[HN Gopher] Device uses wind to create ammonia out of air
___________________________________________________________________
Device uses wind to create ammonia out of air
Author : rbanffy
Score : 91 points
Date : 2025-01-16 14:43 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| ada1981 wrote:
| How do we create this right now?
|
| What are the costs for the catalysts and how long do they last?
|
| Those sorts of questions feel important to understand.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Most ammonia is produced via the Haber process. It takes
| nitrogen from the air and hydrogen from natural gas and
| combines them into ammonia. It uses an iron catalyst. This
| process emits significant CO2.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
| adrian_b wrote:
| Currently hydrogen made from natural gas is the cheapest, but
| the Haber process could equally well use hydrogen made from
| water electrolysis using solar/wind energy.
|
| In that case there will be no production of CO2.
|
| The only reason why this is not done yet is because avoiding
| the production of CO2 would raise the cost of ammonia, then
| the costs of fertilizers and various other chemical
| substances, including explosives, which would trigger a
| cascade of price increases in food and in many other
| products.
| gs17 wrote:
| > but the Haber process could equally well use hydrogen
| made from water electrolysis using solar/wind energy.
|
| You can also use methane pyrolysis, which outputs solid
| carbon instead of CO2. It's supposed to be somewhere in the
| middle of cost between steam methane reforming and water
| electrolysis.
| blueflow wrote:
| Take that ammonium, burn it, have heat, power a steam engine,
| infinite energy?
|
| Where does that energy come from? 1st law of thermodynamics?
| LincolnedList wrote:
| The energy comes from the sun, without it the atmosphere would
| freeze and this device wouldn't work.
| kurthr wrote:
| The power could come from anything (solar, wind, wave) other
| than the dominant current source for all ammonia, the Haber
| Process. TFA mentions this in the headline? Could this be done
| before by just using water+air+solar, yes it could. Frankly,
| this is just a proof of concept and any commercial solution
| would be different for scaling reasons.
|
| Professor Aldo Rossa started popularizing a lot of this in the
| 80s. https://patents.google.com/patent/US4107277A/en
|
| Having something other than a fossil fuel source for the most
| common fertilizer in the world seems useful. Also, it's easier,
| cheaper and safer to ship ammonia around than Hydrogen since
| it's a low pressure liquid and more energy dense. People have
| been talking about using it as a shipping fuel for decades.
| blueflow wrote:
| You didn't read the article? "The process requires no
| external power" right after the headline.
| hansvm wrote:
| Like you said, the energy comes from somewhere. If I had to
| guess, it's effectively solar powered (the catalyst
| lowering the activation energy enough that photons can
| actually do the work), plus indirectly solar powered in
| that you need wind to physically move the compounds around.
| adrian_b wrote:
| I have read the research paper and the energy appears to
| come mostly from the pump, because the flow of gas and
| vapor in the device causes contact electrification, which
| helps the redox reaction.
|
| They have not given any numbers about the energy consumed
| by the pump, but at least in this experimental devices it
| is likely that the amount of ammonia that is produced is
| very small for the energy consumed by the pump, in
| comparison with other synthesis methods.
|
| For now, the ammonia is produced as a solution in water
| with very low ammonia concentration. Perhaps this could
| be usable directly as a fertilizer for plants. For any
| other uses, concentrating the ammonia produced in this
| way would require a large amount of additional energy.
|
| In the form presented now, this method of ammonia
| synthesis would be too inefficient, but the authors hope
| that the efficiency can be improved some orders of
| magnitude.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| If it requires no external power what's that bigass battery
| pack at the base for?
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| For our purposes solar power is effectively perpetual motion.
| blueflow wrote:
| And how does the presented device make use of solar power?
| Wind movement?
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| I see what you're saying in the sense of passive energy
| collection, but perpetual motion strikes me as a terrible
| metaphor. Perpetual motion would imply so many thing about
| the universe that solar can't deliver.
| dessimus wrote:
| If you consider solar only working for 50% of the day on
| average, "perpetual".
