Originally posted by Michaeljob
The Haber process is a secondary process to create NH3 once the hydrogen has already been produced.
https://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/equilibria/haber.html
If they wanted to transport hydrogen as NH3 then sure you could run a SMR/Electrolysis/Hazer process to produce H2 then Haber process to produce NH3, transport the NH3 and then reverse the reaction or use the CSIRO membrane to split off the H2 for consumption. The Haber process however is not a cheap process to run and has a high CAPEX requirement largely due to the high pressures involved. The Haber process runs at around 200 atmospheres and 450 degrees C so obviously requires some fairly hefty engineering. It's been in use for decades though so it's very much doable and a well established method.
In terms of transportation LNG makes a crap load more sense, best to simply convert to hydrogen at the point of consumption. The issue however is that at the point of use there may not necessarily be anywhere to sequester the carbon or the consumption point may not be large enough to warrant building a carbon injection facility. For this reason most projects in discussion are opting to split the hydrogen prior to export. Hazer offers a solution that simply stacks up better.
There's another issue though which in my view is why the likes of the Hazer process has not previously appealed for mass adoption. The SMR process is coupled with a secondary reaction known as the water-gas shift reaction. Basically following the chemistry through you have 4 hydrogen atoms from the methane and a further 4 from the water input. So for a molecule of CH4 you get 8 hydrogen atoms (atomic weight 8) as your output plus a bunch of CO2 (atomic weight 44) therefore 5.5 tonnes of C02 per ton of H2.
Steam-methane reforming reaction
CH4 + H2O (+ heat) → CO + 3H2
Water-gas shift reaction
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 (+ small amount of heat)
If carbon emissions were not a problem then the SMR+ WS process comes out ahead of HZR who produce 4 atoms of H2 per molecule of methane. The reality of todays world however is that carbon emissions are an issue and an additional cost. That cost is generally quoted as $100/t or higher so the 5.5 ton produced from the SMR+WS production method will cost say $550 to store.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/19/carbon-capture-expensive-physics/
When the cost of carbon storage is in play this is where the economics shift in favour of HZR as they not only avoid the $100/t to store/sequester the carbon but as we know turn that carbon into a value stream. Now some seem to think that we need to compete with high grade graphite at thousands per ton to get value from the process however the reality is that even rubbish grade graphite morphologies worth just a few hundred per ton shift the economic balance strongly in HZR's favour. Concrete for instance can be strengthened by solid carbon and Hazer could be selling their product at literally the same price as concrete and making sense on an economic and environmental level.
The key enabler for Hazer is the fact that the world now demands carbon accountability, a decade ago this was barely a consideration.
are suggesting an industry use for the natural gas that would be used by Hiringa and currently by the local urea plant.
The intention is to use the Allam Cycle but as I see it this is an inferior process that requires a use for CO2 output (or sequestering in oil wells?)
The promoters are suggesting a $1 billion investment. I cannot see any worthwhile result apart from the energy output from the methane input.
How can they mention this as there is no H2 output other than that used for any excess power generation?
(20min delay)