Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#2This is the well known Haber-Bosch process, "Between 75 and 90% of this ammonia goes toward making fertilizer, and about 50% of the world’s food production relies on ammonia fertilizer."
For those not looking to create a free account to login and view it:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-5f9t9...
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#3This is the well known Haber-Bosch process, "Between 75 and 90% of this ammonia goes toward making fertilizer, and about 50% of the world’s food production relies on ammonia fertilizer." For those not looking to create a free account to login and view it: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-5f9t9...
It’s worth noting that the Haber process doesn’t require methane, methane is used as a source of hydrogen because it’s cheap and easy to use. Any source of hydrogen could work, but most of them are more energy intensive and thus more expensive or inefficient than just using methane. If you wanted to use nuclear or renewables, you just dedicate your energy production to electrolysis or whatever.
Edit to add: also worth noting that electrolysis currently amounts to about 5% of hydrogen production. You basically can’t remove fossil fuels from the food supply without lots of alternate energy input, so this is not a short term fix short of spooling up all kinds of nuclear reactors.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, and maybe if we need to be dependent on fossil fuels for any one thing then we should prioritize food supply rather than literally burning them (or worse, venting them to the atmosphere as is often done with methane), just trying to set the right expectations for people who might be learning all this for the first time.
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#4This is the well known Haber-Bosch process, "Between 75 and 90% of this ammonia goes toward making fertilizer, and about 50% of the world’s food production relies on ammonia fertilizer." For those not looking to create a free account to login and view it: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-5f9t9...
This process is the reason Malthus was proven wrong back in the day. We wouldn't be able to support 8 billion people without it.
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#5This is very interesting from an agricultural perspective. According to the Wikipedia article for ammonia, “In the US as of 2019, approximately 88% of ammonia was used as fertilizers”.
To me this is a very interesting and damning fact with regards to current dominant agricultural practices. Yet another reason that it would be beneficial to further redevelop closed loop nutrient systems. For instance, sewage solids from cites in are sold to farmers for use as fertilizer.
Funnily enough Fritz Haber (who developed the Haber Process used to manufacture ammonia) also developed chemical weapons in WWI. Some people claim he is somewhat redeemed by his contribution to artificial fertilizer. I disagree with this reasoning on several levels.
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#6Why is depopulation not even a consideration as a solution for climate change?
Surely there are ethical ways to implement it.
Or do the world's largest and wealthiest nations only care for their hold on economic power?
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#7Yes, this is the case due to the enormous scale of production. Replacing the hydrogen source at similar scales with electrolysis is plausible with base load power generation. The cost increase is a small integer factor, and in the bigger scheme of things is likely something we can adapt to at least for agriculture.
An obvious challenge is that we don't have available green base load power -- nuclear, hydro, or geothermal -- at anything remotely resembling the necessary scale. The requirement for base load power follows from the economics of industrial chemistry, which becomes much more expensive if you can't run your process in a continuous steady-state equilibrium. If we tried to produce ammonia via micro-batching chemistry or similar, those economics may not be practical.
The other unfortunate reality is that ammonia production is often a way to extract value from excess methane that might otherwise be vented or burned. It is a better use than the alternative. It isn't a coincidence that ammonia is primarily produced in countries with a persistent surplus of methane. As long as we have vast amounts of methane lying around, and we will for the foreseeable future, conversion into ammonia is a pretty reasonable choice since that carbon will often end up in the atmosphere regardless.
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#8Why is depopulation not even a consideration as a solution for climate change? Surely there are ethical ways to implement it. Or do the world's largest and wealthiest nations only care for their hold on economic power?
Depopulation as in killing people? Or as in the one child policy?
It turns out you don't need to implement a one child policy: people implement it themselves when the cost of living gets high enough.
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#9The article points out that ammonia generates far more emissions than any other single chemical compound [1] but it is still a fraction of cement [2].
[1]: https://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/97/24/WEB/09724-industri...
Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)
#10Why is depopulation not even a consideration as a solution for climate change? Surely there are ethical ways to implement it. Or do the world's largest and wealthiest nations only care for their hold on economic power?
Depopulation as in killing people? Or as in the one child policy? It turns out you don't need to implement a one child policy: people implement it themselves when the cost of living gets high enough.
obviously not killing people.
I'm just demoralized that low birth rates are stigmatized as they are correlated with lower GDP, when low birth rates are somewhat of a godsend in times like these.
Then nations with low birth rates scramble to find ways to up the birth rates despite understanding the C02 cost.
It's ironic, really.