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

Post by VBprogrammer » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 8:25 AM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #15

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wort…

You can still use methane as your hydrogen source for ammonia production if you do CO2 capture and storage when you produce the hydrogen. This is often called blue hydrogen, as opposed to green hydrogen from electrolysis and gray hydrogen from methane witgout CO2 capture and storage. Most of the oil and gas companies are partly betting the farm on H2 from CH4 with CO2 capture and storage as a major source of energy i…

Post by throw8932894 » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 8:26 AM UTC

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…

Post by fulafel » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 8:31 AM UTC

brendoelfrendo wrote: post #3

kurthr wrote: post #2

This 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 wort…

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 8:35 AM UTC

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?

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jan 22, 2022, 8:37 AM UTC

shroompasta wrote: post #10

zarzavat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.