Hydrogen not as fuel

[cls]

I don't want to interfere with the folks grasping at straws in the "hydrogen as fuel" thread so I'll cause damage with a new thread.

here's a great overview article

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/07/hydrogen-clean-fuel-climate-crisis-explainer

of the actual reality of H2 as fuel for ordinary operations.


choice quotes:

Why all the hype about hydrogen?​

The short answer is that the fossil fuel industry sees hydrogen as a way to keep on drilling and building new infrastructure.

and

Is there a role for hydrogen in a decarbonised future?

Yes, but a limited one – given that it takes more energy to produce, store and transport hydrogen than it provides when converted into useful energy, so using anything but new renewable sources (true green hydrogen) will require burning more fossil fuels.


puts it plainly.

it's a total loss for continuing urban operations. get over it.

however, I am hopeful we will continue to develop niche applications for it, perhaps power and water in remote places (lunar, Mars) ...

 

[cls]

oh this is good. our favorite Sabine explains many problems with H2 on earth



my favorite, at ambient temps less than zero, the water exhaust freezes, duh, why didn't I think of that!? scroll to 13:25 or so.

 

[jderimig]

@cls I like the concept of the anit-topic threads. This way the respective dipolar threads can be kept somewhat pure. Let's see how this works out.

 

[Funkworks]

I don't want to interfere with the folks grasping at straws in the "hydrogen as fuel" thread so I'll cause damage with a new thread.

For the record, you’re making the other thread into something it is not.

Is there a role for hydrogen in a decarbonised future?

Yes, but a limited one – given that it takes more energy to produce, store and transport hydrogen than it provides when converted into useful energy, so using anything but new renewable sources (true green hydrogen) will require burning more fossil fuels.

Identifying roles for H2 was my interest. I’ve said it again and again, and that’s what I’ve been doing. No one talked about grey or blue H2 in there yet. Don’t ask me why. I find the green variety interesting and am looking forward to see how far it will go. (How many plants, what capacity, etc.)

it's a total loss for continuing urban operations. get over it.

Not anything I said, or anyone that I remember. There’s nothing to “get over”.

however, I am hopeful we will continue to develop niche applications for it …

If you come across more niche applications, I welcome them in the other thread, that’s what I’ve trying to collect.

I see a thread like this and wonder: ”what are they worried about?”

 

[jderimig]

@Funkworks In my opinion "green" H2 is not a technology thing. Its just where you plug in your electrolyzers, no?.

 

[Funkworks]

@Funkworks In my opinion "green" H2 is not a technology thing. Its just where you plug in your electrolyzers, no?.

I don't know what that means. If by "plug", you mean "offer for sale", then no, I don't sell electrolyzers, although I am interested in following new industries like that one and see far and where they reach. But even if I did sell electrolyzers, and it seems like a decent gig as much as any other, are you saying people shouldn't be plugging their products online?

If you mean "plug" electrically, literally, I'll need more details.

When I discuss H2, I mean technologies to make H2 and technologies to use H2. I don't have to explain again what "green H2" is conventionally shorthand for. I'm not the one who chose the word. If you want to talk about H2 some other way, I'll need more details to see if I'm interested.

 

[jderimig]

I don't know what that means. If by "plug", you mean "offer for sale", then no, I don't sell electrolyzers, although I am interested in following new industries like that one and see far and where they reach. But even if I did sell electrolyzers, and it seems like a decent gig, are you saying people shouldn't be plugging their products online?

If you mean "plug" electrically, literally, I'll need more details.

When I discuss H2, I mean technologies to make H2 and technologies to use H2. I don't have to explain again what "green" is shorthand for. I'm not the one who chose the word. If you want to talk about H2 some other way, I'll need more details to see if I'm interested.

What I meant is:

H2 is produced by electrolysis, electricity in -> H2 out. In my humble opinion there is no such thing as a green electrolyzer. There is green electricity. But the electrolysis machine doesn't know or care about where the electricity comes from.

As far as 'new' H2 tech, there isn't any. There is hype about H2 being able to contribute to a lower CO2 future, but that is disproven once any science and engineering analysis is done on the cycle. In fact, all the paths to this alternate H2 production produces more CO2 than less.

