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

81–90 of 133 posts

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

#81

Post by colechristensen »

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

What does this even mean? What inputs and outputs are you comparing to get an apples-to-apples comparison between efficiency between fossil fuels and solar?

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

#82

Post by colechristensen »

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…

>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.

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

#84

Post by defrost »

laughing_man wrote: post #78
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…

The press release says they use the wind energy to produce hydrogen. Seems like you could store the hydrogen and always have the plant running at capacity as long as the average power produced by the wind turbine(s) was enough.

Built infrastructure for hydrogen storage and transport is always a challenge, it's a slippery little molecule that's expensive to contain in human built stuff.

That said, there's almost always a 'cheat' and for bulk hydrogen storage:

  Using salt caverns (cavities leached from salt deposits in the subsurface) for gas storage is an established technology. Salt caverns are good for storing gas because they have a very low permeability and cracks or fractures can re-seal to prevent leakage. The UK has salt deposits that are suitable for cavern storage and that have been used store natural gas since the 1960s. Hydrogen, used as a chemical feedstock, has been stored in salt caverns in Teesside since the 1970s.
~ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68aebcef3a052...

Currently there are a few geological structures in Australia being tested for suitability and pilot storage.

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

#85

Post by defrost »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #77
jimnotgym wrote: post #42

For those trying to work out the economics. 1 ton of urea is apparently worth $451 I think I would need to know the capex cost to go any further, but my gut feel is this is really a technical demonstration rather than an instant goldmine.

You need about 50-55kwh to produce a kg of hydrogen. Urea molar mass is 60. And the formula is CO(NH2)2. 4 moles of hydrogen per mole. So 6.6% hydrogen by weight. 1000kg of urea needs then 66.6kg of hydrogen. At 55khw per kg of hydrogen you need 3666 kwh per ton of urea. (not counting other energy inputs). At $0.05/kwh that's $183 for the hydrogen input. Worth mentioning the internet says fertilizer is about 7% of an…

Another PoV is not the profit from producing home ground fertiliser but the risk of not having fertiliser at "just the right time".

Locally (Western Australia) there are some 8.3 (ish) million hectares of grain planted annually; that's a high spike demand for both fertiliser and fuel that can be interrupted by supply chain issues (eg: war) leading to extensive losses wrt expected harvests.

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

#86

Post by thelastgallon »

Use Solar/Wind and convert it to green hydrogen or green ammonia. We've reached the limits of pumped hydro and batteries are not dirt cheap yet. Green hydrogen and ammonia solve multiple problems. Both are fossil fuel products now.

Hydrogen is corrosive and explosive, next to impossible to store/transport safely. Green Hydrogen for immediate consumption at industries that require high heat and electricity is not an option.

Green ammonia for fertilizer and as energy storage.

With abundant oversupply of solar, we can start building alternatives to all fossil fuels.

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

#87

Post by avadodin »

epistasis wrote: post #62
avadodin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't support fossil fuels but wind works a small fraction of the time, it is awful to wildlife and it is an eyesore. Instead of wasting the already wasteful energy by making fertilizer out of air, these farms could likely much more efficiently re–capture runoff from their waterways that is now being dumped into the sea harming humans and wildlife alike.

Calling wind power "wasteful" is just silly. We need to be a bit more hard nosed when it comes to energy policy. Not only does wind save tons of money, t is hyper efficient, and anti-correlates with solar in most geographies. Meaning a small amount of cheap battery storage mixed with wind plus solar delivers extremely cheap, reliable energy, with amazing dispatch characteristics. People get all emotional about views,…

The same rare earths and quality steel could have been used on a water or vapor dynamo that runs 24/7 and doesn't have any additional harmful impact.

And even if wind wasn't wasteful at the outlet, you're still using it to turn air nitrogen into the same compounds that you are dumping into the seas, lakes and drinking water.

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

#88

Post by avadodin »

undersuit wrote: post #58
avadodin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't support fossil fuels but wind works a small fraction of the time, it is awful to wildlife and it is an eyesore. Instead of wasting the already wasteful energy by making fertilizer out of air, these farms could likely much more efficiently re–capture runoff from their waterways that is now being dumped into the sea harming humans and wildlife alike.

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.

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

#89

Post by benj111 »

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.

Surely the redeeming feature is that they are already here...

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

#90

Post by Alien1Being »

China operates a massive green hydrogen and ammonia facility in Chifeng, which is powered entirely by off-grid wind and solar. The site already produces 320,000 tonnes of green ammonia annually.

This is going to be the century of China...

In contrast, this Minnesotan plant aims to scale up to 300 tonnes a year some day.

Post reply on HN