4 ms·

> It is not a great option, but a least worst option considering the alternatives. Ammonia is definitely not the least worst option. Both methanol and biodies

> It is not a great option, but a least worst option considering the alternatives. Ammonia is definitely not the least worst option. Both methanol and biodiesel as better than it, both price wise and because they are not highly toxic gasses. > As part of the safety protocols for the conduct of these tests, crew members also donned personal protection equipment such as chemical protection suits, nitrile chemical gloves, rubber boots, positive pressure mask and hood, and portable gas detectors for the relevant operations. I guess they'll have to wear that 24/7?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Biodiesel can't be produced at scale without crops and farmland. Methanol can only be produced inexpensively using natural gas. I agree that if either of these fuels can be produced below the cost of ammonia produced using renewable energy, using renewable energy, they would be superior options for marine fuel. A little under half of global marine traffic is moving energy around, which might be a contributing factor in fuel selection as traffic declines in the future due to renewables uptake globally.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  > Biodiesel can't be produced at scale without crops and farmland. This is true, but I don't get your point. We can argue about whether it's a good use of crops/farmland just as we can argue if electricity->H2 + N2 -> ammonia is a good use of electricity. > Methanol can only be produced inexpensively using natural gas. The same can be said about Ammonia once you need to source your H2. > using renewable energy, they would be superior options for marine fuel. That's a restriction that I don't see as justified. At least not for the biodiesel. > A little under half of global marine traffic is moving energy around, which might be a contributing factor in fuel selection as traffic declines in the future due to renewables uptake globally. I agree. Further than that, we will stop shipping iron ore across the world to smelt it only to ship it back since the price of fuel will go up regardless of what we switch to. So shipping volume will decrease further.
  - lazide 3y ago
    H2 can be extracted from seawater (or freshwater) ‘easily’ and nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere. Everything else you mention requires those things AND a lot more work. So why not go directly where we want to go? Hell, biodiesel will even require nitrogen fertilizer and fresh water, plus a lot of faffing around with sensitive crops.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      > H2 can be extracted from seawater (or freshwater) ‘easily’ and nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere. 'easily' indeed. The problems are the very large electricity demands, difficulty in storage and moving from place to place. The fact that Nitrogen is abundant is irrelevant. The hard part isn't finding it. The hard part is getting it to react with the H2 to form ammonia. As for freshwater vs saltwater. The energy (and cost) required to go from salt water to pure water for the electrolyzer is a rounding error compared to the energy (and cost) required to go from pure water to H2.
      - defrost 3y ago
        > easily' indeed. The problems are the very large electricity demands, difficulty in storage and moving from place to place. You might be interested in reading up on Fortescue Metals | Futures current plans and projects in action. I linked to a National Press Club lecture by their CEO above. They're already addressing your points by buying several large cattle stations (ie bigger than Texas ranches) that are mine adjacent to produce in situ - tackling large electricity demands via mega care solar farms and transport by being local). Raw PV materials are coming from mines they own and processing plants they hold shares in. The amonnia fuel they use in mining can be supplemented by recovered energy from "lowering" half a billion tonnes per annum 600m from mesa to sea level (see: Infinity train). This has been in the works for some time and they thought to hire a few talented engineers along the way.
        _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I will check it out, though I am skeptical of it's relevance to an ammonia-fuel discussion given that a quick search of a transcript surfaced nothing about ammonia. Fortescue themselves have also admitted that Hydrogen-fuel cell heavy equipment would require 3x more energy than BEV equipment [0], something that is not a shock to anyone. I am incredibly skeptical that ammonia combustion would even get to a 3x requirement, it's going to easily be 5x if not 10x the BEV. As for any applications where you are moving the material downhill, the immense weight difference would mean that the regenerative breaking would likely you charge too 100%, hence the infinity train. I struggle to see how H2, much less ammonia, would fit into that picture. Even for the minimum equipment, much of it is already equipment due to torque demands, they simply run diesel generators on the equipment. The switch from that to batteries or more cables (because certain equipment is already running off a power-line) seems much more likely and cheaper than ammonia. Even more so for any sort of underground mining. Ventilation of the mines already takes up incredible amounts of electricity. And much of that ventilation is needed due to combustion reactions. There too switching to BEV would make much more sense, and may even lower net electricity demands. [0]: https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/fortescue-continues-testing-hydrogen-fuel-cell-mining-trucks-despite-admitting-they-are-inefficient/2-1-1495685 https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/fortescue-continue...