 

[Funkworks]

I don't know what "green" means unless it's defined and in the context of H2, it's always defined along the lines of "produced from renewable sources (such as wind, solar, hydro, geo etc.)". Here's one explanation but you'll find something similar on many other websites of your choice:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/
"... there isn't any (H2 tech)".

Look, when Toyota makes a hydrogen powered car like the Mirai, it's not by hiring drama actors. There are people who spend their professional lives in H2 and that's perfectly fine. I'm not interested in the "hype about H2 being able to contribute to a lower CO2 future", but you and a few others keep bringing it up. Not me.

I like to know how H2 tech works and where it has niches, and if someone wants to use electrolysis to make their H2, I have 0 reasons to try stopping them.

It's like I was saying:

"I like to play the guitar"
And you replied with "guitars will never be the only instrument, so give it up".

"I like short and stubby rockets!"
Reply: "Short and stubby rockets will never be commercially viable, don't do it!"

"I like boats!"
Reply: "Boats are proven not to work on roadways, so they won't bring you to the grocery store."

WTH Very strange.

So let's try it again:

"I like H2 production methods and applications!"
Reply: ______________?

 

[jderimig]

I don't know what "green" means unless it's defined and in the context of H2, it's always defined along the lines of "produced from renewable sources (such as wind, solar, hydro, geo etc.)". Here's one explanation but you'll find something similar on many other websites of your choice:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/
"... there isn't any (H2 tech)".

Look, when Toyota makes a hydrogen powered car like the Mirai, it's not by hiring drama actors. There are people who spend their professional lives in H2 and that's perfectly fine. I'm not interested in the "hype about H2 being able to contribute to a lower CO2 future", but you and a few others keep bringing it up. Not me.

I like to know how H2 tech works and where it has niches, and if someone wants to use electrolysis to make their H2, I have 0 reasons to try stopping them.

It's like I was saying:

"I like to play the guitar", and you replied with "guitars will never be the only instrument, so give it up".

"I like short and stubby rockets!"
Reply: "Short and stubby rockets will never be commercially viable, don't do it!"

"I like boats!"
Reply: "Boats are proven not to work on roadways, so they won't bring you to the grocery store."

WTH Very strange.

Well you ARE in the "not hydrogen" thread.....

 

[Funkworks]

Well you ARE in the "not hydrogen" thread.....

I don't know what that means either, but, if someone can teach me something about "not H2" in here, hey, I might drop by and see what's up.

 

[jqavins]

FWIW, I've only very recently heard any of the hydrogen colors except green - meaning that electrolysis is powered by wind, solar, hydro, or some such. So when I saw the title "Colors of Hydrogen" on a Periodic Videos video I went to see what that was about: solidified hydrogen in different solid phases yielding different colors maybe?

So for the benefit of anybody else as ignorant as I was, here's the link:


And for anyone who doesn't know the Periodic Videos in general, it's a YouTube channel of chemistry videos by a wild-haired university professor and his grad students. Here's that link; go enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/@periodicvideos

 

[aerostadt]

As so many others have pointed out hydrogen is not a game changer when it comes to energy. The only way it is "green" is if it made with solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power. As a combustible fuel its density is too low. Compressing it helps some, but it is still troublesome. Liquefying hydrogen works for rockets, nothing else. Absorbing it into a porous metal matrix helps some, but so far it has not been a game changer. Actually, for automobile fuel it is hard to beat gasoline for density (and, hence, mileage). Ethanol is not dense compared to gasoline. Even Scientific American has had articles that show making ethanol from U.S. agriculture products for car-fuel is not economical. Making ethanol from sugar cane in South America appears to be working.

 

[jderimig]

If you are throwing away half your energy input to make H2 then combusting it at 33% efficiency (best gas CCGT) then you net lose 83.5% of your source energy before storage, transportation and compression (another huge energy sink) is factored in. You can carbon capture CO2 from nat gas with much much less energy loss. H2 makes no sense.

 

[cwbullet]

If you are throwing away half your energy input to make H2 then combusting it at 33% efficiency (best gas CCGT) then you net lose 83.5% of your source energy before storage, transportation and compression (another huge energy sink) is factored in. You can carbon capture CO2 from nat gas with much much less energy loss. H2 makes no sense.

That and H2 is rare and require significant energy input to make it.

 

[Funkworks]

… The only way it is "green" is if it made with solar, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.

That is quite precisely the definition of “green hydrogen”. (Except for nuclear-produced H2 , which is called “pink hydrogen”).

