They plan to produce hydrogen using 163 wind turbines, convert it to ammonia(??) and send it to Germany via ship. What is the environmental concern of shipping ammonia? All is non-binding but there have been protests by the people who will have to live among the 163 wind turbines that were foisted on them without any consultation.
Canada / Germany Hydrogen
- Thread starter tcp71
- Start date
They plan to produce hydrogen using 163 wind turbines, convert it to ammonia(??) and send it to Germany via ship. What is the environmental concern of shipping ammonia? All is non-binding but there have been protests by the people who will have to live among the 163 wind turbines that were foisted on them without any consultation.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It's a ridiculous scheme and I'm sure a black hole for tax dollars, something Newfoundland doesn't have very much of.
Just came across this. Yes it’s a harebrained scheme promoted by certain politicians. Ammonia is NH3. The scheme is to liberate hydrogen from water using electricity. It’s very energy inefficient, so the electricity must be almost free. Politicians seem to think windmill power is free, totally ignoring the capital cost and limited lifespan of windmills. Then through a certain chemical process, with the application of heat and running it across a catalyst, the H2 is combined with nitrogen to form ammonia.
Most commercially produced ammonia is used as fertilizer to release nitrogen to plants. That ammonia is produced economically from natural gas, but the politicians feel that isn't suitable because hydrocarbons are used.
On the other end, presumably in Germany, the ammonia is processed to release N2 from the NH3 where the N2 is burned in turbines to produce electricity. I don’t think it will ever happen. Hopefully it won’t as it sounds like huge amounts of taxpayers dollars will be offered up. The news releases don’t want to burden the sheep with the dollar numbers that will clearly show it would not be economic.
Most commercially produced ammonia is used as fertilizer to release nitrogen to plants. That ammonia is produced economically from natural gas, but the politicians feel that isn't suitable because hydrocarbons are used.
On the other end, presumably in Germany, the ammonia is processed to release N2 from the NH3 where the N2 is burned in turbines to produce electricity. I don’t think it will ever happen. Hopefully it won’t as it sounds like huge amounts of taxpayers dollars will be offered up. The news releases don’t want to burden the sheep with the dollar numbers that will clearly show it would not be economic.
Last edited:
Then again, every single scheme government comes up with that private industry could do on its own is a black hole for tax dollars.
The simple math is that once government is involved, you never get a full dollar’s worth of results for just a dollar.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,501
Another thing that will ensure this doesn't work is energy density. Compress natural gas enough and you get LNG - a liquid - easy to transport.
My understanding is the hydrogen ammonia is 6 X less dense in energy, making transport 6X more than LNG per unit of energy. The sad thing was the Germans wanted to buy Canadian LNG - but they won't do that as Canada is against fossil fuels - in the royal "they" context.
My understanding is the hydrogen ammonia is 6 X less dense in energy, making transport 6X more than LNG per unit of energy. The sad thing was the Germans wanted to buy Canadian LNG - but they won't do that as Canada is against fossil fuels - in the royal "they" context.
Europe really wants to turn the corner and get away from anything to do with natural gas. LNG system is based on burning a substantial amount of gas to drive the liquificaton process, resulting in higher carbon emissions overall per quantity of usable gas at the consumer.
No one says it is free, but a wind turbine sited in a place where there is strong steady wind is one of the cheapest sources of electricity known.
No one says it is free, but a wind turbine sited in a place where there is strong steady wind is one of the cheapest sources of electricity known.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,501
Yes, but most of western Europe has little consistent wind, or consistant sun for solar, hence the reason they went to Canada with hat in hand.
You can use all the wind on Baffin island to produce Ammonia, but you still need to get the Ammonia to Europe, which would cost more than its worth at current energy prices.
There are actually very few places on earth that are economically feasible for renewables given the current technology - meaning cost / ROI wise - not that you can't still do it it just costs more than other types of energy. Interestingly the California desert is one of the best on earth for both wind and solar, and its close to a huge population that can use it - unlike Baffin Island.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,501
I eagerly await your ammonia powered ship design.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That's the claim, anyways. When we look at projects like Ocean Wind however, it seems some of those claims are rather vapid. Offshore wind requires considerable capital (significantly more than onshore) and expensive undersea transmission. The turbines are also higher maintenance.
