5 ms·

The main utility for ammonia is to transport energy long distances at industrial scale, not for individual vehicles. So, for example, you'd build a huge solar

The main utility for ammonia is to transport energy long distances at industrial scale, not for individual vehicles. So, for example, you'd build a huge solar farm where it's very sunny, or a huge wind farm where it's windy. And instead of running power lines, you'd ship ammonia.

jessaustin 6y ago
Power lines are cheaper and more efficient than pipelines, and they always will be. Ammonia will be a storage medium.
- greglindahl 6y ago
  So, for example, a power line from Algeria to Europe is cheaper than a ship-based ammonia scheme? Or northern Australia to China or Japan? Power lines are a winner for short distances. Pipelines some longer distances. And ships for the longest distances.
  - brownbat 6y ago
    You're right that there's a reason we constantly transport so much liquid fuel around the world. But the Europe and North Africa connection is already a relatively serious proposal precisely because of the efficiency gains. It's definitely an ambitious project, but more from the politics than from the technology. Electrons are just easier than atoms, even underwater. HVDC has made long distances realistic for cables. China's Anhui to Xinjiang HVDC link will be around 2000 miles. There's a planned HVDC submarine cable from Lincolnshire to Denmark that will be 472 miles. So for Australia to China, we might be able to pull off Darwin to Jakarta, then Jakarta to Hong Kong within 10-20 years, if you really wanted to. Would break some records, but it's not crazy impractical. Though with the most efficient transfers you're taking some percentage hit per mile. Closer generation is generally going to be smarter, especially if you're running cables through what would be really viable offshore wind fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transmission-lines/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transm...
    - greglindahl 6y ago
      I totally agree that power lines have improved recently. That fiddles with the details, and doesn't change the fact that even if these advances pan out, there will be (very long) distances that you'll want to ship energy that will be more efficient with ships than power lines.
      - brownbat 6y ago
        You're right to point out that tankers are phenomenally efficient, but that's _for oil_. Just as LNG is much more expensive to ship than oil, because of the increased handling complexity, any shipping of hydrogen is going to lose that advantage completely to electrification.[0] > there will be (very long) distances that you'll want to ship energy This is probably the real crux driving the difference in how we see this. The main reason we have to ship hydrocarbons long distances is because those resources are so concentrated. Wind and solar aren't perfectly distributed, but they are so much more distributed that local generation would be much more efficient than transporting anything much beyond what current HVDC projects can easily handle. So, sure, we're not going to stretch a cable for 12,000 miles. But we're also not going to build a solar farm in Saudi Arabia to generate hydrogen to ship to Canberra. We're just going to put a solar farm in the outback instead. [0] "Relative costs of transporting electrical and chemical energy" by Saadi, Lewis, and MacFarland, studies this very question. Even in that report, you could quibble with a lot of their assumptions that I think bias it against HVDC, project lifespans, ignoring loading and unloading costs for tankers, etc. But it's not a crazy starting place, and HVDC still beats hydrogen on $ per mile per Joule. My takeaway from it was that if we're stuck with a carbon economy, sure, we'll keep using tankers. If we're talking about going carbon neutral, the difficulties of working with hydrogen relative to oil and LNG will probably tip us back towards electrification and local generation, except in the most highly specialized of situations (fueling Antarctica or something). The report was a good reminder why we have an oil-based economy though. It is so obnoxiously practical and well suited to everything we want to use it for. Ditching carbon will be hard.
        greglindahl 6y ago
        The article you mention has no discussion of ammonia, just hydrogen and LOHC. That plus your mention of shipping energy into Canberra makes me wonder if we're actually communicating with each other at all.
- simonebrunozzi 6y ago
  Sometimes you don't have the luxury of a power line, e.g. in developing countries. Similar thing (larger scale though) happened with oil: there are still tons of oil tanks sailing around the world because a stable pipeline network is hard to build.
- Hypx 6y ago
  Only for short distances. At long distances, they lose power due to resistance in the wires. Underwater power lines across oceans are also extreme expensive.
rstuart4133 6y ago
> The main utility for ammonia is to transport energy long distances at industrial scale, not for individual vehicles. Which is exactly how it was pitched in Australia, by the government agency responsible for developing it. It was the reason it was funded. As I recall, it was "it solar continues current downward trajectory, it will be cheaper make than it is to frack natural gas". They seemed pretty convinced of it.

