Geoffrey Styles, who was a director in Texaco for 22 years, is now a guru blogger promoting CO2 producing fuels. We don’t know what financial investments he has in it but his arguments are clever, insidious, and if that doesn’t wash, just wrong
”His industry experience includes 22 years at Texaco Inc., culminating in a senior position on Texaco’s leadership team for strategy development, focused on the global refining, marketing, transportation and alternative energy businesses, and global issues such as climate change.”
How can you ask someone who has lived 22 years in Texaco Inc. be qualified to comment on Ammonia Fuel? Having witnessed the crimes against humanuity committed over a generation by Texaco in Ecuador, and now recognized by international courts I find it impossible to accept arguments from that source, especially as I have uncovered evidence (not directly related to Geoffrey Styles) of systematic suppression of NH3 fuel technology by the Oil Corporations during half a century. One of the main thrusts of the relegation of NH3 has certainly been the financing of just such apparently scientific argument as we witness above.
You can read Geoffrey’s ANTI AMMONIA article HERE http://theenergycollective.com/comment/reply/46324
And here are some of the replies…
Casey Stack said:
There are several inaccurate, misleading or significantly biased comments in Geoffrey Styles article which make NH3 appear less practicable than is the reality. Simply put:
In order of appearance above
– Energy Density. wrong
The reason more than one international automotive manufacturer is currently pursuing NH3 is due to the fact that it is more practical for energy storage than CNG. According to an automotive manufacturer this year, the reason broad CNG auto manufacturing has not caught on in 30 years is the energy density issue. More on the later.
– Dual Fuel Requirements. wrong
The first trans US demonstration of an NH3 fueled vehicle in 2007 did operate on a dual fuel scheme. However, today, a patented breakthrough technology, ” the flame cracker” completely solves the need for carrying dual fuels in a unit is tiny, starts instantly, self sufficient, is very low cost to manufacture..making automotive use completely practical.
– Energy Cost and GGE. wrong
Today the cost of NH3 varies dramatically based on location. Depending on location, actual price may be only 33% to 50% of that stated above. This was also true in the early days of gasoline distribution.
Also, the cost per mile assumptions are incorrect. Because NH3 has an octane rating 50% higher than that of gasoline, much higher engine efficiencies are attained. This equates to as much as a 60% increase in mileage for the same total energy input. This is a great thing for everyone, and makes the fuel even cheaper.
During our cross country drive powered by NH3 in 2007, www.nh3car.com, NH3 was $425/ton and gasoline was $2.25. This was break even pricing.. today, gas is $3.00. And energy per mile is going down with purpose-built NH3 engines as discussed immediately above.
– Pressure of Storage. wrong
I’m very surprised this issue is raised here. It’s as simple as this:
CNG = 3,500 PSI tank (with the associated weight, strength and cost of a tank rated for 3,500PSI)
NH3 = 150 PSI. This is a thin lightweight low cost tank, which improves gas mileage by reducing significant weight.
– Safety.. wrong
The hazards from gasoline outweigh the hazards from NH3 any way you look at it. There is 100 years of scientific and medical data to back this up. There is no contest. This has been sliced, resliced, studied and confirmed by the major medical and industrial safety companies which rate risk for the petroleum industries and governments time and again. Thousands of people are maimed or killed in the US every year by gasoline accidents.. doesn’t happen with NH3.
ETC see HERE