitrogen, you can get there with it.
Supposedly +50% of the nitrogen content of the modern human’s body comes from the Haber process… always found that amazing – so artificial we are! Well, the humans evolved to do several things in the history of the blue marble:1. Free the carbon locked in stone over 10^9 years of moss growing over old moss*2. Increase the abundance of nitrate in the biome above trace occurrence 1000X *3. Clear the path of predators and competing clades for rats and starlings***it will get locked away again, so some overshoot was necessary**the Earth is host to two intelligent races (convergent evolution) in the year 100,000,000AD; one descended from the rats that ate our garbage and one descended from the starlings that (coincidentally) also ate our garbage. All animals that found our garbage unpalatable were extinct by 2150AD.
Ammonia burning cars STINK. No thanks.
If this is real, the Watermelons are gonna scream, big time.
BTW the carbon footprint of the Haber process is large only because we are currently getting the hydrogen for it by reacting steam with coal or natural gas to produce hydrogen & CO2. Given some reasonably cheap non-fossil fuel energy source to split water, the Haber process can produce zero CO2.
Yes breathing in ammonia is distinctly unhealthy.
However, forming ‘explosive mixtures with air’ is true for *any* fuel, and the range of proportions that is explosive is narrower for ammonia than for most other fuels. So from the POV of explosions ammonia is less dangerous.
And with all economic decisions being made on the margins, there is no possibility of carbon usage being dramatically curtailed for the sake of appeasing the AGW fraudsters driving up the cost of energy such that hundreds of millions of the poorer people in the world no longer can afford fertilizer. An example of how what the AGW fraudsters want, will kill hundreds of millions.
No, no, no, no! Ammonia is toxic, and deadens your sense of smell, and can very easily form explosive mixtures with air. You really don’t want large amounts of it around everywhere. Carbon monoxide is a great fuel, too, you know. And water gas used to kill a lot of people.Now, farms often use Ammonia directly as fertilizer, injecting it into the ground under the plants, and I suppose if it were cheap enough it might make sense to run tractors off it, since they’ve got it around anyway. But you don’t want your car running on it.Anyway, at 22%, it makes more sense to have solar panels running small fertilizer plants, than it does to use nitrogen fixing bacteria, because the latter do have a metabolic cost, and the net efficiency is lower for the bacteria, sunlight to ammonia. This process has the potential at least to be used for distributed fertilizer production.Since ammonia also works in the absorption refrigeration cycle, which runs off heat, and 22% is still 78% waste heat, could you build a combined fertilizer plant and absorption refrigerator, for poor areas?
Technology means that evolving to be a useful symbiote is a lot better strategy than “feeding” on us. Look at how phenomenally successful cows and chickens have been. Contrast that with wolves.
If you can manage useful AND cute, that really seals the deal. Be suck-ups for the trifecta. See dogs for an example.
Even at the bacterial level, our gut bacteria, symbiotes, are hugely more successful than pathogens like Tuberculosis.
The last thing any organism that wants to avoid extinction should do is get on our bad side; We can cause the extinction of lifeforms just by not caring about them. Actively wanting them dead? Not a smart strategy to adopt.
All creatures evolve to use the resources at hand. The greatest resource available now is us. Expect that Mama Nature’s creature will evolve to feed on us. Some already do like HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. These will get better at feeding on us. But there will be new creatures.
1. So how much cheaper is this?2. Is an ammonia burning engine cheaper than an electric vehicle? Could this be competition for Tesla in the low carbon car market?
But will it make a decent explosive?
If it fixes nitrogen, you can get there with it.
Supposedly +50% of the nitrogen content of the modern human’s body comes from the Haber process… always found that amazing – so artificial we are! Well, the humans evolved to do several things in the history of the blue marble:
1. Free the carbon locked in stone over 10^9 years of moss growing over old moss*
2. Increase the abundance of nitrate in the biome above trace occurrence 1000X *
3. Clear the path of predators and competing clades for rats and starlings**
*it will get locked away again, so some overshoot was necessary
**the Earth is host to two intelligent races (convergent evolution) in the year 100,000,000AD; one descended from the rats that ate our garbage and one descended from the starlings that (coincidentally) also ate our garbage. All animals that found our garbage unpalatable were extinct by 2150AD.
And with all economic decisions being made on the margins, there is no possibility of carbon usage being dramatically curtailed for the sake of appeasing the AGW fraudsters driving up the cost of energy such that hundreds of millions of the poorer people in the world no longer can afford fertilizer. An example of how what the AGW fraudsters want, will kill hundreds of millions.
No, no, no, no! Ammonia is toxic, and deadens your sense of smell, and can very easily form explosive mixtures with air. You really don’t want large amounts of it around everywhere. Carbon monoxide is a great fuel, too, you know. And water gas used to kill a lot of people.
Now, farms often use Ammonia directly as fertilizer, injecting it into the ground under the plants, and I suppose if it were cheap enough it might make sense to run tractors off it, since they’ve got it around anyway. But you don’t want your car running on it.
Anyway, at 22%, it makes more sense to have solar panels running small fertilizer plants, than it does to use nitrogen fixing bacteria, because the latter do have a metabolic cost, and the net efficiency is lower for the bacteria, sunlight to ammonia. This process has the potential at least to be used for distributed fertilizer production.
Since ammonia also works in the absorption refrigeration cycle, which runs off heat, and 22% is still 78% waste heat, could you build a combined fertilizer plant and absorption refrigerator, for poor areas?
1. So how much cheaper is this?
2. Is an ammonia burning engine cheaper than an electric vehicle? Could this be competition for Tesla in the low carbon car market?
But will it make a decent explosive?