3 ms·
Of course it’s not correct. I have no idea why people speak so confidently about electrolysis not being “scalable” when, in fact, that used to be pretty much th
by Robotbeat 5y ago
Of course it’s not correct. I have no idea why people speak so confidently about electrolysis not being “scalable” when, in fact, that used to be pretty much the primary way of making hydrogen for ammonia.
Also, the US used to double electricity generation every decade. If something needs a bit more electricity, there’s no “scaling” argument why we can’t just produce more electricity. It costs money, of course, but there’s no part of it that isn’t “scalable.”
- jandrewrogers 5y agoThe amount of electricity required to generate an equivalent amount of hydrogen for ammonia production by electrolysis is 1.5-2 PWh annually. That significantly exceeds all wind power generation globally, even assuming we could dedicate it entirely to making ammonia, which of course we can't because we need to keep the lights on. I also don't think you understand what it means to run an industrial plant at that scale or the logistics (pipelines and such) implied, particularly when the power source is so diffuse. You keep using the words "scalability" but it isn't clear you understand what that actually means in this context. If you are interested in this stuff, perhaps you should study chemical engineering. The feasibility issues will be more intuitive.
- Hypx_ 5y ago2 PWh is not really a challenge other than scaling it up. We have many orders of magnitude more wind and solar energy that the world needs. Water won't run out either, especially when you realize that salt water can be used for this process.