GREEN AMMONIA AND GREEN HYDROGEN: A QUALITATIVE MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
By: Hilarion G. San Diego, Chief Economist, August 5, 2024
Green ammonia and green hydrogen are both considered clean energy carriers for the future. This paper answers the questions about how the two are the same and how the two are different, moving forward.
Similarities (Principal Components Analysis)
The principal components are production method, zero carbon emissions, energy storage, and versatility.
The first area of consideration is the production method. Both are considered “green” when they are produced using renewable energy sources like wind or solar power.
The second area of consideration is zero-carbon emissions. When both are used as fuels, neither one produces direct carbon dioxide emissions during combustion.
The third area of consideration is energy storage: Both can act as energy storage mediums, allowing excess renewable energy to be stored for later use.
The fourth area of consideration is versatility: Both can be used in various applications beyond just electricity production.
Differences (Factorial Analysis)
Their differences are circumscribed by their respective chemical compositions, energy density, infrastructure requirements, safety, electricity production methods, relative efficiency in electricity production, and the current technological readiness of both energy carriers, green hydrogen and green ammonia.
The first area of consideration is their respective chemical compositions.
Green hydrogen (H2) is the simplest element, consisting of two hydrogen atoms.
Green ammonia (NH3) is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen.
The second area of consideration is energy density.
Ammonia has a higher energy density by volume compared to hydrogen, making it easier to store and transport. This is a vote in favor of green ammonia. Backed by the Royal Society.
The third area of consideration is infrastructure requirements.
Hydrogen requires specialized infrastructure for storage and transport due to its low density and high flammability.
Ammonia can use existing infrastructure for storage and transport, as it is already widely used in industry. This is another vote in favor of ammonia.
The fourth area of consideration is safety.
Hydrogen is highly flammable and can be explosive if not handled properly.
Ammonia is toxic and corrosive but less flammable than hydrogen.
To conclude, both have downside risks, so just choose your poison.
The fifth area of consideration is electricity production methods.
Hydrogen can be used directly in fuel cells or combusted in gas turbines.
Ammonia can be combusted in modified gas turbines or used in solid oxide fuel cells after cracking into hydrogen.
In the end, it goes down to another case of cost-benefit analysis.
The sixth area of consideration is efficiency in electricity production.
Hydrogen generally has higher efficiency when used in fuel cells.
Ammonia may have lower overall efficiency due to the energy required for cracking or the need for specialized turbines.
Thus, it is a tradeoff between the generic benefits of transport and storage versus the benefits of efficiency that are specific to electricity production.
The seventh area is the current technological readiness.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology is more mature for electricity production.
Ammonia combustion turbines are still in development stages.
Thus, hydrogen is the accessible option as of today.
To emphasize, both green hydrogen and green ammonia have potential as future fuels for electricity production, each with its own advantages and challenges. The choice between them may depend on factors such as existing infrastructure, specific application requirements, and advancements in technology.
On the question of how we get here, the answer is that we are getting as far as we have because the World Hydrogen Council is navigating and steering.
With respect to the question of who benefits and who loses? One cannot help conclude that it is a zero-sum game between natural gas and Russia on the one hand and Europe and the USA on the other hand.
Towards climate neutrality and sustainability leadership
Antonio A. Ver, November 3, 2022, Revised October 3, 2023,Fort Bonifacio, Metro Manila, Philippines.
“Wind power, nuclear power, hydro power, ocean power, solar power, and geothermal are the energy sources with the lowest life-cycle emissions, which include deployment and operations.” (Wikipedia).
Situationer:
The Independent Electricity Market Operator of the Philippines (IEMOP) on October 18, 2022, reported the average electricity market price in September for Luzon and Visayas at Php12 per kilowatt hour (kWh) as compared to the previous month’s Php7.26/kWh.
After accounting for all bilateral and spot market transactions, the effective settlement price for September stood at Php9.16/kWh, the highest for the year.
During an online briefing, officials said average demand rose by 1.47 percent or 154 megawatts (MW) to 10,639 MW, while average supply was reduced by 4.73 percent or 675 MW to 13,599MW due to generator outages. (October 24, 2022).
In September, the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines declared the Luzon grid under red alert status due to major generation inadequacy. A total of 3,401MW were on unplanned outage, and three generating units had a total deration of 226MW. Derated plants are those that are not operating at full capacity.
Thus, total generation from diesel plants accounted for 220 gigawatt hours (GWh), or 2.9 percent of the generation mix, compared to the production of 93 GWh last August.
For coal power plants, the contribution for September was 4,434 GWh (57.6 percent), natural gas at 1,407 GWh (18.3 percent), geothermal at 772 GWh (10 percent), hydro plants at 582 GWh (7.6 percent), variable renewable energy resources (solar and wind) at 172 GWh (2.8 percent), biomass plants at 67 GWh (0.9 percent), and battery energy storage systems at 2 GWh (0.03 percent).” (Energy News, October 24, 2022).
In sum, 60% coal is bad for the environment. Despite the promotion of coal as “fuel of choice” and Clean Coal Technologies (CCT) to support medium to heavy industries, economic growth has been sluggish. Worse, the “Philippines power sector is already at full market price with no subsidies.”
Where do we go?
We aggressively push renewables, mainly solar and tidal power. More than engineering and environment, within business paradigms and models, innovation and technologies must be percolated through incubation where the modus vivendi is building an overarch. This has been my mantra since the late 80’s.
Natural gas takes over. However, combustion needs to be mitigated. Can we build 1,800 MW of CCGT baseload power plants from 2022 to 2037? What are the objectives for FSRU and fuel distribution?
How about investing globally?
A very large regional power player “is modifying its current policy to invest only with very large investment funds or large utilities.”
Energies Global Finance positions a Wealth Management Fund to co-invest in the United Kingdom and EU.
We will go to the Gulf Cooperation Council. We will plant a seed in the United Arab Emirates, the fastest growing RE economy in the Gulf.
The rudiments of the strategy are anchored on creativity in finance and behavioural economics. Permitting and compliance must be sifted. We must know how monies work. We must anticipate how people act and decide on spending.