6 ms·

I'm pretty sure the costs of producing a fuel based solely on making it with electricity is by far, of all the options you named, best done with Ammonia. The r

I'm pretty sure the costs of producing a fuel based solely on making it with electricity is by far, of all the options you named, best done with Ammonia. The reason the cost of ammonia is barely better, or even worse, than things like methanol, is because the electricity process is still expensive. But that can (and soon would!) become waaaay cheaper. Electricity __NOT__ on demand is dirt cheap and can be halved and quartered some more: Solar panels are _idiotically cheap_ these days and that state of affairs is not temporary. We need more not-on-demand needs. As in, 'hey, uh, if theres some power left over cuz it's windy and sunny.. no prob! Let me run these ammonia producing machines at full power for a bit. No need for ammonia right now? No problem - compared to electricity, ammonia is vastly simpler to store'. Ammonia is a great not-on-demand consumer of electricty. That's why this is necessary. As you said: > the cost of the green electricity dominates the economics over the process plant CAPEX anyway. That's exactly the factor that can become ridiculously cheap. It isn't today because there's not much point investing in solar/wind because they do not cover on-demand needs (when it's not particularly sunny/windy, then electricity prices are sky high and you want to build electricity production that can deliver then. And solar/windy by definition can't), and the primary issue is transport. if the demand for ammonia skyrockets, you can solve it all. Ammonia does not need to be produced on-demand, and you don't need all that much transport (build the ammonia producing plant close to your solar/wind parks).

pjc50 2y ago
> Let me run these ammonia producing machines at full power for a bit. The problem with this is the capex and running costs of that kind of machinery make it expensive to keep idle. It can be uneconomic even with free electricity.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Where are the costs. Many factories are only used 8 hours a day despite the high costs - it isn't worth the additional cost to have employees work overnight. Some really energy hungry factories traditionally run only overnight when energy is cheap, and they shutdown for yearly maintenance in December (thus freeing up their normal energy use when everyone is running Christmas lights) Now that wind and solar are coming online those are changing how they work. Different factories have difference costs. When energy is significant they consider that. When energy is not significant they just run when it works out.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Many factories are only used 8 hours a day despite the high cost Is this true in chemicals?
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Which chemical? Some yes, some no. Some processes work better in continue runs, some you are doing batches. Some batches take a few weeks, some are hours...
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Which chemical? Any industrially-produced chemical where continuous production is possible. I haven’t heard of such systems being competitive if left idle so someone can sleep.
        bluGill 2y ago
        Continuous production implies at least a few people 24x7. Not all chemicals are continuous production. Often there is a choice of processes when you build a factory.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Continuous production implies at least a few people 24x7. Not all chemicals are continuous production Yes. I'm asking if there is a chemical-production process that can be run 24/7 but which isn't due to labour shortages somewhere that doesn't result in such production being shut down (or protected)? Chemicals are globally-traded commodities. Some are perishable and/or difficult or even illegal to ship. So there is regional price variance. But ceteris paribus, if it can be run continuously, production will shift to where it is.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        Normal operation of ammonia plants and methanol plants has been 24/7 for decades. Most other commodity chemicals too. Loading & unloading ships & barges as well. Some places only load railcars & trailers during days. Also it's common for engineers to only work straight days and often their office is not on site, they actually only make visits. They do it as needed and can be very dedicated and effective, but of course they can't touch anything because that requires a unionized operator.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
sidewndr46 2y ago
Wouldn't this imply that the ammonia consumption would have to be near the solar plant?
- WJW 2y ago
  No? For similar reasons that fossil fuel consumers don't need to be near an oil well.
  - sidewndr46 2y ago
    You'd have to ship the ammonia to the point of use, which is going to be significantly more hazardous
    - rjsw 2y ago
      It only needs to be easier to ship than hydrogen.
    - Retric 2y ago
      You “ship” electricity near a port via the electric grid, and then make ammonia near or in the port. Economies of scale might favor having a few ammonia factories and then shipping it around by boat. Ammonia makes zero sense as a general use fuel, but ships need MW of power over several days and aren’t in populated areas. Assuming, it’s actually viable which isn’t guaranteed.
      - sidewndr46 2y ago
        OK, that sounds like a good plan. But that's the opposite of what was proposed further up this thread.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        It depends on whether you prefer to transfer electricity or ammonia. You get to pick whatever is easier, which caps the difficulty at not high. The suggestion of shipping ammonia was for the sake of convenience, not a burden. It's optional.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
> Ammonia is a great not-on-demand consumer of electricty. This does not follow. The cost efficiency of ammonia production is highly dependent on the process being continuous and steady state. Every analysis that says ammonia is cost effective as a fuel is based on an efficient continuous process as a cost assumption. If you are constantly starting and stopping based on electricity availability then your ammonia just became much more expensive. In which case, it is probably no longer cost effective as a fuel. Mixing "best possible price" and "worst possible process" and pretending these represent the same instance of reality is misleading to say the least.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  > The cost efficiency of ammonia production is highly dependent on the process being continuous and steady state. Hydrogen is the overwhelming energy input to ammonia production. Hydrogen is readily storable -- this is done even today, when the hydrogen comes from natural gas, to smooth things out to keep the ammonia plant running -- so intermittency of renewables will be almost entirely countered by doing the same thing and storing the green hydrogen. What matters is cost of electrolysers, but they have been getting very cheap in China.
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    It is not just the cost of inputs. Ammonia synthesis is a high-pressure high-temperature process. One of the reasons to use a continuous steady-state process is that cycling it up and down causes thermal and pressure fatigue in the reactor. The safe operating life of a reactor can be surprisingly short if it is not operated at a steady state. If you want this to scale, it needs to be low maintenance and have a long operating life. You could in principle centralize ammonia production with sufficient reactant reserves to ensure continuous production from variable low-density energy sources like solar or wind. However, this would require hydrogen pipelines that largely don't exist and would take a long time to build. We can't repurpose existing natural gas infrastructure and similar because they weren't built with alloys resistant to hydrogen embrittlement. One of the big economic advantages of using methane for ammonia is that it takes advantage of the millions of kilometers of natural gas distribution pipeline that already exists. I'm not averse to the idea but the enthusiastic proponents are pretending like the practical realities of industrial chemistry don't apply to them. We aren't going to get to a green future with rainbows and unicorns, we need to brutally realistic about the true requirements.
kragen 2y ago
Do you have concrete capex and opex numbers for ammonia-from-electricity plants? I understand we should expect those to go down over time because of the learning curve, but I don't even know their order of magnitude right now. It would also be nice to have an idea of how much efficiency the electrolyzers lose when operated intermittently instead of continuously (so, for example, you can't keep them at their optimal temperature). But, since we're presupposing that intermittent electrical energy will be very cheap, efficiency is less important than capex per output and non-energy opex. Supporting your point about solar panels continuing to be cheap, "mainstream" panels went up to 0.11€ per peak watt last month: https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preisindex/ https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis... which was a new historic low price in September and down 21% from 0.14€/Wp in February of last year, itself a historic record low price at the beginning of last year. The last time something like this happened to the energy supply, it was James Watt's steam-engine.
xhkkffbf 2y ago
What are the relative costs of producing methanol or ammonia from a kilowatt hour of electricity? I've always assumed methanol would be cheaper over all because it's less deadly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
guerrilla 2y ago
We're already doing this with methanol in Sweeen though. So what's the point?

