7 ms·

Using solar and wind for fertilizer production seems like an obvious win. The prices are plummeting much more quickly than any other energy source, and the main

Using solar and wind for fertilizer production seems like an obvious win. The prices are plummeting much more quickly than any other energy source, and the main objection — intermittency - can be worked around in this one application. Estimates say “green” pilot plants are still 3-4x as expensive as using fossil fuels, but presumably falling energy input prices and improvements (plus scale) will get us closer.

Zpalmtree 4y ago
paying 4x as much is an "obvious win"?
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  If a technology is at the "pilot plant" stage and the major cost input is renewable energy (where costs have dropped precipitously and continue to do so), then 4x doesn't feel like an impossibility. Meanwhile the price of anhydrous ammonia produced using traditional methods nearly tripled between January 2020 and August 2022: the "cost" of relying on continued access to cheap fossil fuel is not low.
Xylakant 4y ago
“Can be worked around in this application?” I know folks that do maintenance on the plant that produces ammonia among other things at the BASF plant in Ludwigshafen, Germany. They don’t shut this plant down. Maintenance is mostly done during production. If one stage fails, the products of the predecessor stages are usually burned - makes for a pretty spectacular evening sky. It’s likely possible to re-engineer those plants to use an intermittent power source, but it’s far from trivial.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  And the alternatives are what, exactly? Keep basing our technology on inexpensive access to fossil fuels until war or climate problems make that unworkable? Or hope that nuclear-powered hydrolysis somehow becomes more efficient and feasible at the necessary scale? I'm completely open to the second idea, just not convinced that it's less expensive than dealing with intermittency. When you say "it's likely possible, but not trivial" what I hear is: it's a matter of calculating the cost of alternatives and then making strategic investments, preferably as soon as possible (because CO2 emissions are cumulative and we don't have an efficient technology for CO2 removal.)
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    It’s definitely worth working on, don’t get me wrong. But the timelines for these projects are decades, not years. Expecting large scale payoffs anytime soon would be fooling yourself. In Germany, I see a very dangerous trend of expecting that such changes will save us, but the timelines just don’t work out. So the primary effort should be directed to places where faster results are viable - heating/warm water via heat pumps where possible, insulation efforts, reducing car traffic, replacing existing power generation with non-fossil methods, energy reuse. For example, waste heat from industrial processes and data centers is mostly lost in germany, often due to planning/legal restrictions. (Sorry, source in German https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Green-IT-Abwaerme-aus-Rechenzentren-fuer-Heizungen-nutzen-6327090.html https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Green-IT-Abwaerme-aus-Reche...) Datacenter alone use about 3% of germanys electricity and turn it into heat - recapturing even half of that would place use closer to the goal.
    - matthewdgreen 4y ago
      I don't see a path to global decarbonization that doesn't include major reductions in fossil fuel production, and I don't see a path to major reductions in fossil fuel production that doesn't produce major price variability in (fossil) fertilizer production inputs. It's good that we aim to reduce our datacenter energy usage, but that may not prevent the avoidable starvation of millions of people.

Zpalmtree 4y ago

paying 4x as much is an "obvious win"?

matthewdgreen 4y ago
If a technology is at the "pilot plant" stage and the major cost input is renewable energy (where costs have dropped precipitously and continue to do so), then 4x doesn't feel like an impossibility. Meanwhile the price of anhydrous ammonia produced using traditional methods nearly tripled between January 2020 and August 2022: the "cost" of relying on continued access to cheap fossil fuel is not low.

Xylakant 4y ago

“Can be worked around in this application?” I know folks that do maintenance on the plant that produces ammonia among other things at the BASF plant in Ludwigshafen, Germany. They don’t shut this plant down. Maintenance is mostly done during production. If one stage fails, the products of the predecessor stages are usually burned - makes for a pretty spectacular evening sky. It’s likely possible to re-engineer those plants to use an intermittent power source, but it’s far from trivial.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matthewdgreen 4y ago
And the alternatives are what, exactly? Keep basing our technology on inexpensive access to fossil fuels until war or climate problems make that unworkable? Or hope that nuclear-powered hydrolysis somehow becomes more efficient and feasible at the necessary scale? I'm completely open to the second idea, just not convinced that it's less expensive than dealing with intermittency. When you say "it's likely possible, but not trivial" what I hear is: it's a matter of calculating the cost of alternatives and then making strategic investments, preferably as soon as possible (because CO2 emissions are cumulative and we don't have an efficient technology for CO2 removal.)
- Xylakant 4y ago
  It’s definitely worth working on, don’t get me wrong. But the timelines for these projects are decades, not years. Expecting large scale payoffs anytime soon would be fooling yourself. In Germany, I see a very dangerous trend of expecting that such changes will save us, but the timelines just don’t work out. So the primary effort should be directed to places where faster results are viable - heating/warm water via heat pumps where possible, insulation efforts, reducing car traffic, replacing existing power generation with non-fossil methods, energy reuse. For example, waste heat from industrial processes and data centers is mostly lost in germany, often due to planning/legal restrictions. (Sorry, source in German https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Green-IT-Abwaerme-aus-Rechenzentren-fuer-Heizungen-nutzen-6327090.html https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Green-IT-Abwaerme-aus-Reche...) Datacenter alone use about 3% of germanys electricity and turn it into heat - recapturing even half of that would place use closer to the goal.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    I don't see a path to global decarbonization that doesn't include major reductions in fossil fuel production, and I don't see a path to major reductions in fossil fuel production that doesn't produce major price variability in (fossil) fertilizer production inputs. It's good that we aim to reduce our datacenter energy usage, but that may not prevent the avoidable starvation of millions of people.