Yes, this is the case due to the enormous scale of production. Replacing the hydrogen source at similar scales with electrolysis is plausible with base load power generation. The cost increase is a small integer factor, and in the bigger scheme of things is likely something we can adapt to at least for agriculture.
An obvious challenge is that we don't have available green base load power -- nuclear, hydro, or geothermal -- at anything remotely resembling the necessary scale. The requirement for base load power follows from the economics of industrial chemistry, which becomes much more expensive if you can't run your process in a continuous steady-state equilibrium. If we tried to produce ammonia via micro-batching chemistry or similar, those economics may not be practical.
The other unfortunate reality is that ammonia production is often a way to extract value from excess methane that might otherwise be vented or burned. It is a better use than the alternative. It isn't a coincidence that ammonia is primarily produced in countries with a persistent surplus of methane. As long as we have vast amounts of methane lying around, and we will for the foreseeable future, conversion into ammonia is a pretty reasonable choice since that carbon will often end up in the atmosphere regardless.
> Replacing the hydrogen source at similar scales with electrolysis is plausible with base load power generation.
There is no need to tie this to base load power generation. In fact, quite the opposite: A lot of the electrolysis projects and the funding happening right now is targetted at using electrolysis as a compensation for fluctuating renewables.
This makes sense: We have cheap, green electricity, however having it in constant supply is expensive. So the smart thing is to shift the demand where that's possible.
Surely the hydrogen could be stored to allow for intermittent power supply? Make hydrogen when power is cheaper and there is spare.
Also, the continuous supply of power is exactly what the grid is designed to do. Availability of cheap nuclear or geothermal could change the economics. But the power is exactly the same if it comes from nuclear, renewables or battery storage.
I for one am all for building green energy infrastructure at scale. However, at this point, I believe the push for green energy at the expense of nuclear, and even hydro projects at this point, has retarded the reduction of green house gases. It's a bit ironic that those wholly supporting wind/solar, have at the same time forced increased bureaucracy, and cost in other base load energy sources that could have helped in an overall reduction of emissions. So by fighting against climate change, they may have indeed made it worse.
If electrolysis can be made cheaper (E-TAC looks promising) you can run it at a reduced duty cycle on excess solar and wind power whenever they are available.
You can also produce hydrogen at the point of generation if water is available, and store it using the now obsolete natural gas distribution network.
Waiting for the Ammonia Shills to chime in that producing enormous amounts of ammonia that nobody actually needs will drive the development of green energy infrastructure.
This is the well known Haber-Bosch process, "Between 75 and 90% of this ammonia goes toward making fertilizer, and about 50% of the world’s food production relies on ammonia fertilizer."
For those not looking to create a free account to login and view it:
It’s worth noting that the Haber process doesn’t require methane, methane is used as a source of hydrogen because it’s cheap and easy to use. Any source of hydrogen could work, but most of them are more energy intensive and thus more expensive or inefficient than just using methane. If you wanted to use nuclear or renewables, you just dedicate your energy production to electrolysis or whatever.
Edit to add: also worth noting that electrolysis currently amounts to about 5% of hydrogen production. You basically can’t remove fossil fuels from the food supply without lots of alternate energy input, so this is not a short term fix short of spooling up all kinds of nuclear reactors.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, and maybe if we need to be dependent on fossil fuels for any one thing then we should prioritize food supply rather than literally burning them (or worse, venting them to the atmosphere as is often done with methane), just trying to set the right expectations for people who might be learning all this for the first time.
This became very apparent when a chemicals company with plants in the UK annouced plans to curtail their ammonia production, and it was going to have a knock-on effect on other industries because they got a lot of their CO2 from that process: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/17/warnings...
B.S. Story. This happens every year. CO2 for drinks etc is always in short supply in the summer because it can only be made cheaply as a by product of ammonia production, which slows down in the summer due to no demand.
It’s largely 80/20 right - 80% of emissions come from a small group of sources. That’s hopeful, in some way, since it opens the door to big wins if we tackle those large sources first.
You could make ammonia on wind or solar farms in the middle of nowhere and get it via tanker a couple of times per year, obviating the need for expensive powerlines. Bonus: the tankers can run on ammonia fuel.
I don't know about ammonia, but aluminium (a similarly "energy-intensive" commodity) is produced in Iceland where they have lots of cheap geothermal energy. Similar situation, making use of a local energy source and exporting the embodied energy as a physical product.
This is very interesting from an agricultural perspective. According to the Wikipedia article for ammonia, “In the US as of 2019, approximately 88% of ammonia was used as fertilizers”.
To me this is a very interesting and damning fact with regards to current dominant agricultural practices. Yet another reason that it would be beneficial to further redevelop closed loop nutrient systems. For instance, sewage solids from cites in are sold to farmers for use as fertilizer.
