Exciting! Glad to see the progress 🙏 hopefully this will be a way to reopen the discussion on MSRs with politicians.

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

We also need to get the public and the maritime industry excited and believe this will happen soon. Else no politician will look at it. We also need great people to get inspired to work in this field.

The Copenhagen Atomics package is so small why not use it directly for shipping as the heat source for the turbines (maybe super critical CO2)? Much much more efficient than making ammonia for fuel.

@CopenhagenAtomics

2 жыл бұрын

Yes technically it is possible to put Copenhagen Atomics waste burner on a ship, and we do believe this will happen one day. But we think it is more likely to get widespread adoption on land first. You can also put it on a barge of course. But there is a higher risk / cost of getting this approved on a ship and no one seems willing to pay that added cost on the first reactor units. Thus we expect to see this on land first and the price to drop quickly. Next problem with ships is that most ships are different, thus it is more difficult to get a "type approval". If some investor or customer is willing to pay the difference, then we are ready.

This is very exciting. Why only 1700 views though? This message really needs to get out there!!

Excited to see green ammonia as fuel in shipping and heavy equipment

Super! I like the fact that you guys are using Thorium as nuclear fuel.

Thank you for sharing!!!

@CopenhagenAtomics

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching!

It’s nice to see someone doing something about the problem and not playing silly blame games or worst yet, people gluing them self to the motorways to block traffic and causing extra greenhouse gases from stalled cars unable to move forward. Would have like to hear more about your Thorium Molten Salt Reactor as it’s a key to so many problems beyond green ammonia, like making warehouse farming more viable. The main problem with thorium is it not cartel friendly and will make finding investors more difficult. I think one possible ways to promote thorium is as a strategic countermoves against one’s competitors, it’s sad that Global warming isn’t enough.

Ammonia seems to be a big chance to replace old liquid fuel. Hydrogen alone is challenging to use. And we need a 24h energy source, I bet on Thorium liquid salt, seems the cleanest and cheapest source we can imagine.

@jimj2683

9 ай бұрын

Methanol (with captured CO2) is also good. Even though it has a lower energy density than ammonia, it requires less heavy tanks, so it balances out. And it is less toxic than ammonia.

@EduardHeindl

9 ай бұрын

@@jimj2683 capturing CO2 ist hard, will say, needs a lot of energy.

Since liquid ammonia has to be stored under pressure and boils at 33C then to use it, the liquid must vaporize when released from the tank. Why not run this ammonia vapor through a phase change motor (i.e. a turbine) to either generate electricity or turn a mechanical device such as a propeller shaft? Also after the NH3 passes though the turbine, can the H2 gas be recovered and sent through a fuel cell to produce more electricity? If this configuration is feasible then it could recover most of the energy required to produce the ammonia and store it in a liquid form?

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

There are catalysts which can convert NH3 to H2 at almost no energy loss. Thus you avoid NOx and NH3 is a great energy carrier.

Just curious, what is the typical efficiency of an ammonia fuel cell ? In particular, what are the benefits of ammonia over methanol that is liquid at atm pressure, more energy dense, easier/less energy intensive to produce ?

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

Great questions. [methanol - less energy intensive to produce.] I would disagree. But can you share a paper or wiki article with the numbers? NH3 can be made at $500 per ton and has almost the same energy densety than methanol and half of diesel. However NH3 can burn at 40% efficiency in 2 stroke diesel engines. Green NH3 still cannot compete with diesel. But it can compete with blue ammonia and diesel with 100% CO2 tax.

@Alessandro-1977

Жыл бұрын

My understanding is that things may change if: 1) you can produce ammonia without the Haber-Bosch process, thus no hydrogen need, only starting from N2 and water, for example or 2) you can conceive a better hydrogen fuel cell (higher efficiency or more compact) with NH3 than MeOH, maybe because ammonia has slightly more hydrogen than meth

You can now produce ammonia at 45 centigrade and standard air pressure , massively cutting down the energy neeeded to produce it , green energy or fossil fuel . Two Canadian companies are entering machine production , pilot plants are already operating

From Dr. Hargraves 2012 book Thorium: Energy Cheaper Than Coal, an ammonia fuel tank would be about 13.6 bar to be liquid - how big would these fuel tanks be compared to diesel tanks or marine fuel tanks on ships? My sense these days is Denmark has a lot to be proud of with regard to energy solutions. Germany: look to your direct north for energy policy and solutions, full stop.

Hi and thanks for the video, is a very exciting technology as always. I have been following for a few years and I know that you need investors, but could you share what's your target budget for the next 10-15 years so that Thorium reactors and green amonia would be part of our lives? (don't need to be exact, just the magnitude of an yearly budget). I don't know if I can help, but I think that having an idea of how much euros would cost "us" to get a better future can motivate many people. Thank you for all!

@CopenhagenAtomics

2 жыл бұрын

Ask your own government. They have no idea what it will cost or what they require to approve this new tech. When they tell us there will be at least 10 times as many investors willing to invest in this new tech. (assuming the price / requirements are reasonable). Price estimates fluctuate by x20 depending on who you ask. Every year approx. 770000 people die from smoking in the EU. As far as I know zero persons have died from nuclear power in the EU in the last 10 years. But still many people say it is dangerous tech. What do you think? Do they live in the Matrix?

@noxen1402

2 жыл бұрын

@@CopenhagenAtomics I'm sorry, for the question, this seems to be hard for you. I was actually asking that to ask investments in my government. I really don't understand why public investment is going only to ITER and not to other european technologies. You deserve to be funded by any means, I hope you'll find other people that believe in you and have the money to invest. Good luck!

The closed captions are off. The timing is wrong.

How difficult is it to deal with nitrous oxides produced during combustion.