pjc50 2y ago

> Let me run these ammonia producing machines at full power for a bit. The problem with this is the capex and running costs of that kind of machinery make it expensive to keep idle. It can be uneconomic even with free electricity.

bluGill 2y ago
Where are the costs. Many factories are only used 8 hours a day despite the high costs - it isn't worth the additional cost to have employees work overnight. Some really energy hungry factories traditionally run only overnight when energy is cheap, and they shutdown for yearly maintenance in December (thus freeing up their normal energy use when everyone is running Christmas lights) Now that wind and solar are coming online those are changing how they work. Different factories have difference costs. When energy is significant they consider that. When energy is not significant they just run when it works out.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Many factories are only used 8 hours a day despite the high cost Is this true in chemicals?
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Which chemical? Some yes, some no. Some processes work better in continue runs, some you are doing batches. Some batches take a few weeks, some are hours...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Which chemical? Any industrially-produced chemical where continuous production is possible. I haven’t heard of such systems being competitive if left idle so someone can sleep.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Continuous production implies at least a few people 24x7. Not all chemicals are continuous production. Often there is a choice of processes when you build a factory.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Continuous production implies at least a few people 24x7. Not all chemicals are continuous production Yes. I'm asking if there is a chemical-production process that can be run 24/7 but which isn't due to labour shortages somewhere that doesn't result in such production being shut down (or protected)? Chemicals are globally-traded commodities. Some are perishable and/or difficult or even illegal to ship. So there is regional price variance. But ceteris paribus, if it can be run continuously, production will shift to where it is.
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      Normal operation of ammonia plants and methanol plants has been 24/7 for decades. Most other commodity chemicals too. Loading & unloading ships & barges as well. Some places only load railcars & trailers during days. Also it's common for engineers to only work straight days and often their office is not on site, they actually only make visits. They do it as needed and can be very dedicated and effective, but of course they can't touch anything because that requires a unionized operator.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

sidewndr46 2y ago

Wouldn't this imply that the ammonia consumption would have to be near the solar plant?