The cost of H2 depends on where it’s made, how far it has to be distributed and at what scale it’s produced.

It’s actually amazing how easily some people get triggered and try to dismiss it before even looking at pros and cons for different contexts.

 

[aerostadt]

If you are throwing away half your energy input to make H2 then combusting it at 33% efficiency (best gas CCGT) then you net lose 83.5% of your source energy before storage, transportation and compression (another huge energy sink) is factored in. You can carbon capture CO2 from nat gas with much much less energy loss. H2 makes no sense.

Good Point! This really rules out hydrogen as a good combustion fuel. If cheap reliable fuel-cells were in existence, then the argument for hydrogen becomes better. I look around and I don't see fuel-cells being used in every day life. They are used by NASA in the space program. So many green technologies are predicted for the future, but it is not clear when they are coming. However, the Green New Dealers are saying go cold turkey now. That is really a very bad idea.

 

[Funkworks]

… This really rules out hydrogen as a good combustion fuel. If cheap reliable fuel-cells were in existence, then the argument for hydrogen becomes better. I look around and I don't see fuel-cells being used in every day life…

“There are more than 50,000 hydrogen fuel cell electric forklifts already operating across the country. These forklifts can be refueled in minutes and require less maintenance, which is why many major retailers around the country are using them to enhance warehouse productivity.”

And a lot more in here:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/glimpse-hydrogen-transportation

 

[aerostadt]

“There are more than 50,000 hydrogen fuel cell electric forklifts already operating across the country. These forklifts can be refueled in minutes and require less maintenance, which is why many major retailers around the country are using them to enhance warehouse productivity.”

I just Googled "operating fork lifts in America". The answer was 850,000 fork lifts. Progress may be coming, but it is not here, yet.

 

[jderimig]

“There are more than 50,000 hydrogen fuel cell electric forklifts already operating across the country. These forklifts can be refueled in minutes and require less maintenance, which is why many major retailers around the country are using them to enhance warehouse productivity.”

And a lot more in here:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/glimpse-hydrogen-transportation

Yup, all using gray hydrogen split from natural gas. Good use of indoor tech. Propane still smells.

 

[Joekeyo]

I get it. Any fuel that requires more energy to produce than it can produce is a failed proposition.

 

[cls]

I like to know how H2 tech works and where it has niches, and if someone wants to use electrolysis to make their H2, I have 0 reasons to try stopping them.

ok, great! thanks for explaining your pov and motivation.

I was wrong, seemed as if you were in favor of "H2 everywhere". it would have helped if you acknowledged the poor total cycle efficiency.


oh yeah, nuclear reactors can make hydrogen directly, it's called tritium. ha ha.

 

[cls]

“There are more than 50,000 hydrogen fuel cell electric forklifts already operating across the country.

around here (SF Bay Area) I see many fuel cell buses, mostly on common local routes.

 

[rocket_troy]

I get it. Any fuel that requires more energy to produce than it can produce is a failed proposition.

No, there are many nuisances to that. Generating the power and storing the energy for mobilisation are 2 very difference things. For example: you might have an abundance of solar power generation but you need some of that energy for transport. The obvious solution is to utilise batteries, but there might be circumstances that require the energy to be converted into a chemical fuel. The reason might be customer preference like a short filling time or other convenience factors or mass constraints.
As we all know, any fuel that's *produced* whether by us humans or by nature over millennia will *always* require more energy to produce than it yields; which is a trivial point for fossil fuels, but an important point for completely manufactured fuels. We have to accept the laws of thermodynamics, so the utility becomes a case of economic considerations such as how significant is the difference between energy in vs energy out vs convenience and utilisation.

TP

 

[kramer714]

If you are throwing away half your energy input to make H2 then combusting it at 33% efficiency (best gas CCGT) then you net lose 83.5% of your source energy before storage, transportation and compression (another huge energy sink) is factored in. You can carbon capture CO2 from nat gas with much much less energy loss. H2 makes no

Ok, some good / bad / mistaken assumptions on here. Let me hit a few of them. BTW I work in hydrogen aviation.