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is under-explained, isn't it? The reaction has to be
| endothermic, so it must be taking in ambient heat. Would be
| useful if someone dug up the actual paper rather than the press
| release.
|
| One aspect of these miracle solutions to watch out for: the
| catalyst is often very expensive and has a finite lifespan.
|
| Edit: actual paper
| https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.ads4443
|
| Edit: got to the bit in the paper where they describe the
| process; "contact electrification". This appears to be an
| electrostatic phenomenon like tribocharging (the old "rub a
| balloon on your hair" trick). Water droplets hitting the
| catalyst generates enough potential at the surface to trigger a
| reaction. So I suppose the energy input is actually in the
| spray+pump of the experiment, or wind in the outdoor example.
|
| The resulting output is extremely dilute. Raising the
| concentration is likely to consume more energy for generating
| an actually useful output.
| blueflow wrote:
| There is the smoking gun:
|
| > resulting in ammonia concentrations ranging from 25 to 120
| mM in 1 hour
|
| Not usable as fuel. You'd need to separate the ammonium from
| the water using a energy intensive process (cooking or such).
| smaudet wrote:
| Direct solar energy output, perhaps. Seems potentially
| simple to boil it off with heat.
| NortySpock wrote:
| At that point in the presentation, I'd probably
| sarcastically ask if they were accidentally measuring how
| many dogs mark their territory in a 100 foot radius of the
| device, per hour, via their collector.
| amluto wrote:
| They did attempt to control for the ammonia concentration
| in the collected water without their catalyst. But they
| did not try to calculate the equilibrium concentration of
| ammonia in water exposed to the atmosphere.
| cyberax wrote:
| You can catalytically oxidize ammonia in water solution.
| The energy generated is more than enough to overcome the
| energy released during solvation.
| amluto wrote:
| I find it surprising that the paper has no discussion
| whatsoever of the thermodynamics of the process. The overall
| reaction is very endothermic (you can burn ammonia in oxygen
| as fuel!), so the only way it's happening at all is that it's
| approaching equilibrium, presumably driven by the increase of
| entropy available by creating a low concentration of ammonia
| in whatever weird phase it's created in. Getting high
| concentrations from a similar process is going to need some
| energy-consuming step to shift that equilibrium.
|
| Worse, they seem to be using some chilled object to condense
| ammonia solution from the air, so you're also paying the
| energy cost of keeping it cold, which means you're paying the
| full cost of producing a _lot_ of water from atmospheric
| water vapor. _Maybe_ a future improvement could start with
| liquid water.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The droplet size appears to be critical here.
| hammock wrote:
| So they invented a (chemical) bean plant/rhizobium? Or
| Nitrobacter. AKA atmospheric nitrogen fixer
| btbuildem wrote:
| No small feat!
| bparsons wrote:
| There are a million ways to turn large amounts of energy into
| smaller amounts of energy.
| foxyv wrote:
| Hopefully, one day they will turn large amounts of cheap energy
| into valuable chemical feed stock and fuels. When you think
| about it, aluminum producers are doing something similar.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| And many of them are incredibly useful. Take, for example, the
| burning of fuel. Or eating and digesting.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Ammonia as a fuel is an absurdly stupid idea. It is trading the
| lives and safety of crews and passengers for a bit of money.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| What is so dangerous about it compared to lets say a gasoline
| engine converted to use LPG or Methane? There are many of those
| in Europe where I live.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| You mean aside from being a colorless toxic gas that will
| kill you in as little as 5 minutes?
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Just like propane, nitrogen, laughing gas, and methane ...
| I don't follow?
| fred69 wrote:
| I'm guessing you have never gotten a snoutfull of
| ammonia? Relatively low concentrations in air feel like
| asphyxiation. It also hangs around near the ground rather
| than floating upward.
| smaudet wrote:
| I think the concern here is somewhat misplaced...ammonia
| powered passenger vehicles are probably a bad idea.
|
| But there's no reason that needs to be true for e.g.
| automated shipping industries. The danger to the water
| seems relatively low as well, as water dilution seems to
| be one of the best ways to deal with spillages. I'm
| uncertain the environmental repercussions, however it
| does seem to be the case that aquatic mammals and humans
| have natural methods of elimination, making it a game of
| concentration and dispersion vs e.g. an oil spill that is
| both highly toxic and nearly impossible to properly clean
| up.