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Biodiesel can't be produced at scale without crops and farmland. Methanol can only be produced inexpensively using natural gas. I agree that if either of these fuels can be produced below the cost of ammonia produced using renewable energy, using renewable energy, they would be superior options for marine fuel. A little under half of global marine traffic is moving energy around, which might be a contributing factor in fuel selection as traffic declines in the future due to renewables uptake globally.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
> Biodiesel can't be produced at scale without crops and farmland. This is true, but I don't get your point. We can argue about whether it's a good use of crops/farmland just as we can argue if electricity->H2 + N2 -> ammonia is a good use of electricity. > Methanol can only be produced inexpensively using natural gas. The same can be said about Ammonia once you need to source your H2. > using renewable energy, they would be superior options for marine fuel. That's a restriction that I don't see as justified. At least not for the biodiesel. > A little under half of global marine traffic is moving energy around, which might be a contributing factor in fuel selection as traffic declines in the future due to renewables uptake globally. I agree. Further than that, we will stop shipping iron ore across the world to smelt it only to ship it back since the price of fuel will go up regardless of what we switch to. So shipping volume will decrease further.
- lazide 3y ago
  H2 can be extracted from seawater (or freshwater) ‘easily’ and nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere. Everything else you mention requires those things AND a lot more work. So why not go directly where we want to go? Hell, biodiesel will even require nitrogen fertilizer and fresh water, plus a lot of faffing around with sensitive crops.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    > H2 can be extracted from seawater (or freshwater) ‘easily’ and nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the atmosphere. 'easily' indeed. The problems are the very large electricity demands, difficulty in storage and moving from place to place. The fact that Nitrogen is abundant is irrelevant. The hard part isn't finding it. The hard part is getting it to react with the H2 to form ammonia. As for freshwater vs saltwater. The energy (and cost) required to go from salt water to pure water for the electrolyzer is a rounding error compared to the energy (and cost) required to go from pure water to H2.
    - defrost 3y ago
      > easily' indeed. The problems are the very large electricity demands, difficulty in storage and moving from place to place. You might be interested in reading up on Fortescue Metals | Futures current plans and projects in action. I linked to a National Press Club lecture by their CEO above. They're already addressing your points by buying several large cattle stations (ie bigger than Texas ranches) that are mine adjacent to produce in situ - tackling large electricity demands via mega care solar farms and transport by being local). Raw PV materials are coming from mines they own and processing plants they hold shares in. The amonnia fuel they use in mining can be supplemented by recovered energy from "lowering" half a billion tonnes per annum 600m from mesa to sea level (see: Infinity train). This has been in the works for some time and they thought to hire a few talented engineers along the way.
      - _aavaa_ 3y ago
        I will check it out, though I am skeptical of it's relevance to an ammonia-fuel discussion given that a quick search of a transcript surfaced nothing about ammonia. Fortescue themselves have also admitted that Hydrogen-fuel cell heavy equipment would require 3x more energy than BEV equipment [0], something that is not a shock to anyone. I am incredibly skeptical that ammonia combustion would even get to a 3x requirement, it's going to easily be 5x if not 10x the BEV. As for any applications where you are moving the material downhill, the immense weight difference would mean that the regenerative breaking would likely you charge too 100%, hence the infinity train. I struggle to see how H2, much less ammonia, would fit into that picture. Even for the minimum equipment, much of it is already equipment due to torque demands, they simply run diesel generators on the equipment. The switch from that to batteries or more cables (because certain equipment is already running off a power-line) seems much more likely and cheaper than ammonia. Even more so for any sort of underground mining. Ventilation of the mines already takes up incredible amounts of electricity. And much of that ventilation is needed due to combustion reactions. There too switching to BEV would make much more sense, and may even lower net electricity demands. [0]: https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/fortescue-continues-testing-hydrogen-fuel-cell-mining-trucks-despite-admitting-they-are-inefficient/2-1-1495685 https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/fortescue-continue...