Funnily enough Fritz Haber (who developed the Haber Process used to manufacture ammonia) also developed chemical weapons in WWI. Some people claim he is somewhat redeemed by his contribution to artificial fertilizer. I disagree with this reasoning on several levels.
> For instance, sewage solids from cites in are sold to farmers for use as fertilizer.
If this was human waste wouldn't it have to be treated to remove chemicals viruses? Couldn't you get HEP-A from this process? Seems impractical and dangerous.
> For instance, sewage solids from cites in are sold to farmers for use as fertilizer.
Seattle tried shipping their shit (literally) to the farmers in Central Washington. Used these trucks that had "loop: turn your dirt around" splashed on the side. Then the farmers decided maybe they ought to test that stuff for PFOA/PFAS before applying it to their most valuable asset.
I wonder why you see his chemical weapons developments during WW1 as a particularly egregious sin.
My great grandfather was on the front lines in France and was gassed several times. To the day he died you could see the veins in his eyes from that experience, but when I went to the local VFW with him as a child and saw the men with no arms or no legs - the product of boring old TNT and shrapnel - I would always ask myself why we handwave that as the costs of war.
The energy use of agriculture is overstated. It's a rather minor part of the energy consumption of society overall. In the US we use more energy cooking food than we do growing it (which is about 1% of total energy use). (Note: this ignores the direct use of sunlight falling on fields growing crops.)
Collecting cat urine for ammonia production (as was done in the past) might make more sense these days, as the food cost would be offset by the near unlimited supply of cute cat videos - which could be detected with AI.
The carbon emitted by respiration would probably be dwarfed by the emissions from users watching the videos, so more work is required on the efficiency of video playback before this could become a viable solution.
This process would be a good candidate for point source carbon capture and storage. Unfortunately CCS seems to have mostly been a red herring so far, but if it's going to work anywhere, this is a perfect application.
In processes which emit a lot of CO_2 - is it not possible to capture that CO_2 before it's just released to the outside atmosphere? i.e. when it is rather highly concentrated?
The problem is that there usually follows the question of who should have less children. And often the poor are seen as the problem, even though it's us rich people that emit more than we should. Famous people that are saying that the population is too high are Bill Gates or Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd, which both have 3 children.
There are ethical ways to implement it for instance give more education to women [1].
Consuming less meat should be a priority for us wealthy countries.
Overpopulation is a problem but carbon inequality is much worse [2]:
"
. The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people)
were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions –
depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in
those 25 years alone (see Figure 1);
• The poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people) were responsible for just
7% of cumulative emissions, and used just 4% of the available
carbon budget (see Figure 1);
• The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for
15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget –
twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population (see
Figure 1);
• The richest 5% (c.315 million people) were responsible for over a
third (37%) of the total growth in emissions (see Figure 2), while
the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that
of the poorest 50%
"
"In 2022, Earth is overpopulated and totally polluted; the natural resources have been exhausted and the nourishment of the population is provided by Soylent Industries, a company that makes a food [...]"
Depopulation is too slow to matter. We need to be carbon neutral in less than one generation. Unless you propose to start a campaign to kill billions of people in the next couple of years, you don't solve the problem.
> Why is depopulation not even a consideration as a solution for climate change?
[...]
> Or do the world's largest and wealthiest nations only care for their hold on economic power?
It would be very easy for depopulation to be suggested as a solution for climate change without adversely impacting the wealthiest nations (well, I mean, if it was implemented as suggested—actually suggesting it might provoke damaging blowback.)
[+] [-] jandrewrogers|4 years ago|reply
An obvious challenge is that we don't have available green base load power -- nuclear, hydro, or geothermal -- at anything remotely resembling the necessary scale. The requirement for base load power follows from the economics of industrial chemistry, which becomes much more expensive if you can't run your process in a continuous steady-state equilibrium. If we tried to produce ammonia via micro-batching chemistry or similar, those economics may not be practical.
The other unfortunate reality is that ammonia production is often a way to extract value from excess methane that might otherwise be vented or burned. It is a better use than the alternative. It isn't a coincidence that ammonia is primarily produced in countries with a persistent surplus of methane. As long as we have vast amounts of methane lying around, and we will for the foreseeable future, conversion into ammonia is a pretty reasonable choice since that carbon will often end up in the atmosphere regardless.
[+] [-] hannob|4 years ago|reply
There is no need to tie this to base load power generation. In fact, quite the opposite: A lot of the electrolysis projects and the funding happening right now is targetted at using electrolysis as a compensation for fluctuating renewables.
This makes sense: We have cheap, green electricity, however having it in constant supply is expensive. So the smart thing is to shift the demand where that's possible.