|
| The majority of other applications are industrial
| (fertilizer, energy storage): there are major issues with
| our current distribution systems, cheap ammonia batteries
| could be the key to efficient electricity and hydrogen
| production and distribution.
| thombat wrote:
| Those others are effectively asphyxiants: they'll kill
| you by displacing oxygen, leading to you collapsing and
| dying if not rescued, eg by being dragged clear or having
| ventilation improved. Ammonia is a caustic: airway
| constriction and oedema will get you at modest
| concentrations, weeping eyes may hamper your escape, and
| if rescued you may have lasting damage.
| jofer wrote:
| Yeah, ammonia leaks are much more nasty than methane or
| hydrogen leaks. Methane, especially in LNG form, is quite
| safe compared to ammonia. LPG is even more stable than LNG
| and requires lower pressures. With that said, hydrogen
| leaks are "fun" because large ones usually self ignite and
| burn with a hot but mostly invisible flame. But hydrogen
| itself isn't toxic. Similarly, methane and propane aren't
| directly toxic.
|
| Basically, an ammonia leak will kill you. By itself. The
| others are only a problem if they're the right
| concentrations to ignite. That's a relatively high
| concentration and a larger leak. Much smaller leaks of
| ammonia are deadly.
|
| It's still a good solution for some things, but it's a bad
| solution for consumer vehicles like cars for that reason.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Ammonia is much more caustic, toxic, and explosive than LPG
| and incidents involving it like the Minot derailment tend to
| be significantly worse.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minot_train_derailment
| henearkr wrote:
| I'm surmising that it could be a useful first step towards
| converting the atmospheric CO2 into something easier to store
| long-term.
|
| So the ammonia doesn't need to be useful in itself, but only to
| be able to be converted on-site to something more storable
| (more stable, liquefaction at lower pressure or higher
| temperature, and so on), or alternatively something more useful
| that could displace other standard CO2-intensive industrial
| processes.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > into something easier to store long-term.
|
| Ammonia is NH3, there's no CO2 to store.
|
| > alternatively something more useful that could displace
| other standard CO2-intensive industrial processes.
|
| Except they are talking about using it as a fuel. If you want
| to displace CO2 at least use methanol, it's a liquid that's
| more energy dense and easier to handle safely.
| wedn3sday wrote:
| Gasoline as a fuel is an absurdly stupid idea, dangerous to
| handle, toxic, and has a tendency to burst into flame!
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| I'm sure you can understand the difference of degree between
| something that is lethal in minutes and a gas (ammonia) and
| something that takes much higher and longer exposures to be
| deadly, plus is a liquid (gasoline).
| bluGill wrote:
| Gasoline is not nearly as dangerous, toxic or as likely to
| burst into flame.
| ThatGuyRaion wrote:
| Fractional Distillation is nothing new.
| einpoklum wrote:
| "Researchers produce NH_3 fuel from N-gas-compound with H_2O
| vapor"
|
| Doesn't sound so exciting.
|
| But, sniping aside - is there a potential for cheap enough
| production in abundant enough amounts to use safely in machine
| engines? Or as grid-level storage medium for solar energy? The
| very transformation is neat, but the application is what would be
| interesting.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > produce NH_3 fuel from N-gas-compound with H_2O vapor
|
| At room temperature! That's the interesting bit.
| adrian_b wrote:
| In TFA the alternative methods for making ammonia are
| mentioned.
|
| One such method, which already works at room temperature for
| combining hydrogen with nitrogen into ammonia, uses
| electricity together with a platinum-gold catalyst and it has
| a 13% energetic efficiency.
|
| The methods described here uses cheaper materials and the
| authors hope that some time in the future it might reach a
| better energetic efficiency.
| chrisbrandow wrote:
| Assuming the energy input is atmospheric warmth, then the real
| question is what volume of ammonia can you produce with this
| device per acre? Then how does that amount of captured energy
| compare with wind/solar in the same area?
