6 ms·

Certainly, however Europe won’t be able to fulfill all of its energy needs by local production. Hydrogen is too difficult to ship, so probably ammonia will get

Certainly, however Europe won’t be able to fulfill all of its energy needs by local production. Hydrogen is too difficult to ship, so probably ammonia will get shipped instead. Also you have the issue of ships that can’t get electrified yet. Green ammonia might be one way to replace fossil fuels.

pencilguin 4y ago
There are already definite plans in play to transition shipping to green ammonia.
danans 4y ago
> Europe won’t be able to fulfill all of its energy needs by local production In the long run, why not? Between overbuilding renewable capacity (needed for green ammonia anyway), using nuclear when it's cost effective and renewable energy is limited, and multi-day storage, Europe should get pretty close. The last couple percent can be bridged with fossil fuels.
tpm 4y ago
Natural gas pipelines can be upgraded to transport hydrogen instead.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Not that easy. Hydrogen is very hard to contain. Given gas leaks and gas explosions are already a regular thing, pushing hydrogen through the same leaky pipes is not going to improve things. There's this hydrogen fantasy where people think it's a drop in replacement for methane. The reality is that most hydrogen that is currently produced (from vast amounts of methane typically), is used on site. Transporting it around is just very hard. Even in compressed form, it still takes up a lot of space. Diesel has much better energy density by volume than hydrogen compressed at 300 bar. About 18x for the same volume.
  - tpm 4y ago
    I know, this information is coming from a private conversation with an expert who has done an analysis on this and says it's actually both plausible and much cheaper to do than shipping hydrogen.
janef0421 4y ago
I think using an integrated nuclear reactor would be a better solution than using ammonia fuel. Better energy efficiency, increased speeds, reduced fuel handling costs, and greater operational flexibility are clear advantages. I would also argue the environmental risks are reduced.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  So designing a ship from scratch with a reactor that doesn't exist that would cost at minimum well over double what existing entire ships cost which uses high enriched fuel that almost as much in raw natural Uranium as existing (filthy) bunker fuel and then sending that high enriched Uranium (which will have a high percentage of chemically separable plutonium unless you refuel yearly at enormous expense and downtime) all over the world, without security or oversight, managed by an industry that cuts costs and breaks laws constantly is a better plan than... Changing some emissions control equipment, enlarging the fuel tank a little and giving them ammonia when they dock?
  - janef0421 4y ago
    I am confused. Why do you think a nuclear cargo ship would use highly enriched uranium?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Low enrichment, compact, long fuel cycle. Choose two.

pencilguin 4y ago

There are already definite plans in play to transition shipping to green ammonia.

danans 4y ago

> Europe won’t be able to fulfill all of its energy needs by local production In the long run, why not? Between overbuilding renewable capacity (needed for green ammonia anyway), using nuclear when it's cost effective and renewable energy is limited, and multi-day storage, Europe should get pretty close. The last couple percent can be bridged with fossil fuels.

tpm 4y ago

Natural gas pipelines can be upgraded to transport hydrogen instead.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
Not that easy. Hydrogen is very hard to contain. Given gas leaks and gas explosions are already a regular thing, pushing hydrogen through the same leaky pipes is not going to improve things. There's this hydrogen fantasy where people think it's a drop in replacement for methane. The reality is that most hydrogen that is currently produced (from vast amounts of methane typically), is used on site. Transporting it around is just very hard. Even in compressed form, it still takes up a lot of space. Diesel has much better energy density by volume than hydrogen compressed at 300 bar. About 18x for the same volume.
- tpm 4y ago
  I know, this information is coming from a private conversation with an expert who has done an analysis on this and says it's actually both plausible and much cheaper to do than shipping hydrogen.

janef0421 4y ago

I think using an integrated nuclear reactor would be a better solution than using ammonia fuel. Better energy efficiency, increased speeds, reduced fuel handling costs, and greater operational flexibility are clear advantages. I would also argue the environmental risks are reduced.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
So designing a ship from scratch with a reactor that doesn't exist that would cost at minimum well over double what existing entire ships cost which uses high enriched fuel that almost as much in raw natural Uranium as existing (filthy) bunker fuel and then sending that high enriched Uranium (which will have a high percentage of chemically separable plutonium unless you refuel yearly at enormous expense and downtime) all over the world, without security or oversight, managed by an industry that cuts costs and breaks laws constantly is a better plan than... Changing some emissions control equipment, enlarging the fuel tank a little and giving them ammonia when they dock?
- janef0421 4y ago
  I am confused. Why do you think a nuclear cargo ship would use highly enriched uranium?
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Low enrichment, compact, long fuel cycle. Choose two.