[+] [-] 7952|4 years ago|reply
Also, the continuous supply of power is exactly what the grid is designed to do. Availability of cheap nuclear or geothermal could change the economics. But the power is exactly the same if it comes from nuclear, renewables or battery storage.
[+] [-] theropost|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otherotherchris|4 years ago|reply
You can also produce hydrogen at the point of generation if water is available, and store it using the now obsolete natural gas distribution network.
[+] [-] the8472|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production#Methane_py...
[+] [-] peterburkimsher|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DonHopkins|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtsr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] divbzero|4 years ago|reply
[1]: https://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/97/24/WEB/09724-industri...
[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02612-5
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pgorczak|4 years ago|reply
https://www.wri.org/data/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2018
[+] [-] kurthr|4 years ago|reply
For those not looking to create a free account to login and view it:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-5f9t9...
[+] [-] brendoelfrendo|4 years ago|reply
Edit to add: also worth noting that electrolysis currently amounts to about 5% of hydrogen production. You basically can’t remove fossil fuels from the food supply without lots of alternate energy input, so this is not a short term fix short of spooling up all kinds of nuclear reactors.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be done, and maybe if we need to be dependent on fossil fuels for any one thing then we should prioritize food supply rather than literally burning them (or worse, venting them to the atmosphere as is often done with methane), just trying to set the right expectations for people who might be learning all this for the first time.
[+] [-] 6nf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frereubu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irthomasthomas|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakewins|4 years ago|reply
I wrote up a summary of the big picture emissions here last year: https://climate.davis-hansson.com/p/big-picture-2020/
[+] [-] Gravityloss|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HPsquared|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jackyinger|4 years ago|reply
To me this is a very interesting and damning fact with regards to current dominant agricultural practices. Yet another reason that it would be beneficial to further redevelop closed loop nutrient systems. For instance, sewage solids from cites in are sold to farmers for use as fertilizer.
Funnily enough Fritz Haber (who developed the Haber Process used to manufacture ammonia) also developed chemical weapons in WWI. Some people claim he is somewhat redeemed by his contribution to artificial fertilizer. I disagree with this reasoning on several levels.
[+] [-] coolhand2120|4 years ago|reply
If this was human waste wouldn't it have to be treated to remove chemicals viruses? Couldn't you get HEP-A from this process? Seems impractical and dangerous.
[+] [-] octoberfranklin|4 years ago|reply
Seattle tried shipping their shit (literally) to the farmers in Central Washington. Used these trucks that had "loop: turn your dirt around" splashed on the side. Then the farmers decided maybe they ought to test that stuff for PFOA/PFAS before applying it to their most valuable asset.
You don't see those trucks anymore.
[+] [-] rembicilious|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw8932894|4 years ago|reply
Also "Fritz" is very nacy name. And fertilisers can be used as bombs. Very very bad bad!
[+] [-] lcam84|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] missedthecue|4 years ago|reply
My great grandfather was on the front lines in France and was gassed several times. To the day he died you could see the veins in his eyes from that experience, but when I went to the local VFW with him as a child and saw the men with no arms or no legs - the product of boring old TNT and shrapnel - I would always ask myself why we handwave that as the costs of war.
[+] [-] pfdietz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odiroot|4 years ago|reply
That's how we get the next pandemic.
[+] [-] ambericanonion|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elevaet|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] einpoklum|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shroompasta|4 years ago|reply
Surely there are ethical ways to implement it.
Or do the world's largest and wealthiest nations only care for their hold on economic power?
[+] [-] legulere|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lcam84|4 years ago|reply
" . The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people) were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions – depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in those 25 years alone (see Figure 1); • The poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people) were responsible for just 7% of cumulative emissions, and used just 4% of the available carbon budget (see Figure 1); • The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget – twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population (see Figure 1); • The richest 5% (c.315 million people) were responsible for over a third (37%) of the total growth in emissions (see Figure 2), while the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that of the poorest 50% "
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073853/ [2] https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
[+] [-] zarzavat|4 years ago|reply
It turns out you don't need to implement a one child policy: people implement it themselves when the cost of living gets high enough.
[+] [-] bestboy|4 years ago|reply
"In 2022, Earth is overpopulated and totally polluted; the natural resources have been exhausted and the nourishment of the population is provided by Soylent Industries, a company that makes a food [...]"
[+] [-] adrianN|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfdietz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woliveirajr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|4 years ago|reply
[...]
> Or do the world's largest and wealthiest nations only care for their hold on economic power?
It would be very easy for depopulation to be suggested as a solution for climate change without adversely impacting the wealthiest nations (well, I mean, if it was implemented as suggested—actually suggesting it might provoke damaging blowback.)
[+] [-] actually_a_dog|4 years ago|reply