|
| Otherwise, you're just better off, producing electricity from one
| of those sources, or producing ammonia, using electricity from
| one of those sources, after accounting for losses in the various
| processes of course.
| dexwiz wrote:
| Ammonia is very common in industrial applications.
| tomrod wrote:
| True. Commonality of ammonia references ammonia demand
| whereas grandparent comment was referencing the supply
| capacity per acre.
| smaudet wrote:
| Sibling commenters mention industrial uses, sustainability
| means far more than just cars or electricity, part of why the
| focus on electric/cars is so short-sighted (never mind the
| issues electricity distribution brings to the table)...
|
| But for cars/electricity, this is potentially excellent news
| (assuming longevity and cost of the operating equipment). The
| distribution costs are much lower than Hydrogen, and it could
| be used easily to power existing Hydrogen fleets. I'd wager
| this even makes electricity distribution easier, as ammonia
| batteries could be relatively stable and easily distributed as
| well.
| bluGill wrote:
| Ammonia is far to dangerous for cars. Household cleaning
| ammonia concentrate is 99% water. That is concentrate, you
| dilute it for use (generally 16:1), and it is still nasty
| stuff. No car with enough ammonia to use it for energy will
| be allowed in a tunnel. To work on a car that uses this for
| fuel will require extreme protective gear - a chemical
| breathing mask, and protective clothing covering the entire
| body. Working on machines in such gear is not easy.
| smaudet wrote:
| True, although this is a Red Herring of an argument.
|
| Ammonia batteries does not mean "Ammonia Cars", I never
| said it did nor meant it should.
|
| They are, however, excellent in areas that likely already
| required a hazmat suit (generators, substations, hydrogen
| fuel pumps, fertilizer factories, etc.)
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Didn't a group from KAUST falsify Zare's results about
| microdroplets a few years ago and show that they weren't anything
| special
| seemaze wrote:
| The article mentions "Traditional methods for ammonia production
| require high temperatures and pressures" in reference to the
| existing Haber-Bosch process for producing NH3 from thin air, an
| interesting historic story on its own.
|
| https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/turning-air-into-bread
|
| https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/73464/the-alchemy-o...
| trestacos wrote:
| +1 "alchemy of air" is a great read. The angle that would be
| most interesting to the HN crowd is that it exposed me to how
| much innovation was happening in chemistry in this pre-WWI era.
| Reminds me a bit of silicon valley.
|
| The also a fascinating look at how the inventors got heavily
| caught up in WWI and WWII due to being in Germany and how tied
| up their industry became with government. Interesting to
| reflect on in current times.
|
| Truly a great book.
| lancewiggs wrote:
| https://www.liquium.nz/ is working on reducing the energy (a
| lot) required for the Haber-Bosch process.
| dizzant wrote:
| The comments here are focused on how much energy it would take to
| turn this into fuel. The real story here is decentralized
| fertilizer production, buried at the end of the article:
|
| > this innovation could fundamentally reshape fertilizer
| manufacturing by providing a more sustainable, cost-effective
| alternative to centralized production
|
| The high energy cost of Haber-Bosch, plus the additional cost of
| transportation from manufacturer to farmer could potentially be
| eliminated by distributed, passive fertilizer generators
| scattered around in the fields.
|
| I'm no expert, but assuming sufficient local production, low
| concentration could potentially be overcome by continuous
| fertilization with irrigation throughout the growing season.
|
| Let's find out. Some quick fiddling with a molarity calculator
| and an almanac:
|
| -- 100 uM ammonia -> 1.7 mg / L ammonia
|
| -- 82% nitrogen -> 1.4 mg / L nitrogen
|
| -- My lawn needs around 1 lb / 1000 sq ft, or around 5 g / m2
|
| -- So my lawn needs about 3500 L / m2 of fertilized irrigation
| total for the season
|
| -- Ballpark farming irrigation is around 0.2 inches per day, or
| around 5L/m2
|
| I would need to water my lawn about 700 days in the year, or more
| realistically up my irrigation rate by about a factor of 4, AND
| source all of the water from the fertilizer box.
