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

91–100 of 133 posts

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

#91

Post by benj111 »

hunterpayne wrote: post #43
kulahan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

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

#93

Post by avhception »

richardc323 wrote: post #74
analog31 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It depends who's definition of organic you are using. Demeter and Biogro, which are the certifications I am familiar with prohibit most conventional artificial fertilisers.

Demeter is full of superstitious quackery.

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

#94

Post by KaiserPro »

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…

> Spain in the hundreds of MW range.

Its got to the point where there is now so much solar, that during solar maximum, there is too much energy and plants are being told to turn off.

Natural gas was the main pricing predictor, but now that link has been pretty much severed. Given that spain is dependent on russian gas, its good that they are able to _try_ to lower their dependence.

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

#95

Post by Dibby053 »

thelastgallon wrote: post #79
strictnein wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hyper-conservatism to protect fossil fuel interests The #1 state, by far, in terms of solar, wind, and energy storage is Texas. There is likely no other state that is also as pro-fossil fuels as Texas. It's also a state known for its conservative stance on almost everything. But the market doesn't care and it flourished without government intervention or significant aid, simply because Texas let's you build things,…

Its mostly because of this guy(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Osborne "Renewable Energy Policy. In 1984 Osborne co-founded the Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association (now Alliance) (TREIA)[1] with two partners and worked with other key individuals and organizations to bring the nascent renewable energy industry to the attention of policymakers on the state and federal level. " This was a unplanne…

So, synthesizing both comments: state-backed infrastructure funding + deregulated free-market buildout = rapid expansion

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

#96

Post by WJW »

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.

TFA literally states "Wind energy powers the electrolysers that supply hydrogen to a Haber Bosch plant." First paragraph.

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

#97

Post by WJW »

kulahan wrote: post #36
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.

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

No it doesn't. It electrolyses water and combines the resulting hydrogen with nitrogen from the air.

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

#98

Post by zahlman »

hunterpayne wrote: post #53
zahlman wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Its horrendously inefficient...and inefficiency is usually bad for the environment. For example, the solar PV when sited in Minnesota is so inefficient just making the electricity from natural gas would produce less CO2 per watt. So there is that, and that's before you look at if all the equipment you use to build the plant was better used elsewhere. And then you could put the solar PV somewhere where it would actual…

> For example, the solar PV when sited in Minnesota is so inefficient just making the electricity from natural gas would produce less CO2 per watt.

How does electricity from solar PV ever make any CO2 whatsoever under any circumstances (never mind, somehow more than natural gas)?

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

#99

Post by hunterpayne »

zahlman wrote: post #98
hunterpayne wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its horrendously inefficient...and inefficiency is usually bad for the environment. For example, the solar PV when sited in Minnesota is so inefficient just making the electricity from natural gas would produce less CO2 per watt. So there is that, and that's before you look at if all the equipment you use to build the plant was better used elsewhere. And then you could put the solar PV somewhere where it would actual…

> For example, the solar PV when sited in Minnesota is so inefficient just making the electricity from natural gas would produce less CO2 per watt. How does electricity from solar PV ever make any CO2 whatsoever under any circumstances (never mind, somehow more than natural gas)?

Because the PV panel itself has to be manufactured. And under ideal conditions, the amount of power needed to make the panel is about 5 years of what the panel produces. Most of the power goes to purify the poli-silica that makes the bulk of the panel itself. If the PV panel is sited somewhere with less than 25% of the ideal amount of sun, then its manufacture makes more CO2 than the power it will replace on the grid. Minnesota is uniquely bad for site siting. Its at a low elevation with lots of cloud coverage and its far to the north of where the breakeven line for solar PV.

PS Did you think solar PV was made from unicorns or something? Making stuff requires power, unless you are making that power from hydro or nuclear, that's going to make a lot of CO2.

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

#100

Post by hunterpayne »

defrost wrote: post #55
hunterpayne wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

The US doesn't get oil from the ME anymore. And there isn't a single functioning plant that uses any of the processes you describe anywhere on the planet after 45 years of trying. There are only a couple of pilot plants and most of those have been abandon.
Post reply on HN