4 ms·
No? For similar reasons that fossil fuel consumers don't need to be near an oil well.
by WJW 2y ago
No? For similar reasons that fossil fuel consumers don't need to be near an oil well.
- sidewndr46 2y agoYou'd have to ship the ammonia to the point of use, which is going to be significantly more hazardous
- rjsw 2y agoIt only needs to be easier to ship than hydrogen.
- Retric 2y agoYou “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 agoOK, 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 agoIt 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.
- sidewndr46 2y agothe actual post I replied to originally said "build the ammonia producing plant close to your solar/wind parks" You can't pick that and then decide not to transfer the ammonia and decide not to transfer the electricity. Unless your solar plan is at the loading dock or something.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThe suggestion of shipping ammonia was for the sake of convenience, not a burden. It's optional. Yes you have to transfer electricity in that case. We already know transferring electricity is easy. Don't get hung up on "picking" one as if the downsides get locked in at the pre-design phase. If it's difficult to transfer ammonia then nevermind go back to the existing easy option of wires. In other words, if that specific detail doesn't work out, it is not an argument against ammonia. It was just a potential bonus, not core to the idea. And it doesn't fundamentally change things. It's not the "opposite" plan.
- sidewndr46 2y agoSomeone makes a statement. I point out that statement has implications. Someone then suggests an idea that is counter to the original statement. I point out that is inconsistent. Your response is "Don't get hung up on". Your argument at this point has just devolved into some variant of "don't confuse me with the facts"
- Dylan16807 2y agoYou said the plan was the opposite, but it was only a tiny optional detail that's opposite. The phrasing in that comment rejected the original plan as a whole, and that's not right. Also the comment you called a "good plan" was still talking about shipping ammonia as a maybe! So even in that detail it's not the opposite of the original comment. I think your first comment was fine, but it's not your first comment that I replied to.
- Retric 2y ago
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIf ammonia cannot be shipped safely than the whole thing is moot. We're talking about "shipping" ammonia halfway around the world in the fuel tanks of these ammonia fueled ships. If storing it long term in fuel tanks can be done safely, than so can shipping it to port.
- pfdietz 2y agoThis also means ammonia may end up getting produced at the globally best places, the places where the solar resource is extremely good, like Chile, Namibia, parts of the middle East, then shipping elsewhere.
- HPsquared 2y agoSunny places with good ports and cheap land.
- WJW 2y agoShipping ammonia is commonly done already. For example, the first few search results for "ammonia tanker" has a story of Maersk ordering up to ten new tankers with 93000 cubic metre capacity each.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoThis is illogical - we ship a live nuclear reactor around the world in a nuclear carrier or icebreaker. But you cannot take it out and put it on a truck
- burnished 2y agoThat has more to do with the design of the vessel than anything.