> So, transporting hydrogen at scale is a problem because even chilled to near absolute zero it's still way less energy dense by volume than liquid LNG.
What about transporting Ammonia .. that's three H and and an N .. different beast.
What about transporting Ammonia .. that's three H and and an N .. different beast.
Shipping ammonia half way around the world with the intention of using it as a fuel doesn't make sense from an efficiency point of view. You loose so much energy creating the hydrogen, transforming it into ammonia, shipping it around, and then turning it back into mechanical or electrical energy, which again is not super efficient. By the time that is done, you are looking at maybe 10% efficient (possibly way less). So, it's a very costly way to move stuff around using ammonia as a fuel. Nice that it works but unlikely to be a preferred solution aside from some niche use cases.
And while ammonia is better then hydrogen in terms of volumetric density. It's still about half of what lng gives. So, you need two ammonia ships for every lng ship to deliver the same amount of energy. That same property also is an issue with bio kerosene vs. ammonia in planes.
Mind you ammonia is an irritating gas and no fun spilled in water at sea .. so, yeah.
The main take home point is that the argument against hydrogen because it's a tiny slippery hard to teansport molecule is a complete furphy - there are other options.