3 ms·

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.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  the 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Someone 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 ago
        You 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
    I wouldn’t get that hung up on the specifics when we are using terms like ‘near’ which is why I said boats for economies of scale. I was thinking of navigable waterways which are common near major wind farms and some solar, not just major ports which rarely have a lot of space available. The UK is already facing issues with moving offshore wind around the country, an Ammonia plant could theoretically make a lot of sense.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

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.

sidewndr46 2y ago
the 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Someone 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 ago
      You 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
  I wouldn’t get that hung up on the specifics when we are using terms like ‘near’ which is why I said boats for economies of scale. I was thinking of navigable waterways which are common near major wind farms and some solar, not just major ports which rarely have a lot of space available. The UK is already facing issues with moving offshore wind around the country, an Ammonia plant could theoretically make a lot of sense.