It would be like the LNG ships that burn part of the cargo for the trip (albeit the gas that was going to boil off anyway). Anything exothermic can power an engine.
>164 wind turbines along the nearby Port au Port Peninsula
It sounds like they will be onshore. Although the sea air is still going to do murder on machinery.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,501
Except it will be 6 times less efficient than LNG, hence they will carry 6 times less energy, and burn 6X more of the volume they carry to make the crossing, than LNG.
Given current technology.
I see Hydrogen as a possible alternate fuel, but the benefit would be it can be created in place where its needed. The breakthrough needs to come on the production side.
Hydrogen is simply a storage medium, not a fuel source. I'll say it again: Ballard Energy has been selling hydrogen since the 1970s and has never been a functional alternative fuel. Between the power and water required to make hydrogen, it is horribly inefficient. Water as your tailpipe emissions don't tell the full story. LNG would be an option, if part deux of the Trudeau NEP wasn't in effect already.
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
Exactly. Just look and think about how many POTUS administrations have occupied the American White House since that neat invention called the USPS came along. Amazing after what ? been around about 150 years and still cant turn a profit and get less efficient each and every day. That does not inspire much confidence in getting the government involved in anything called a business. They are only good at spending other folks monies.
I know nothing about the subject but I see this statement a lot. So educate me but not too much as I don’t think the facts are out there where all the efficiency variables are taken into account, at least not publicly by government.
If hydrogen is a storage medium, how does the efficiency of producing hydrogen compare to the efficiency of producing lithium battery packs per EV vehicle?
As both are considered storage mediums thus would also include constantly charging the lithium battery packs with power plant electricity that is only about 50% efficient.
When I say per vehicle I do mean to include the energy used from starting the mining of compounds needed for lithium batteries, to the refining of those compounds to actual production of the batteries and ultimately to disposal of the batteries.
I also hear about the vast amount of water needed for h2 but what environmental costs and needs take place with the lithium battery storage solutions?
Since these are both storage mediums isnt this s fair question since the production of h2 is mentioned all the time but not the production start to finish of lithium battery packs and the constant need to charge them remotely through the already overtaxed electric grid?
I don’t know this but I’m guessing the lithium powered EV will be more heavy too.
Once that is done also factor into account the inefficiency of electricity production and distribution to the location of where the EV lithium battery will be charged. (which from what I learned in here from members right in this thread is only around 50%.)
I only ask this question because I keep hearing the h2 production is so inefficient and when I hear that I’m always hearing the cost of producing the h2 but I never see the cost compared to everything I just mentioned regarding lithium powered EVs.
I’m not debating nor am I suggesting one method is better than the other. I just keep hearing the negatives of h2 but never the efficiency costs of the lithium “powered” storage medium.
Aren’t these fair questions?
Last edited:
No, you cannot compress methane enough to form a liquid at room temperature. Look at the phase diagram. It must be shipped as a cryogenic liquid.
You will never have cheap ammonia. Besides it’s very toxic.
Fair question. Yes, I have see the same comments on hydrogen, and really they are talking about “ green hydrogen” which is made by running electricity through water.
H2 is not stable in nature so yes, I guess that it is considered a storage medium.
To be fair the total cost of manufacturing the lithium batteries need to be considered. How about the costs of manufacturing the batteries plus the cost of doing all the charging, divided by the expected number of miles that can be cycled through it vs the costs of manufacturing the h2 plus the cost of the storage tank, divided by the same number of miles.
Since the battery back will be almost worthless at the end, this is a fair comparison.
H2 is not stable in nature so yes, I guess that it is considered a storage medium.
To be fair the total cost of manufacturing the lithium batteries need to be considered. How about the costs of manufacturing the batteries plus the cost of doing all the charging, divided by the expected number of miles that can be cycled through it vs the costs of manufacturing the h2 plus the cost of the storage tank, divided by the same number of miles.
Since the battery back will be almost worthless at the end, this is a fair comparison.
What do you mean it is not stable? Hydrogen gas is a stable molecule.
Similar threads
