“Liquid hydrogen tankers are cheaper, but there is a considerable energy and cost penalty associated with liquefaction (currently >30% of hydrogen’s energy content is required to liquefy it),” the Energy Department observed. They reached the same conclusion for liquefied hydrogen. The agency also noted that truck and rail alternatives were available, but were relatively expensive. That was a prescient observation considering the opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline and other fossil energy pipelines in recent years. The Energy Department surmised that new purpose-built pipelines for hydrogen transportation would not be in the cards, at least not during the early years of the expanding hydrogen market. In 2006, the Energy Department published a white paper in which it explained why ammonia is worth pursuing, rather than transporting hydrogen alone. The challenge is how to crack the hydrogen off when it’s needed, economically and efficiently. The US Department of Energy is among those eyeing ammonia for improving the cost-efficiency of hydrogen storage and transportation. An inexpensive, efficient, and sustainable transportation medium would fill the gap, and apparently green ammonia is first in line. Getting hydrogen from one place to another adds costs. The dream of a global economy powered by renewable hydrogen is coming into sharper focus, except for one key sticking point.

Making crack with ammonia video