WJW 2y ago
No? For similar reasons that fossil fuel consumers don't need to be near an oil well.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  You'd have to ship the ammonia to the point of use, which is going to be significantly more hazardous
  - rjsw 2y ago
    It only needs to be easier to ship than hydrogen.
  - Retric 2y ago
    You “ship” electricity near a port via the electric grid, and then make ammonia near or in the port. Economies of scale might favor having a few ammonia factories and then shipping it around by boat. Ammonia makes zero sense as a general use fuel, but ships need MW of power over several days and aren’t in populated areas. Assuming, it’s actually viable which isn’t guaranteed.
    - sidewndr46 2y ago
      OK, that sounds like a good plan. But that's the opposite of what was proposed further up this thread.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        It depends on whether you prefer to transfer electricity or ammonia. You get to pick whatever is easier, which caps the difficulty at not high. The suggestion of shipping ammonia was for the sake of convenience, not a burden. It's optional.

jandrewrogers 2y ago

> Ammonia is a great not-on-demand consumer of electricty. This does not follow. The cost efficiency of ammonia production is highly dependent on the process being continuous and steady state. Every analysis that says ammonia is cost effective as a fuel is based on an efficient continuous process as a cost assumption. If you are constantly starting and stopping based on electricity availability then your ammonia just became much more expensive. In which case, it is probably no longer cost effective as a fuel. Mixing "best possible price" and "worst possible process" and pretending these represent the same instance of reality is misleading to say the least.

pfdietz 2y ago
> The cost efficiency of ammonia production is highly dependent on the process being continuous and steady state. Hydrogen is the overwhelming energy input to ammonia production. Hydrogen is readily storable -- this is done even today, when the hydrogen comes from natural gas, to smooth things out to keep the ammonia plant running -- so intermittency of renewables will be almost entirely countered by doing the same thing and storing the green hydrogen. What matters is cost of electrolysers, but they have been getting very cheap in China.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  It is not just the cost of inputs. Ammonia synthesis is a high-pressure high-temperature process. One of the reasons to use a continuous steady-state process is that cycling it up and down causes thermal and pressure fatigue in the reactor. The safe operating life of a reactor can be surprisingly short if it is not operated at a steady state. If you want this to scale, it needs to be low maintenance and have a long operating life. You could in principle centralize ammonia production with sufficient reactant reserves to ensure continuous production from variable low-density energy sources like solar or wind. However, this would require hydrogen pipelines that largely don't exist and would take a long time to build. We can't repurpose existing natural gas infrastructure and similar because they weren't built with alloys resistant to hydrogen embrittlement. One of the big economic advantages of using methane for ammonia is that it takes advantage of the millions of kilometers of natural gas distribution pipeline that already exists. I'm not averse to the idea but the enthusiastic proponents are pretending like the practical realities of industrial chemistry don't apply to them. We aren't going to get to a green future with rainbows and unicorns, we need to brutally realistic about the true requirements.

kragen 2y ago

Do you have concrete capex and opex numbers for ammonia-from-electricity plants? I understand we should expect those to go down over time because of the learning curve, but I don't even know their order of magnitude right now. It would also be nice to have an idea of how much efficiency the electrolyzers lose when operated intermittently instead of continuously (so, for example, you can't keep them at their optimal temperature). But, since we're presupposing that intermittent electrical energy will be very cheap, efficiency is less important than capex per output and non-energy opex. Supporting your point about solar panels continuing to be cheap, "mainstream" panels went up to 0.11€ per peak watt last month: https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preisindex/ https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis... which was a new historic low price in September and down 21% from 0.14€/Wp in February of last year, itself a historic record low price at the beginning of last year. The last time something like this happened to the energy supply, it was James Watt's steam-engine.

xhkkffbf 2y ago

What are the relative costs of producing methanol or ammonia from a kilowatt hour of electricity? I've always assumed methanol would be cheaper over all because it's less deadly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

guerrilla 2y ago

We're already doing this with methanol in Sweeen though. So what's the point?