China’s GAC Debuts Ammonia-Powered Car Engine

by Matt Posky

Published: June 26th, 2023

chinas gac debuts ammonia powered car engine

With the automotive industry now keen on propulsion systems that don’t emit a lot of carbon, we’ve seen decades of manufacturers toying with alternative fuels. Corn-based ethanol was big for a while and the Germans have recently shown a renewed interest in carbon monoxide and hydrogen-based synthetic fuel stemming from the gasification of coal, biomass, and/or methane.

Meanwhile, China’s state-owned Guangzhou Automobile Group Company (GAC) has announced it had developed an engine powered by ammonia with help from Toyota Motor Corporation during its annual technology showcase.

While Bloomberg reported it as the “world’s first car engine that runs on ammonia,” other companies have been developing engines that run on the inorganic compound for years. MAN Energy Solutions has been working on a two-stroke motor it expects to be commercially available for maritime applications by 2024.

Amogy, a startup founded by four MIT graduates, even revealed an ammonia-electric semi truck at the start of 2023 and had previously modified a John Deere tractor to run on the fuel. Going back in time a bit, we can see that the Caterpillar Corporation filed a 2008 patent application that covers a “power system having an ammonia-fueled engine.”

What’s different about the GAC-Toyota joint is that the duo has allegedly overcome some of the issues associated with burning it. Ammonia is pretty toxic and was often faulted as having the potential to emit even more greenhouse gasses than conventional fuels. Production methods are relatively energy intensive. But companies are trying to swap to “green” variants that utilize renewable energy — though these only represent a fraction of the whole at present.

“We’ve overcome the pain point of ammonia being difficult to burn quickly and put the fuel to use in the passenger car industry,” Qi Hongzhong from GAC’s research and development center told reporters. “Its value to society and for commercial uses are worth anticipating.”

From Bloomberg:

Ammonia is being explored as a carbon-free fuel but it faces hurdles because of its low flammability and high nitrogen oxide emissions. GAC said it has developed a 2.0-liter engine that can burn liquid ammonia more efficiently in a safe manner, achieving 120 kilowatts of power and a 90 [percent] reduction in carbon emissions compared to conventional fuels, according to Qi.

State-owned GAC is leading Chinese legacy automakers in the transition to green energy. Its EV brand Aion became the third best selling clean-car brand in the country, behind BYD Co. and Tesla Inc., after overtaking General Motors Co.’s joint venture with SAIC Motor Corp. and Wuling Motors Holdings. The Guangzhou-based company has been investing in research and development, and incubated the battery making unicorn Greater Bay Technology, which is working on EV cells that can charge in 15 minutes and in all weather conditions.

Technological advancements aside, not everyone seems convinced that ammonia is going to be the new hotness. The industry would need to embrace the concept fairly broadly and be willing to spend more money to chase development. That’s a tall order when so much money is already tied up in battery-electric vehicles.

We’ve seen hydrogen power fizzle out somewhat in recent years for similar reasons. Despite impressive leaps in technology over the last two decades, interest is limited to Japan and a smattering of other regions that already have enough hydrogen fueling stations to rationalize using it as a way to power automobiles. It’s relatively energy intensive to produce and brutally difficult to store. Ammonia would likewise need to see specialized fueling stations crop up all around the planet before it becomes viable and there are lingering questions on just how ready GAC’s motor actually is for mass production.

“Ammonia is hellish to handle,” said Colin McKerracher, head of transport and automotive analysis at BloombergNEF. “I can’t see it taking off in passenger cars.”

[Image: GAC Motor]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

#NewsBlog #GAC #China #Technology #Development

Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 15 comments

Vulpine on Jun 27, 2023

Considering ammonia is 3 parts hydrogen to 1 part nitrogen, I can see the appeal to trying to use it as a fuel. Interesting, its primary use is as a cleaning solvent, just as naphtha was before it became gasoline. The drawback seems to be both its strong, acrid, aroma and the fact that it's a stable molecule, making it difficult to ignite compared to carbon-based fuels. If they've solved the ignition issue, which is what's claimed above, then the aroma ends up being the primary issue, as the stench is enough, when concentrated, to burn the sinuses and exacerbate breathing issues.

2 Reply
Bullnuke on Jun 27, 2023

Ammonia. The locals growing ethanol in their fields use it in anhydrous form. Mom used it to clean things. I used it in nuclear reactor chemistry to maintain pH for corrosion control. Used as a commercial refrigerant. Interesting chemical (concentrated, it really stinks; one of my least favorite things to shoot into the primary coolant). In concentrated liquid form it can be dangerous to handle - concentrated ammonia can burn you badly similar to caustic soda. Current uses of ammonia for combustion require another fuel mixed with it to initiate the combustion process, gasoline or diesel - it ain't a truly green fuel that likely adds complication to the process. Maybe GAC is fishing for investor money...

3 Reply

Recent Comments

Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?