4 ms·

I really think you are trying to obfuscate the issue here. We "usually" make the hydrogen from fossil fuels because this is by far the cheapest way to make it,

by rsj_hn 5y ago

I really think you are trying to obfuscate the issue here. We "usually" make the hydrogen from fossil fuels because this is by far the cheapest way to make it, so if we raise the price of fossil fuels, the fertilizer becomes more expensive. And man, you are twisting and turning in order to obscure this fact.

Robotbeat 5y ago
No, I’m not. Again, by not mentioning that ammonia is made from hydrogen (and not mentioning that ammonia is by far the largest use of hydrogen today and also that almost all hydrogen is made with fossil fuels now but not historically), we are obfuscating multiple things. It seems implied that ammonia based fertilizers actually need hydrocarbons in particular (which isn’t true historically, technically, or in the future, BUT you’ll have many Degrowther types argue we have to use fossil fuels for fertilizer) AND it makes it easy to exaggerate the benefit of hydrogen cars (or the “hydrogen economy”) because it becomes unclear that hydrogen is actually by far made from fossil fuels. It’s not a simple consequence. (Finally, green hydrogen is currently competitive with grey and blue hydrogen in Europe due to high gas prices at the moment, but that’s totally beside the point.) https://think.ing.com/articles/hold-1of4-high-gas-prices-triples-the-cost-of-hydrogen-production/ https://think.ing.com/articles/hold-1of4-high-gas-prices-tri...
- politician 5y ago
  Thanks for your comments. Until today, I was under the mistaken impression that fertilizers required hydrocarbons.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
We usually make electricity from coal, because its so cheap... as long as you ignore the pollution and death that it causes. An insistence on how "cheap" it is to make fertilizer from natural gas, without taking into accoint fugitive methan emmisions, the fossil fuel used for the heat, and the CO2 released as an intrinsic part of the process seems the more obvious, at at this point preictable and boring, attempt to distort reality.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  Turns out we make twice as much electricity in the US from natural gas than from coal, and we use about as much nuclear power as we do coal for electricity (and nuclear is equal to about all the hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal we use). This is another thing I think people aren’t aware has changed. ~80% of our electricity in the US is made without coal. (But globally is another story, and this doesn’t really affect your overall point.)
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    The reduction in coal in the US and several other countries has been mostly driven by people internalising those externalities, often via a carbon price mechanism, but also by banning or limiting specific types of pollution. It would probably still be "cheaper" without those. Luckily sanity has, somewhat, prevailed and costs that were being imposed on others in the country were also considered.

by rsj_hn 5y ago

Robotbeat 5y ago

No, I’m not. Again, by not mentioning that ammonia is made from hydrogen (and not mentioning that ammonia is by far the largest use of hydrogen today and also that almost all hydrogen is made with fossil fuels now but not historically), we are obfuscating multiple things. It seems implied that ammonia based fertilizers actually need hydrocarbons in particular (which isn’t true historically, technically, or in the future, BUT you’ll have many Degrowther types argue we have to use fossil fuels for fertilizer) AND it makes it easy to exaggerate the benefit of hydrogen cars (or the “hydrogen economy”) because it becomes unclear that hydrogen is actually by far made from fossil fuels. It’s not a simple consequence. (Finally, green hydrogen is currently competitive with grey and blue hydrogen in Europe due to high gas prices at the moment, but that’s totally beside the point.) https://think.ing.com/articles/hold-1of4-high-gas-prices-triples-the-cost-of-hydrogen-production/ https://think.ing.com/articles/hold-1of4-high-gas-prices-tri...

politician 5y ago
Thanks for your comments. Until today, I was under the mistaken impression that fertilizers required hydrocarbons.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

We usually make electricity from coal, because its so cheap... as long as you ignore the pollution and death that it causes. An insistence on how "cheap" it is to make fertilizer from natural gas, without taking into accoint fugitive methan emmisions, the fossil fuel used for the heat, and the CO2 released as an intrinsic part of the process seems the more obvious, at at this point preictable and boring, attempt to distort reality.

Robotbeat 5y ago
Turns out we make twice as much electricity in the US from natural gas than from coal, and we use about as much nuclear power as we do coal for electricity (and nuclear is equal to about all the hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal we use). This is another thing I think people aren’t aware has changed. ~80% of our electricity in the US is made without coal. (But globally is another story, and this doesn’t really affect your overall point.)
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  The reduction in coal in the US and several other countries has been mostly driven by people internalising those externalities, often via a carbon price mechanism, but also by banning or limiting specific types of pollution. It would probably still be "cheaper" without those. Luckily sanity has, somewhat, prevailed and costs that were being imposed on others in the country were also considered.