Yes, true in the narrow sense, but it’s misleading, I think, or at least it’s avoiding a really good opportunity to educate people about the role of hydrogen in our industrial processes.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant minutiae. By not mentioning hydrogen but mentioning by natural gas, you reinforce the mistaken impression people have that the process we use to make fertilizers requires fossil fuels in particular. It actually uses hydrogen, which historically was, technically can be (and is today on a modest scale), and in the future likely will be made using electricity.
It also avoids context that the Hydrogen Economy is something we have today, but it’s almost all fossil fuel reliant. So a hydrogen car or hydrogen heating or whatever is not intrinsically fossil-free, not even close.
And ammonia is actually a really good use of hydrogen as the actual process itself uses hydrogen, so unlike for heating, where a Joule of hydrogen gives you the same as a Joule of natural gas for heat, a Joule of hydrogen gives you more ammonia than a Joule of natural gas would. AND you can avoid the capital cost of the on-site steam reforming.
Anyway, I just think such articles should say something like “Fertilizer production, in which nitrogen from the atmosphere is fixed by combining it with hydrogen, is the largest industrial use of hydrogen—almost all of which is today produced on-site from fossil fuels like natural gas.”
Or even just “nitrogen fertilizer, which uses hydrogen usually made from natural gas…”
The idea that hydrogen is largely green but fertilizer intrinsically requires hydrocarbons are two really common misconceptions that we could easily fix by just mentioning “hydrogen” in these news articles.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant minutiae. By not mentioning hydrogen but mentioning by natural gas, you reinforce the mistaken impression people have that the process we use to make fertilizers requires fossil fuels in particular. It actually uses hydrogen, which historically was, technically can be (and is today on a modest scale), and in the future likely will be made using electricity.
It also avoids context that the Hydrogen Economy is something we have today, but it’s almost all fossil fuel reliant. So a hydrogen car or hydrogen heating or whatever is not intrinsically fossil-free, not even close.
And ammonia is actually a really good use of hydrogen as the actual process itself uses hydrogen, so unlike for heating, where a Joule of hydrogen gives you the same as a Joule of natural gas for heat, a Joule of hydrogen gives you more ammonia than a Joule of natural gas would. AND you can avoid the capital cost of the on-site steam reforming.
Anyway, I just think such articles should say something like “Fertilizer production, in which nitrogen from the atmosphere is fixed by combining it with hydrogen, is the largest industrial use of hydrogen—almost all of which is today produced on-site from fossil fuels like natural gas.”
Or even just “nitrogen fertilizer, which uses hydrogen usually made from natural gas…”
The idea that hydrogen is largely green but fertilizer intrinsically requires hydrocarbons are two really common misconceptions that we could easily fix by just mentioning “hydrogen” in these news articles.