Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Nihil

(13,508 posts)

11. That used to be a good idea but now? Not so much ...

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 24, 2016, 08:52 AM

Feb 2016

At least, not until the quantities of pharmaceutical products & by-products
is seriously reduced from the urine of the humans concerned.

Take out all the added (mostly artificial) crap from the urine (pun intended)
and it will once more become a sensible (and ecologically friendly) use of
what is currently just a polluted waste product.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Nitrogen Problem [View all] progressoid Feb 2016 OP

This is only a yuuuge challenge if we want to feed 9-10 billion people by 2050. GliderGuider Feb 2016 #1

That's what I was thinking. The real solution is not to HAVE 9-10 billion people. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2016 #2

The problem I see... NeoGreen Feb 2016 #3

Can I ask where that quote is from? nt NickB79 Feb 2016 #5

From the character... NeoGreen Feb 2016 #10

Fixing Nitrogen is late 1800 technology happyslug Feb 2016 #4

Actually, there’s a pretty good source of potassium and phosphorus available without mining OKIsItJustMe Feb 2016 #6

That was a traditional source of both materials, but not the MAIN source today. happyslug Feb 2016 #7

That used to be a good idea but now? Not so much ... Nihil Feb 2016 #11

Oh, I don’t know OKIsItJustMe Feb 2016 #14

Spark fixation of nitrogen was never a viable process. NNadir Feb 2016 #16

Actually Frank–Caro process is economically viable but the Haber system is just cheaper to operate. happyslug Feb 2016 #17

The title of your post borders on an oxymoron. NNadir Feb 2016 #18

Please better define "an evidence based approach". kristopher Feb 2016 #8

Ask the author. progressoid Feb 2016 #9

... because an academic neurologist is obviously the best critic of agricultural systems ... Nihil Feb 2016 #13

Screw that load of GMO apologia and address the real problem. Nihil Feb 2016 #12

Good luck with that. progressoid Feb 2016 #15