Slightly weird is that methanol is correctly introduced as being generated from either biomass, or (potentially in the future) Direct Air Capture of CO2 and spare H2. But then subsequently, methanol is [always described](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqupcBoH3hQ&t=1429s) as being dependent on [“cheap clean Hydrogen and abundant air-captured CO2”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqupcBoH3hQ&t=979s) to be “truly green”.
Ammonia is introduced as being generated by “combining green hydrogen and nitrogen”, with all other coverage around the practicalities. If I didn’t know better, it seems like the fact that ammonia doesn’t contain any carbon molecules is giving it some kind of free pass, when we intellectually know that carbon in the energy carrier doesn’t matter for global warming, only net carbon dioxide and other GHGs.
1 Comment
Slightly weird is that methanol is correctly introduced as being generated from either biomass, or (potentially in the future) Direct Air Capture of CO2 and spare H2. But then subsequently, methanol is [always described](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqupcBoH3hQ&t=1429s) as being dependent on [“cheap clean Hydrogen and abundant air-captured CO2”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqupcBoH3hQ&t=979s) to be “truly green”.
Ammonia is introduced as being generated by “combining green hydrogen and nitrogen”, with all other coverage around the practicalities. If I didn’t know better, it seems like the fact that ammonia doesn’t contain any carbon molecules is giving it some kind of free pass, when we intellectually know that carbon in the energy carrier doesn’t matter for global warming, only net carbon dioxide and other GHGs.
No EROEI comparison, either.