|
| I'm a little skeptical that I can allocate space for enough
| production and still have a lawn left to fertilize. The tech
| probably isn't ready for the big time on an industrial farm yet,
| but for research demo, this seems like a promising direction!
| Much more than concentrating it for fuel.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Until big fertilizer lobbies to make decentralized fertilizer
| illegal. Insert _national security_ , _wrong hands_ blah blah
| cogman10 wrote:
| NGL, it would be an easy sell. You are just a hop/skip and a
| quack away from turning that decentralized fertilizer into a
| decentralized bomb making system.
| dizzant wrote:
| A hop, skip, quack, jump, and fairly obvious high-energy
| distillation process away. The national security angle
| probably isn't a concern here for the same reason that this
| process doesn't produce good fuel.
| darksaints wrote:
| Ammonium nitrate is made from ammonia and nitric acid
| (which is also made from ammonia). Therefore, ammonia is
| the only necessary direct precursor to ammonium nitrate,
| which is probably the most relevant oxidizer in
| improvised explosives today.
|
| Not saying that it should be regulated on the basis of
| national security, but it's not like there isn't a
| potential security concern.
| gopalv wrote:
| > Insert national security, wrong hands blah blah
|
| That isn't a big reach.
|
| Ammonium nitrate is already controlled in several parts of
| the world
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANFO
| themaninthedark wrote:
| ANFO is explosives made with ammonium nitrate(Ammonium
| Nitrate Fuel Oil), however ammonium nitrate is by itself
| rather energetic and will explode when store improperly.
| The most recent memorable incident would be 2020 Beirut:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Beirut_explosion
|
| Imagine one of these units left somewhere, slowly filling a
| tank that has not been sealed, water evaporating back out
| leaving a nice ammonium nitrate powder behind....
| dylan604 wrote:
| What happens when your decentralized fertilizer mixes with
| someone's copyrighted/trademarked fertilizer? Do you have to
| pay them their dues?
|
| If you think this is outlandish, you must not be familiar
| with Monsanto
| bluGill wrote:
| That is an exaggeration. The only time Monsanto did
| anything was cases of intentional mixing.
| 9rx wrote:
| _> you must not be familiar with Monsanto_
|
| It has been out of business for almost seven years now. Who
| is putting any energy into remembering them at this point?
| jfengel wrote:
| It's not out of business. It merged with Bayer. It's a
| change in ownership, and to some degree a change in upper
| management, but large swathes of the company are
| unchanged.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Interesting idea.
|
| So, farms are definitely setup already to accomplish this. Most
| farms have moved to central pivots for irrigation, and they
| already inject fertilizer into the pivot [1]. If fertilization
| could be generated onsite, then you could theoretically have
| everything plumbed together to "just work" without much
| intervention or shipping of chemicals.
|
| [1] https://www.farmprogress.com/farming-equipment/chemical-
| fert...
| bluGill wrote:
| Rain will wash nitrogen away (down to streams, rivers, and
| then the ocean creating lots of problems) so you want to
| apply nitrogen with an eye on when it will rain so your
| fertilizer stays on the field where you want it. Your link
| doesn't specify what fertilizer is being applied, I would
| guess nitrogen is not one.
|
| Ammonia should be applied to the soil - in the air it is a
| hazard that can kill people and harm the plants (farmers wear
| lots of protective gear when working with ammonia, with more
| other things they don't bother).
|
| As such I'm not convinced that is the right answer. You want
| a system that will apply nitrogen
| cogman10 wrote:
| > I would guess nitrogen is not one.
|
| It's the main fertilizer applied.
|
| Here's another site talking about common problems with this
| technique (from a farmer's perspective). [1]
|
| [1] https://www.valleyirrigation.com/blog/valley-
| blog/2022/06/13...
| blueflow wrote:
| I mean, the extended headline suggests it is producing fuel,
| which is wrong.
| darksaints wrote:
| Ammonia has a lot of uses, and fuel is one of them.
| egberts1 wrote:
| Would it be suitable for Mars atmosphere?