@YY-bf6xr

Жыл бұрын

Nitrous oxides is the precursor for tropospheric ozone formation and photochemical smog.

@BullCheatFR

Жыл бұрын

Diesel engines currently deal with it by injecting ammonia in the exhaust, which converts NOx to N2 and H2O Also, there is no NOx coming out of a fuel cell

The Indonesian translation doesn't match the dialogue. There seems to be some timing issue. Given the recent MoU you may want to redo it.

If you burn the NH3, NO will be released. So, Nitrous oxides is the precursor for tropospheric formation of ozone and photochemical smog at the ambient sunny air.

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

I agree, NOx is only a partly solved problem in combustion systems. But as fertilizer and for fuel cells it is good.

Are you combinely working with TOPSOE it's an amazing technology in industrial revolution Does it reliable than natural gas Because it's need more power to carry electrolysis. Is this is an automated process (AI) is it reduces the man power Hoping a great success And to see in present plants that are been ravamped or expanded Waiting to see this technology in ANDHRA PRADESH

Thank you for working on great ideas and spreading them! KZread is not enough. Real green organizations should be addressed to spread idea. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter how real, excellent, working and cheap solutions have scientists - everything is in the hand of politians; It must be expensive to feed democratic corruption. Anyway, I have concerns about nitrogen oxides as we know them from classic engines...?

Isn't ammonia many times more efficient as a fuel by running it across a nickel catalyst to separate the nitrogen and hydrogen, then using the hydrogen in a fuel cell? Fuel cells run between 70 and 90 percent efficiency in the use of the energy available, while burning hydrogen, as in burning any fuel, is only 20 to 40 efficient, unless you want to make heat. Burning fuels mostly make heat, and do less mechanical work. Although even as a heat source, they are not ideal. Heat is much harder to transfer from source to point of use.

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

I am not an expert. But the shipping industry looked into this and concluded that currently diesel engines are still better than fuel cells and electric motors. But maybe in the future this will tip. I will ask Center for Zero Carbon Shipping if they can share some numbers about this research.

♥♥💘💘💖💖

What, no answers to the many very relevant questions below!!

Ammpower the Green Ammonia Company

Why not put a Copenhagen atomics reactor on a ship, use that for propulsive power, skip the conversion losses, time and effort spent? save the ammonia for agriculture.

When you know that advancements also are excellerating toxicity and the alchemy mistakes of the past and the methods to make and harness energy and the excessive amounts needed the choice was made between sciences advanced weaponry and technologies and AI new exciting developments ....OR The preservation of humanity the value and importance of peoples lives the quality of life jepodised to accommodate ambitious projects and the lack of intelligence or wisdom to know when to stop...just because you can does not mean you should to have intelligence without knowing what is the best and good decision or action ...it shows sadly the total lack of ability to way up the good v the bad ... Please remember the love given in our hearts is of good without love there is narcissism and this is the path open for self gain and gain of function that are intentional agendas ... There must be a better solution as quality of life for all is remembering that preservation of life and the natural selection of things that are of good to be good has to come from a heart that is good that is loving that has feelings to know the difference of good v bad ...decisions that knowingly cause harm to the preservation of all are inhumane ....please remember the love given was for all ... Please stop killing us ...

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

Hmmmm... we do not plan to kill anyone, quite the opposite.

@BullCheatFR

Жыл бұрын

​​@@CopenhagenAtomics energy is inhumane, we must go back to our olden humane ways like slaves, horses and famines... Oh wait

Just put nuclear reactors on the ships, no transmission losses.

@loungemonkey124

11 ай бұрын

No company will take responsibility for that, it's why it's only been done on high tech military vessels.

Such an important and hopeful message! I wish you all success. But why this stupid music so loud under your voices.

Nice fairy tales.

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

Fairytales that are gradually coming to life www.nucnet.org/news/danish-companies-sign-agreement-for-usd4-billion-thorium-smr-in-borneo-5-1-2023

Not really, GREEN. What about NOx? What about energy imput for cleaning of seawater and desalination? What about radioactive pollution and associated dangers of nuclear plants? What about the hidden part of the iceberg of manufacturing, maintaining, and operating wind and solar?

@BullCheatFR

Жыл бұрын

No NOx when burned in a fuel cell. If that energy is also low carbon, then where is the problem? (besides added cost) Nuclear plants, conventional or SMRs are by far the safest and least polluting of all power plants. No other energy source at that scale has less than 10 deaths linked to it in the past 35 years.

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

> What about radioactive pollution and associated dangers of nuclear plants It seams that you live inside the Matrix and is not well informed.

@mosgrni6039

Жыл бұрын

@Copenhagen Atomics Well, you are not addressing, scientifically, my points; you are just attacking. Try to enlighten your audience by means of scientific explanation!

@loungemonkey124

11 ай бұрын

​@@mosgrni6039Nuclear power plants do not release radiation in the atmosphere. What you see coming out of light water nuclear reactors is pure steam. Meanwhile, I invite you to research how much radiation a typical coal fired power plant releases constantly.

@mosgrni6039

11 ай бұрын

@Lounge Monkey Don't be superficial, please. What we mean by radiation dangers is what is associated with disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. Also, you need to consider the very problematic issues associated with treatment and storage of consumed fuel (e.g., depleted uranium).

Super annoying to have all these video clips with nothing to do with what you are talking about. Since it is almost all talking, why no do it as a print article, then I can read it in 1/4 the the time, take it all in and NOT BE ANNOYED BY THE NONSENSICAL EXTRANEOUS VIDEO CLIPS!!!!!?

@CopenhagenAtomics

Жыл бұрын

Hi. There are documents and reports. But almost no one read them. Thus most people like a video and a beer ;-)