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

41–50 of 133 posts

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

#41

Post by pibaker »

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/…

Our ability to artificially capture nitrogen and feed it to plants is why we are able to feed 8 billions souls and still suffer less hunger than our ancestors.

You are free to grow your plants however you want on your property. But just keep in mind that "no fertilizer" is a luxury belief not affordable to the rest of humanity.

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

#43

Post by hunterpayne »

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 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 have no idea at all what you are referring to. Cap Ex perhaps or cap cost...if that's what you mean, you have no idea what you are talking about.

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

#44

Post by hunterpayne »

otterley wrote: post #39
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.

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, regardl…

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 real market calculation that anyone pays.

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

#45

Post by askvictor »

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.

Which fossil fuel plants are cheap to build? Cheap compared to what?

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

#46

Post by hunterpayne »

Animats wrote: post #4

There are press releases which link to other press releases. Found the technical paper from 2021.[1] The ammonia plant is built for intermittent operation, so it can shut down or reduce output when there's no wind. No need to store much electrical energy. Storage tanks hold the ammonia. It's a reasonable idea, but is it cost-effective? No numbers are given. Still, fertilizer independence alone is worth something. You…

Its trying to complete with making ammonia from natural gas. So probably not. Natural gas is priced as a waste product and the industrial process we use there is about 120 years old. So its just about the hardest target on the board to beat on price.

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

#47

Post by RickJWagner »

Good for Morris!

40 years ago I was exiting the US Air Force and selected the University of Minnesota at Morris as my college. It’s a tiny campus, they advertised themselves as a ‘small college, like a mini Ivy League school’.

I went, and enjoyed a semester there, but then fate intervened when my father died. I went home, got sidetracked a while and eventually returned to school at the University of Minnesota at Mankato, chosen because they had an active bowling team. ( I wanted to go pro, but later found out I probably wouldn’t make much money at it. Reality set in. )

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

#48

Post by zahlman »

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/…

> It is better than getting fertiliser from fossil fuels, but it is still not great.

Please explain how there is anything even remotely bad about it.

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

#49

Post by otterley »

hunterpayne wrote: post #44
otterley wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, regardl…

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…

> They are also several times the utilization cost

Prove it.

> electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago.

That has nothing to do with the cost of generation. The reason costs have gone up are 1/wildfire mitigation and liability, 2/replacement of aging grid infrastructure (plus a geographically diverse state - replacing infrastructure in mountains is costly), 3/rising demand and new fixed infrastructure cost (which is subsumed into everyone's bills), and 4/decommissioning of power plants (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon were both mothballed and haven't been replaced).

Also, California utilities are heavily regulated. Utility rates have to be approved by the government, making the rate-setting process highly politicized. For a very long time the regulators refused to let the utilities raise rates even though it was necessary. Eventually, though, that became unsustainable. The result was that instead of raising rates a percentage point or two per year, all of a sudden there was a real threat of the system going completely bankrupt and so prices shot up dramatically.

If you really want to understand the energy markets in CA, there's no better source than the Los Angeles Times. Or what's left of it, anyway.

> LCOE is a BS stat used to confuse those that don't understand energy markets

Let me get my popcorn while you explain it to us ignoramuses.

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

#50

Post by cmrdporcupine »

zanecodes wrote: post #20
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.

Fossil fuel being heavily subsidised kind of undermines both of your points.

Heavily directly subsidized and then additionally "subsidized" through massive military expenditures as well.
Post reply on HN