Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

cen.acs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 120 posts

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#41

Post by lcam84 »

jackyinger wrote: post #5

This 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 fr…

The story of Fritz Haber first wife is very sad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clara_Immerwahr

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#42

Post by freemint »

hannob wrote: post #17
jandrewrogers wrote: post #7

Yes, 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 geothe…

> Replacing the hydrogen source at similar scales with electrolysis is plausible with base load power generation. There is no need to tie this to base load power generation. In fact, quite the opposite: A lot of the electrolysis projects and the funding happening right now is targetted at using electrolysis as a compensation for fluctuating renewables. This makes sense: We have cheap, green electricity, however havin…

This works because electrolysis equipment is cheap, so shutting it down half time barely increases total cost of ownership compared to the input electricity.

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#43

Post by lcam84 »

shroompasta wrote: post #6

Why 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?

There are ethical ways to implement it for instance give more education to women [1]. Consuming less meat should be a priority for us wealthy countries. Overpopulation is a problem but carbon inequality is much worse [2]:

" . The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people) were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions – depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in those 25 years alone (see Figure 1); • The poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people) were responsible for just 7% of cumulative emissions, and used just 4% of the available carbon budget (see Figure 1); • The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget – twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population (see Figure 1); • The richest 5% (c.315 million people) were responsible for over a third (37%) of the total growth in emissions (see Figure 2), while the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that of the poorest 50% "

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073853/ [2] https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#44

Post by fuoqi »

mtsr wrote: post #16
jandrewrogers wrote: post #7

Yes, 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 geothe…

While nuclear has different pollution than fossil fuels, one can hardly call it green with the everlasting poison it produces.

With a proper breeder system we would not only significantly reduce amount of required Uranium mining (and thus its environmental impact), but also amount of produced waste and time at which it will be radioactively dangerous (from several hundred thousand years to several hundred). But, unfortunately, only the Russian government currently seriously invests into development of this area. Everyone else is fine with simply storing nuclear waste (with varying levels of finality and recycling), especially considering that it takes a minuscule amount of space as far as industrial processes go.

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#45

Post by vba616 »

ben_w wrote: post #27
vba616 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to reduce population by about 40% in 30 years without killing anyone, isn't it? Why is that obviously insignificant?

First, 40% is nowhere near enough of a CO2 reduction, we need ~99.9% over slightly more than that timeframe; second, that’s a zero child worldwide policy, and doing that would require violence; and third, you have to ask who you’re doing this for if you’re not doing it for the next generation. I am now curious what graph of age vs. CO2 emissions looks like for various populations…

I didn't mean it as a serious suggestion, just that it's technically possible to reduce the population that much without killing anyone.

Are you serious that to reduce CO2 "enough" world population would have to be under 8 million people?

When the Industrial Revolution started, mid 1700s, world population was something like 800 million, wasn't it?

Why would it be necessary to return to the world of 4000 BC, which is what I believe 8 million corresponds to?

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#46

Post by vba616 »

adrianN wrote: post #21
vba616 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to reduce population by about 40% in 30 years without killing anyone, isn't it? Why is that obviously insignificant?

No that is not possible without killing anyone because people will fight for the right to reproduce. You can't stop babymaking completely without violence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwfly_Solution

(An alien invasion story where there's no fighting back like in Independence Day)

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#48

Post by amelius »

zarzavat wrote: post #8
shroompasta wrote: post #6

Why 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.

The problem is that politicians always choose to hide the true cost of living.

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#49

Post by fuoqi »

7952 wrote: post #22
jandrewrogers wrote: post #7

Yes, 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 geothe…

Surely the hydrogen could be stored to allow for intermittent power supply? Make hydrogen when power is cheaper and there is spare. Also, the continuous supply of power is exactly what the grid is designed to do. Availability of cheap nuclear or geothermal could change the economics. But the power is exactly the same if it comes from nuclear, renewables or battery storage.

With very-high-temperature reactors (one of potential paths for Generation IV reactors) you can produce hydrogen using reactor heat directly, bypassing the electricity conversion step, thus significantly improving efficiency of the process. And with sufficiently cheap hydrogen you would not be able to produce fertilizers, but also steel, another dominant CO2 source.

Re: Industrial ammonia emits more CO2 than other chemical-making reactions (2019)

#50

Post by odiroot »

jackyinger wrote: post #5

This 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 fr…

> For instance, sewage solids from cites in are sold to farmers for use as fertilizer.

That's how we get the next pandemic.

Post reply on HN