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

101–110 of 133 posts

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

#101

Post by hunterpayne »

c1ccccc1 wrote: post #59
defrost wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's providing an alternative to middle east sourced fertiliser from plants that can no longer ship or, in some cases, can no longer operate due to war damage. US states aren't the only places on the globe building out renewable powered green hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, etc.

I mean, I guess the answer there would be to build the usual kind of Haber-Brosch process plants that run continuously, and feed them with hydrogen derived from natural gas. But just build them in the US.

We already have quite a few of them.

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

#102

Post by hunterpayne »

defrost wrote: post #64
c1ccccc1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I guess the answer there would be to build the usual kind of Haber-Brosch process plants that run continuously, and feed them with hydrogen derived from natural gas. But just build them in the US.

> But just build them in the US. Sorry, that's not going to work out for myself, the 8.5+ million hectares of grain growing about my location, nor for the billion+ tonne per annum of mineral resource shifted in my state. We're interested in producing fertilisers and fuel from non fossil sources.

The laws of physics don't like your politics. Also, last time you played around with this stuff, the outcome was very very bad and lots of people died. So before you start trying to mess around with industrial infrastructure, maybe learn physics and chemistry first. Because you keep trying to do things that simply don't work.

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

#103

Post by hunterpayne »

colechristensen wrote: post #82
hunterpayne wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing capacity costs (capital outlay) with utilization costs (what you actually pay per watt). Its true that renewables have a very low cap cost. They are also several times the utilization cost. That's why electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago. And energy prices are basically the same as 10 years ago. PS LCOE is a BS stat used to confuse those that don't understand energy markets, not a…

>That's why electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago No, CA electrical cost is about paying for PG&E's insurance liabilities and subsidizing the living situation in places which are de facto uninhabitable on account of wildfires.

Sorry, PG&E's accounting says otherwise.

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

#104

Post by hunterpayne »

benj111 wrote: post #91
hunterpayne wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency ages ago" You are going to have to explain this. Because there is no measurement of efficiency in which solar PV in Minnesota in efficient in any way. To produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north. So it isn't even more environmentally friendly. And its far more expensive. It uses far more energy. So I ha…

What the bloody hell are you taking about. Minnesota is further south than the UK. Southern Minnesota is the same latitude as the Mediterranean coast. Learn some facts before spouting bs.

The UK is in the same boat as Minnesota for solar PV. There isn't a solar panel in the UK that will ever make more power than it took to produce.

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

#105

Post by [deleted] »

hunterpayne wrote: post #103
colechristensen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's why electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago No, CA electrical cost is about paying for PG&E's insurance liabilities and subsidizing the living situation in places which are de facto uninhabitable on account of wildfires.

Sorry, PG&E's accounting says otherwise.

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by otterley »

hunterpayne wrote: post #103
colechristensen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's why electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago No, CA electrical cost is about paying for PG&E's insurance liabilities and subsidizing the living situation in places which are de facto uninhabitable on account of wildfires.

Sorry, PG&E's accounting says otherwise.

What exactly does their accounting say?

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

#107

Post by otterley »

hunterpayne wrote: post #104
benj111 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the bloody hell are you taking about. Minnesota is further south than the UK. Southern Minnesota is the same latitude as the Mediterranean coast. Learn some facts before spouting bs.

The UK is in the same boat as Minnesota for solar PV. There isn't a solar panel in the UK that will ever make more power than it took to produce.

You keep getting downvoted because nearly everything you say is not only factually incorrect but contradicts common sense.

If you want people to take you seriously, start linking to facts and analyses by credible sources or showing your math.

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

#108

Post by colechristensen »

hunterpayne wrote: post #103
colechristensen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's why electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago No, CA electrical cost is about paying for PG&E's insurance liabilities and subsidizing the living situation in places which are de facto uninhabitable on account of wildfires.

Sorry, PG&E's accounting says otherwise.

PG&E is incentivized to spend more money on capex because the state guarantees a return on investment, a perverse incentive which causes them to make stupid money decisions to realize more profit. For example doubling the cost of energization by having a large proportion of it done by external contractors.

24% of PG&E's revenue (that is customer rate payments) goes to wildfire related costs.

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

#109

Post by benj111 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #104
benj111 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the bloody hell are you taking about. Minnesota is further south than the UK. Southern Minnesota is the same latitude as the Mediterranean coast. Learn some facts before spouting bs.

The UK is in the same boat as Minnesota for solar PV. There isn't a solar panel in the UK that will ever make more power than it took to produce.

It takes 1 to 3 years to offset the energy used to manufacture a solar panel.

The only situation where you would have a point is micro wind generation, and that's basically no longer a thing because it doesn't work.

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

#110

Post by undersuit »

avadodin wrote: post #88
undersuit wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to recapture fertilizer runoff.

There are techniques both at origin and downstream. I have not reviewed every method but, even if they are energy intensive, they probably beat blasting a carburetor and dumping the compounds.

I mentioned removing the excess nutrients from the water because removing them "works a small fraction of the time, it is awful to wildlife and it is an eyesore." not to mention the energy requirements which you think shouldn't include wind.
Post reply on HN