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

Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

ammoniaenergy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 133 posts

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#31

Post by dkackman11 »

buckle8017 wrote: post #18
epistasis wrote: post #2

Perfect project for rural Minnesota, that needs the ammonia, but also has a surprising amount of solar colocated with farms. And a fair amount of wind in the southwest. However there are far far larger projects going on over the world. China is building multiple GW of wind and solar to power a massive ammonia/green hydrogen site right now. I frequently hear of sites in Spain in the hundreds of MW range. The US has be…

Fossil fuels remain more cost effective. The US isn't a centrally planned economy (sort of) so the more economical option wins.

lol

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#33

Post by analog31 »

richardc323 wrote: post #7

I grew up on an organic orchard, so don't get excited about artificial sources of nitrogen for agriculture and horticulture. It is better than getting fertiliser from fossil fuels, but it is still not great. My mind goes to energy storage. If it was a smart way to do that, people would probably be doing it, who knows. Well, someone wrote a paper about it in 2022: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/…

The "organic" designation does not preclude using artificial fertilizer. Just no pesticides.

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#34

Post by kulahan »

buckle8017 wrote: post #18
epistasis wrote: post #2

Perfect project for rural Minnesota, that needs the ammonia, but also has a surprising amount of solar colocated with farms. And a fair amount of wind in the southwest. However there are far far larger projects going on over the world. China is building multiple GW of wind and solar to power a massive ammonia/green hydrogen site right now. I frequently hear of sites in Spain in the hundreds of MW range. The US has be…

Fossil fuels remain more cost effective. The US isn't a centrally planned economy (sort of) so the more economical option wins.

No they don’t. They remain subsidized. Solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency ages ago, and I don’t even LIKE solar. Fossil fuels have no redeeming qualities in the major energy sectors anymore, aside from ONE: the plants are VERY cheap to build.

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#35

Post by jimnotgym »

buckle8017 wrote: post #18
epistasis wrote: post #2

Perfect project for rural Minnesota, that needs the ammonia, but also has a surprising amount of solar colocated with farms. And a fair amount of wind in the southwest. However there are far far larger projects going on over the world. China is building multiple GW of wind and solar to power a massive ammonia/green hydrogen site right now. I frequently hear of sites in Spain in the hundreds of MW range. The US has be…

Fossil fuels remain more cost effective. The US isn't a centrally planned economy (sort of) so the more economical option wins.

Yeah I can see your problem

> owned by farmer cooperatives

No way for a Corp to benefit=communism

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#36

Post by kulahan »

WJW wrote: post #12
umvi wrote: post #6

So basically: wind generators power electrolysis to create hydrogen, the hydrogen is fed to a normal Haber-Bosch plant which is still powered by coal or gas. So basically the wind power is just replacing the carbon footprint of a single input (hydrogen) to a H-B plant?

Why would the HB plant be powered with fossil fuels? You can power that with wind power as well.

It’s mot powered with fossil fuels. It uses fossil fuels as an ingredient.

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#37

Post by jimnotgym »

ch4s3 wrote: post #19
WJW wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the HB plant be powered with fossil fuels? You can power that with wind power as well.

Typically the natural gas is the source of the hydrogen. Usually natural gas is burned to form steam to split more natural gas (CH4) into carbon and hydrogen. That’s traditionally cheaper than electrolysis.

Unless your electricity is 'free', presumably?

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#38

Post by jimnotgym »

I don't know about the US, but in the UK in times of high renewable production and low demand the electricity price goes negative. Sounds like a nice use for waste electricity, as well as your own renewables?

Would like to know the capex numbers though. Is it viable in todays market to have it stood idle?

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#39

Post by otterley »

buckle8017 wrote: post #18
epistasis wrote: post #2

Perfect project for rural Minnesota, that needs the ammonia, but also has a surprising amount of solar colocated with farms. And a fair amount of wind in the southwest. However there are far far larger projects going on over the world. China is building multiple GW of wind and solar to power a massive ammonia/green hydrogen site right now. I frequently hear of sites in Spain in the hundreds of MW range. The US has be…

Fossil fuels remain more cost effective. The US isn't a centrally planned economy (sort of) so the more economical option wins.

Solar and wind energy have been more economical than fossil fuel on a cost per unit energy basis for quite some time. The reasons we're still so tied to fossil fuel are largely political, not economic.

Technology Connections goes into this in exhaustive detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

Also, you may not have heard that the Trump administration is actively stonewalling green energy projects, regardless of their economic prospects: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/06/29/87...

Re: Producing ammonia and fertiliser using wind power in Morris, Minnesota

#40

Post by otterley »

kulahan wrote: post #34
buckle8017 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fossil fuels remain more cost effective. The US isn't a centrally planned economy (sort of) so the more economical option wins.

No they don’t. They remain subsidized. Solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency ages ago, and I don’t even LIKE solar. Fossil fuels have no redeeming qualities in the major energy sectors anymore, aside from ONE: the plants are VERY cheap to build.

Solar farms are even cheaper to build!
Post reply on HN