jessaustin 6y ago

Power lines are cheaper and more efficient than pipelines, and they always will be. Ammonia will be a storage medium.

greglindahl 6y ago
So, for example, a power line from Algeria to Europe is cheaper than a ship-based ammonia scheme? Or northern Australia to China or Japan? Power lines are a winner for short distances. Pipelines some longer distances. And ships for the longest distances.
- brownbat 6y ago
  You're right that there's a reason we constantly transport so much liquid fuel around the world. But the Europe and North Africa connection is already a relatively serious proposal precisely because of the efficiency gains. It's definitely an ambitious project, but more from the politics than from the technology. Electrons are just easier than atoms, even underwater. HVDC has made long distances realistic for cables. China's Anhui to Xinjiang HVDC link will be around 2000 miles. There's a planned HVDC submarine cable from Lincolnshire to Denmark that will be 472 miles. So for Australia to China, we might be able to pull off Darwin to Jakarta, then Jakarta to Hong Kong within 10-20 years, if you really wanted to. Would break some records, but it's not crazy impractical. Though with the most efficient transfers you're taking some percentage hit per mile. Closer generation is generally going to be smarter, especially if you're running cables through what would be really viable offshore wind fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transmission-lines/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/chinas-mega-transm...
  - greglindahl 6y ago
    I totally agree that power lines have improved recently. That fiddles with the details, and doesn't change the fact that even if these advances pan out, there will be (very long) distances that you'll want to ship energy that will be more efficient with ships than power lines.
    - brownbat 6y ago
      You're right to point out that tankers are phenomenally efficient, but that's _for oil_. Just as LNG is much more expensive to ship than oil, because of the increased handling complexity, any shipping of hydrogen is going to lose that advantage completely to electrification.[0] > there will be (very long) distances that you'll want to ship energy This is probably the real crux driving the difference in how we see this. The main reason we have to ship hydrocarbons long distances is because those resources are so concentrated. Wind and solar aren't perfectly distributed, but they are so much more distributed that local generation would be much more efficient than transporting anything much beyond what current HVDC projects can easily handle. So, sure, we're not going to stretch a cable for 12,000 miles. But we're also not going to build a solar farm in Saudi Arabia to generate hydrogen to ship to Canberra. We're just going to put a solar farm in the outback instead. [0] "Relative costs of transporting electrical and chemical energy" by Saadi, Lewis, and MacFarland, studies this very question. Even in that report, you could quibble with a lot of their assumptions that I think bias it against HVDC, project lifespans, ignoring loading and unloading costs for tankers, etc. But it's not a crazy starting place, and HVDC still beats hydrogen on $ per mile per Joule. My takeaway from it was that if we're stuck with a carbon economy, sure, we'll keep using tankers. If we're talking about going carbon neutral, the difficulties of working with hydrogen relative to oil and LNG will probably tip us back towards electrification and local generation, except in the most highly specialized of situations (fueling Antarctica or something). The report was a good reminder why we have an oil-based economy though. It is so obnoxiously practical and well suited to everything we want to use it for. Ditching carbon will be hard.
      - greglindahl 6y ago
        The article you mention has no discussion of ammonia, just hydrogen and LOHC. That plus your mention of shipping energy into Canberra makes me wonder if we're actually communicating with each other at all.
simonebrunozzi 6y ago
Sometimes you don't have the luxury of a power line, e.g. in developing countries. Similar thing (larger scale though) happened with oil: there are still tons of oil tanks sailing around the world because a stable pipeline network is hard to build.
Hypx 6y ago
Only for short distances. At long distances, they lose power due to resistance in the wires. Underwater power lines across oceans are also extreme expensive.

rstuart4133 6y ago

> The main utility for ammonia is to transport energy long distances at industrial scale, not for individual vehicles. Which is exactly how it was pitched in Australia, by the government agency responsible for developing it. It was the reason it was funded. As I recall, it was "it solar continues current downward trajectory, it will be cheaper make than it is to frack natural gas". They seemed pretty convinced of it.