So let me start with the statement that ‘Hydrogen is the answer” , no but hydrogen is part of the answer if the question is how do we ween off of using fuels that at best are sort of clean but release CO2 (Natural Gas) and at worse release a lot of C02 and lots of really bad stuff too (Coal)... without increasing cost. Just hitting the high points…

• Hydrogen is a way of STORING energy

Hydrogen works well for storing energy. It can be created many ways, for the work I am doing we are really focusing on using electricity and creating hydrogen using high temperature gigawatt size electrolyzers. Looking at the efficiency of small hydrogen generators and talking about the poor efficiency is like looking at a small gas generator to power your house vs using the grid. The efficiencies that I look at are the 'ballance of plant' , think putting a fence around the plant and measure EVERYTHING that goes in and compare that to EVERYTHING that goes out. pumps compressors cooling everything. These large scale electrolizers are around 80% efficient.

Where does the power come from? Solar and wind have peaks, at 2:00 in the after noon in the summer, electricity cost drops very low, plus many of the baseload power systems can not be just turned off for a few hours each afternoon. Creating a way to store the power actually helps people with solar panels by increasing the rate they get for ‘selling’ excess power during the day and buying it back at night.

Other sources that need ‘time / day’ shifting are hydro and geothermal power, plus nuclear.

Efficiency – Electrolysis

• Hydrogen is a way of MOVING energy

It is cheaper to turn wind power in Kansas into hydrogen, pipe it to California and then turn it back into electricity than to just feed it into the grid. Yes, it is. Couple of reasons for this, it isn’t cheep to build power lines and maintain them. Hydrogen pumps really well, uses significantly less energy to pump than natural gas. The losses in large power transmission lines and ‘converting equipment’ are not trivial.

One other thing that needs to be thought of with electrical power is how do you maintain a supply as the demand constantly is changing. Power plants cant just ramp up and down for quick peaks this results in the grid being over supplied, with additional losses.

A pipeline acts like an accumulator with changes in supply pressure acting like a storage tank, oh and you can add storage tanks.

Renewable energy transport via hydrogen pipelines and HVDC transmission lines

• Hydrogen is a way of creating electricity

Hydrogen can be used to create electricity. This can be done ‘old school’ burn it in a turbine just like we do for natural Gas, GE LM60000 is a 40 MW turbine. Less Nox than burning Natural Gas, much cleaner than burning ‘oil’. Large scale higher temperature fuel cells are coming up but they currently are not cost effective (getting closer) with a turbine, good for point of use or smaller systems. Again these are multi MW systems.

ge gas power hydrogen

• Hydrogen is a way of Creating ‘stuff’

Making ‘stuff’ can require heat or electrical power. Making steel does require coal (for the carbon in the steel) but also requires considerable heat for other processes, burning hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas, additional coal, or oil works. Making concrete (big contributor to greenhouse gasses) uses a lot of heat.

Many industrial processes use heat directly or steam for processing, doesn't matter if you are making plastics (yup they consume carbon but need heat for processing), or cookies, heat is an important ‘commodity’

Forbes - Hydrogen Should Be Focused On Cement And Steel, Not Cars

• Hydrogen is a way of making food

In 2022 the US made 13 million metric tones of ammonia, some went to making AP, but most of it went to making fertilizer with most of it made from natural gas, using high temperature steam (also made from natural gas!) to strip the hydrogen from methane and then combine it with nitrogen. Skip a step and use hydrogen as the feed stock not natural gas. Hydrogen goes to ammonia goes to making food.

Hydrogen to Ammonia - Final Report

• Hydrogen is a way of moving stuff

Yes you can move stuff with hydrogen. Im working aircraft between 70,000 lb and 250,000 lbs (large turboprop sized to A321 / 767 sized). No carbon just steam (and yes a little bit of Nox but significantly less than Jet Fuel). This is where ½ of all the CO2 from aviation comes from. Today the cost of hydrogen for aircraft is cost effective with jet fuel.

Long distance trucks area great application for hydrogen, using fuel cells and a small battery (think Prius not Tesla), the installation is very weight competitive with diesel. Refueling times an the order of 15 minutes plus can be used for cooling (refrigerated trailers) plus keeping the cabin comfortable. These truck are used more like trains, going from depot to depot on a regular route daily. Easy to add the infrastructure. Fuel cells are more efficient than diesel engines, plus with a battery they avoid the idling time that many trucks currently have. More than offsets the energy lost in converting electricity and compressing the hydrogen.

