In a industry with high capex and low margins, access to capital is often the deciding factor in competition. Especially for something, as posited in the original article, that "merely" improves process efficiency by 10%. (Order of magnitude would be a different matter.)
Big Chemical might make a huge capex investment to build a new plant. And then some Chinese company eats their lunch, because that Chinese company has access to low-interest loans from a state-owned bank.
This happened in batteries. This happened in solar panels. What's to say it won't happen in ammonia?
I had a roomate who was getting his Master's in industrial process chemistry. He once mentioned that, in fact, in that industry a 10% efficiency improvement was considered a rough standard for which an innovation could become a viable business.
Fertilizer actually has pretty decent margins, especially lately what with cheap natural gas. In any case, I suspect it would behoove whichever company had the necessary access to capital to invest in such tech.
That's temporary. The United States has huge quantities of gas, and cannot export it. Thus, the price of natural gas remains depressed. Everybody else is using expensive gas, so the price doesn't drop.
If enough LNG export terminals get built, that advantage goes away. Our prices will go up, and their prices will go down.
The oil refining industry demonstrates how bad things get in a capital-intensive industry when both the inputs and outputs are fungible. They had flush times, too, in the mid-2000s. That was also temporary.
Big Chemical might make a huge capex investment to build a new plant. And then some Chinese company eats their lunch, because that Chinese company has access to low-interest loans from a state-owned bank.
This happened in batteries. This happened in solar panels. What's to say it won't happen in ammonia?