<DrumBeat: September 29, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat: September 30, 2006>

91 comments on Ammonia and Biofuels

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on September 29, 2006 - 11:05am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I attended an excellent presentation at HydroVision about the Grand Inga hydroproject.  Basically a massive 44 GW (44,000 MW) "run-of-river" scheme (storage for daily/weekly peaks but not seasonal).

The Congo River has uniquely stable flow since half of the watershed is north of the equator and the other half south.  Still, the weekly minimal flow is half the maximum weekly flow.  The year to year variation is also small.

The primary use of Grand Inga would be, with existing & planned hydro projects and massive HV DC lines in all directions to provide basically all of Africa's electricity from renewable sources.  Perhaps some exports to Spain & Italy.

However, there would surplus power at times (why build a 2,000 km power line for peak use 10% of the time) and the production of ammonia is likely.

The capital cost and labor costs for a plant that is used half the time is acceptable IF the power is extremely cheap (8 euros per MWh was hypothesized).  But at much less than 50% load factor, it appears that it would be cheaper to let the water just spill and the world loses this renewable resource.

The economics of an ammonia plant in Africa in a failed state are different than in the US, but the fact remains that ammonia production capacity factor needs to be relatively high.  (Skilled workforce has to be kept on payroll regardless of production).

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on September 29, 2006 - 11:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Big dams have tended to be a disaster for the indigenous people and the ecosystem.  Even if you don't care about that, you would face decades of desparate opposition.  Africa is not China, nor is it Northern Quebec.

Just the carbon release from the flooded rainforest alone would probably offset much of the benefit in the short term.

Better to build a series of smaller dams-- which is what the British proposed for Aswan, but Nasser wanted a great big dam and all of the attendant prestige.  So we got 'Lake Nasser' and some of the world's most precious archaeological sites were flooded, forever.  And there is massive evaporation, salt destruction of the temples at Luxor, etc.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on September 29, 2006 - 1:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A stereotype of "big dams" without looking at specifics.

Grand Inga could produce the equilavent of 40 or so nuclear plants.  Provide a stable power supply without greenhouse emmissions.  Equal to roughly the entire world's installed windpower ! Get an entire continent on renewables !!

Inga I & II and been in operation for decades.  Marginal additional rainforest covered with Grand Inga.

The smaller dams have been built, Inga I & II (II is being expanded, new turbines added).

Grand Inga could supply power when droughts reduce supply in smaller river systems.  Total rainfall will not decline with global warming, but increase.  And an Africa wide grid (Africa is second largest continent) of local hydro and Grand Inga should be quite stable with global warming.

About 120 years of hydrology data.  Rainfall from two seperate systems that are mirror images of each other make a best case for Grand Inga.

I reject your criticism.  Perfect appears to be the only acceptable solution for you.  

Grand Inga seems as close to perfect as any unrealized real world solution that I have seen.  (Niagara Falls hydro, 4 GW, is best energy source in the world IMO).  Massive positive gains with minimal downside.  A good % of world's nitrogen fertilizer as a side benefit (think reduced NG use and less global warming).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on September 29, 2006 - 1:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It would be good to read something on it.  I know nothing about the specific project.

I am just a sceptic of that kind of megaproject. The outcomes tend to fall short of the promises.  Usually there was a less grand, less risky strategy that could have been applied as I cited re the Nile.

The drought problem remains. Maybe the world's rainfall goes up, maybe Africa's rainfall is stable/ goes up.  Maybe.

I am prejudiced on Niagara (or rather St. Lawrence Power which was kind of a grandson).  My father built a part of it ;-), and my parents met there ;-).  

Probably Churchill Falls was an even bigger success, but marred by the fact that Newfoundland signed an agreement with Quebec that had no CPI price escalator.  Quebec Hydro has been banking billions on that deal ever since.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
brutus on September 29, 2006 - 1:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well the problem with this are too numerous to list, but the largest and  severest one is this is the thinking that has put us where we are -- we're going to remake the earth -- and it's certainly not going to get us out.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nagorak on September 30, 2006 - 6:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I actually tend to disagree with this.  The problem we have is due to our unintentional impact on the Earth.  We have operated in a damaging fashion because we haven't looked at the large scale impacts of our actions.  If we accepted our ability to effect the environment that would be a step in the right direction.  No matter what we're going to impact the Earth, if we try to do so with an eye on the big picture, and how we can change things for the better, we stand to do much better than we currently are doing.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on September 29, 2006 - 2:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Aswan was before my time, but my understanding is that the key to building a high dam was not prestige but irrigation.  

Lake Nasser significantly increased arable acreage in Eygpt (vague memories of 1/3 & 40%) and removing the annual flooding allowed double cropping on existing farmland.  Farmland, not prestige or electrical power, was, AFAIK, the motivation for the Aswan High Dam and all of the negative effects.

You missed one of, if not the most important negative.  The Nile delta fisheries were destroyed.

If Egypt thought that the negatives exceeded the positives, they could raise & lower Lake Nasser with the annual flood or just destroy the dam.

Again, vague memories of facts.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on September 29, 2006 - 11:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
PS building a dam on the bet that Africa continues to have regular rains is a very long bet that global warming doesn't entirely change the picture.

The Amazon is facing 3 years of drought.  Estimates are at least 1/3rd of that is because of loss of green cover-- the water recycling mechanism is broken.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on September 29, 2006 - 9:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The problem I can see is that power is spotty but you want the NH3 plant to run 24/7.  This indicates that some kind of hydrogen storage is desirable.  Would it be feasible to use e.g. deep aquifers or spent gas wells as long-term storage for gaseous hydrogen?  Would the economics of the electrolysis be seriously affected by low capacity factors?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on September 30, 2006 - 2:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As long as we're dreaming of $100 billion worth of turbines we could just add some more with some H2 liquefiers.  Would just be cheaper to shut down some of the NH3 capacity though.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.