As pointed out already, forklfts using hydrogen fuel cells are all ready a thing. Fueled in a few minutes vs overnight for batteries. Yes you can charge them in 30 minute but that significantly reduces the life of the battery. Plus if you would need to either change out the batteries (not trivial on a fork lift) or have more forklifts to support operations (costly). See all the solar panels on top of logistic warehouses? they don't need that much power but they can generate the hydrogen they need for the forklifts.

Trains are another example, already diesel – electric, can use fuel cells or turbines burning hydrogen.

NOVAdev - Earth Friendly Flight

Kenworth - Toyota FCEV Truck

hydrogen, not THE answer but certainly a viable part of the overall plan.

Mike (Hydrogen is the day job) K

 

[kramer714]

Couple of other things to think about,

How much energy did it take to drill for, pump crude, transport to a refinery, refine, transport to the end user and pump gas (or diesel, or jet fuel). It is a false equivalence to talk about the efficiency of producing hydrogen without factoring the efficiency of producing gas, diesel, or jet fuel.

Hydrogen does have lower energy density (energy / volume) than gasoline, even as a high pressure gas or liquid BUT it has a higher specific energy (energy / weight)- it takes up more volume, but has over 3 times the energy by weight. 13 lbs of hydrogen give a Toyota Murai car 400 miles range. A Corrola has a 13.3 gallon tank (82 lbs), range of 440 mile. when you compare hydrogen to gasoline you need to factor the efficiency,

 

[jderimig]

Ok, some good / bad / mistaken assumptions on here. Let me hit a few of them. BTW I work in hydrogen aviation.

So let me start with the statement that ‘Hydrogen is the answer” , no but hydrogen is part of the answer if the question is how do we ween off of using fuels that at best are sort of clean but release CO2 (Natural Gas) and at worse release a lot of C02 and lots of really bad stuff too (Coal)... without increasing cost. Just hitting the high points…

• Hydrogen is a way of STORING energy

Hydrogen works well for storing energy. It can be created many ways, for the work I am doing we are really focusing on using electricity and creating hydrogen using high temperature gigawatt size electrolyzers. Looking at the efficiency of small hydrogen generators and talking about the poor efficiency is like looking at a small gas generator to power your house vs using the grid. The efficiencies that I look at are the 'ballance of plant' , think putting a fence around the plant and measure EVERYTHING that goes in and compare that to EVERYTHING that goes out. pumps compressors cooling everything. These large scale electrolizers are around 80% efficient.

Where does the power come from? Solar and wind have peaks, at 2:00 in the after noon in the summer, electricity cost drops very low, plus many of the baseload power systems can not be just turned off for a few hours each afternoon. Creating a way to store the power actually helps people with solar panels by increasing the rate they get for ‘selling’ excess power during the day and buying it back at night.

Other sources that need ‘time / day’ shifting are hydro and geothermal power, plus nuclear.

Efficiency – Electrolysis

• Hydrogen is a way of MOVING energy

It is cheaper to turn wind power in Kansas into hydrogen, pipe it to California and new your and turn it back into electricity than to just feed it into the grid. Yes, it is. Couple of reasons for this, it isn’t cheep to build power lines and maintain them. Hydrogen pumps really well, uses significantly less energy to pump than natural gas. The losses in large power transmission lines and ‘converting equipment’ are not trivial.

One other thing that needs to be thought of with electrical power is how do you maintain a supply as the demand constantly is changing. Power plants cant just ramp up and down for quick peaks this results in the grid being over supplied, with additional losses.

A pipeline acts like an accumulator with changes in supply pressure acting like a storage tank, oh and you can add storage tanks.

Renewable energy transport via hydrogen pipelines and HVDC transmission lines

• Hydrogen is a way of creating electricity

Hydrogen can be used to create electricity. This can be done ‘old school’ burn it in a turbine just like we do for natural Gas, GE LM60000 is a 40 MW turbine. Less Nox than burning Natural Gas, much cleaner than burning ‘oil’. Large scale higher temperature fuel cells are coming up but they currently are not cost effective (getting closer) with a turbine, good for point of use or smaller systems. Again these are multi MW systems.

ge gas power hydrogen

• Hydrogen is a way of Creating ‘stuff’

Making ‘stuff’ can require heat or electrical power. Making steel does require coal (for the carbon in the steel) but also requires considerable heat for other processes, burning hydrogen as a replacement for natural gas, additional coal, or oil works. Making concrete (big contributor to greenhouse gasses) uses a lot of heat.