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Related: my personal wistful thinking is,
|
| AI -> safe deployable fusion -> power for desalination and
| exactly this sort of thing.
|
| In particular I daydream about use of "free" power to perform
| carbon sequestration back into liquid hydrocarbon fuels for
| existing ICE etc. infrastructure...voila, no delay to retool
| civilization while getting down to the business of bringing
| carbon back under 400 ppm.
| worik wrote:
| > Related: my personal wistful thinking is,
|
| > AI -> safe deployable fusion
|
| This reminds me of the recent HN referred article on Cargo
| Cults
| rotexo wrote:
| I interpreted that causality as AI leading to deployment of
| carbon-neutral energy, then when the AI bubble bursts, we've
| pushed carbon-neutral electricity sources off the learning
| curve cliff and it is available for cheap without the
| original consumers needing it. From that perspective, it
| could be any carbon neutral electricity (fusion, fission,
| enhanced geothermal, super-deep geothermal etc.). I could be
| misinterpreting the parent comment.
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| The was an article here a while back about the production of
| propane from water and CO2 (via a catalyst and electricity). I
| think "renewable fossil fuels" are the only way we can handle
| the fluctuating production of renewable energy and get the
| density of fuel we need for storage, especially mobile storage
| like fuel for cars & lorries.
| cyberax wrote:
| > The process can be powered simply by ambient wind to pass the
| water vapor through the mesh.
|
| That's not how chemistry works. You need to input external energy
| to produce ammonia out of water and nitrogen. It's the law of
| energy conservation.
|
| In this case, the ultimate energy source appears to be the wind.
| It tears off microdroplets of water from larger water bodies, so
| the energy is stored in the surface tension of microdroplets.
| darksaints wrote:
| Are these really catalysts in the traditional definition of the
| word? Meaning that the catalyst is non-sacrificial? This appears
| to be suggesting that nitration can be done with atomospheric N2
| simply with the right catalyst. But N2 is triple bonded, and the
| lowest theoretical threshold to react N2 with anything is by
| breaking at least one of those bonds, which is incredibly energy
| intensive even under theoretically optimal conditions.
|
| Some of the most promising research in replacing Haber-Bosch is
| actually plasma-assisted nitration, which is basically just as
| energy intensive as Haber-Bosch, but with drastically lower
| capital requirements...something that could be done in your
| backyard. I struggle to see how an ATP catalyst-only method could
| even do anything close to breaking an N2 triple bond.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Idk but soil micro-organisms do break N2 to make ammonia so
| there sure exists a pathway that just implies catalysis at low
| temperature.
| hnmullany wrote:
| Soil nitrate fixation is also energy intensive. The
| nitrogenase enzyme takes about 27 ATPs to break a single N2
| bond. Legumes feed about a third of their entire
| photosynthesis output to their nitrogen fixing nodules in
| order to generate significant amounts of nitrates.
|
| There is no free lunch.
| btbuildem wrote:
| I wonder what are the side effects of extracting nitrogen out of
| air -- supposing this was developed and deployed at scale.
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's 80% of the atmosphere. You're not going to run out. What
| might be a risk is dumping it, nitrogenation of rivers is
| already a problem in places.
| atrus wrote:
| I doubt much. We've been pumping billions of tons of co2 and
| only slightly raised co2 and that's a small small portion of
| the air in the atmosphere.
| hnmullany wrote:
| Here is an overview I wrote of next generation methods for
| ammonia synthesis:
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/climatetech-134-de-carbonizin...
|
| (FWIW - there are many many promising lab results that turn out
| to be false positives because the researchers did a bad job of
| controlling potential contamination in their ammonia
| measurements. Low concentrations of ammonia are everywhere, and
| you have to do a really good job making sure you're not measuring
| background levels vs. what you think you're producing)
| casey2 wrote:
| Am I being trolled? Scale it up a trillion times and you still
| have nothing, not even compared to the current hourly production.
| NotAnOtter wrote:
| Ammonia is 1 Nitrogen bonded with 3 hydrogen.
|
| The raw stuff is definitely there. Thought I'm sure there are
| easier ways of making it.
| maxrmk wrote:
| I'm vaguely amused by the headline of "requires no external
| power" right above the image of it sitting on top of (and plugged
| in to) a giant portable battery.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-16 23:00 UTC)