Many industrial processes use heat directly or steam for processing, doesn't matter if you are making plastics (yup they consume carbon but need heat for processing), or cookies, heat is an important ‘commodity’

Forbes - Hydrogen Should Be Focused On Cement And Steel, Not Cars

• Hydrogen is a way of making food

In 2022 the US made 13 million metric tones of ammonia, some went to making AP, but most of it went to making fertilizer with most of it made from natural gas, using high temperature steam (also made from natural gas!) to strip the hydrogen from methane and then combine it with nitrogen. Skip a step and use hydrogen as the feed stock not natural gas. Hydrogen goes to ammonia goes to making food.

Hydrogen to Ammonia - Final Report

• Hydrogen is a way of moving stuff

Yes you can move stuff with hydrogen. Im working aircraft between 70,000 lb and 250,000 lbs (large turboprop sized to A321 / 767 sized). No carbon just steam (and yes a little bit of Nox but significantly less than Jet Fuel). This is where ½ of all the CO2 from aviation comes from. Today the cost of hydrogen for aircraft is cost effective with jet fuel.

Long distance trucks area great application for hydrogen, using fuel cells and a small battery (think Prius not Tesla), the installation is very weight competitive with diesel. Refueling times an the order of 15 minutes plus can be used for cooling (refrigerated trailers) plus keeping the cabin comfortable. These truck are used more like trains, going from depot to depot on a regular route daily. Easy to add the infrastructure. Fuel cells are more efficient than diesel engines, plus with a battery they avoid the idling time that many trucks currently have. More than offsets the energy lost in converting electricity and compressing the hydrogen.

As pointed out already, forklfts using hydrogen fuel cells are all ready a thing. Fueled in a few minutes vs overnight for batteries. Yes you can charge them in 30 minute but that significantly reduces the life of the battery. Plus if you would need to either change out the batteries (not trivial on a fork lift) or have more forklifts to support operations (costly). See all the solar panels on top of logistic warehouses? they don't need that much power but they can generate the hydrogen they need for the forklifts.

Trains are another example, already diesel – electric, can use fuel cells or turbines burning hydrogen.

NOVAdev - Earth Friendly Flight

Kenworth - Toyota FCEV Truck

hydrogen, not THE answer but certainly a viable part of the overall plan.

Mike (Hydrogen is the day job) K

I think Big Nuke + Hydrogen is probably the only feasible way to decarbonize air travel and moving freight. This will probably happen when the oil reserves start to dry up.

 

[kramer714]

I think Big Nuke + Hydrogen is probably the only feasible way to decarbonize air travel and moving freight. This will probably happen when the oil reserves start to dry up.

SMALL nuke and an elctrolizer, combined heat and power for 'baseload hydrogen' Dow chemical is buying thier own SMR for something like this.

DOW- SMR

 

[jderimig]

Couple of other things to think about,

How much energy did it take to drill for, pump crude, transport to a refinery, refine, transport to the end user and pump gas (or diesel, or jet fuel). It is a false equivalence to talk about the efficiency of producing hydrogen without factoring the efficiency of producing gas, diesel, or jet fuel.

Good point. But the first one is the energy investment to produce energy. The second is the conversion losses of energy. The first is a net gain, the second is a net loss.

 

[jderimig]

SMALL nuke and an elctrolizer, combined heat and power for 'baseload hydrogen' Dow chemical is buying thier own SMR for something like this.

DOW- SMR

Some might argue its better to put the output of that SMR into the grid and reduce fossil fuel use instead of throwing 20% to 50% of it away making H2. Not me.

 

[boatgeek]

Another option to consider is that hydrogen (and/or ammonia) production for fuel or fertilizer can be a solution to the problem of stranded wind. "Stranded wind" refers to places where there's great wind resources but little grid infrastructure to take power from wind turbines to market. Putting up a windmill with a hydrogen electrolyser/ammonia plant can be a solution. You don't need continuous service, just a truck coming by every few days to pick up the product. You do need some water resources in the area for this option to work, but it's an option as part of a larger system.

When used for ammonia, there's the added benefit that stranded wind resources are often in farming areas so you're spending less effort to ship fertilizer from the fertilizer plant to the end user.