The Nitrogen Problem

[happyslug]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank%E2%80%93Caro_process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

The electrically based Frank-Caro process was first developed in the 1895 and continued to be used till after WWII with one factory surviving in Norway till 2002. If you have access to cheap electricity, the Frank Caro System is still viable, if you do not then the Haber Process is more cost effective. Norway had cheap electricity do to electrical dams, thus Norway kept up its Frank Caro plant till 2002. By 2002 it was time to rebuild it or tear it down. By 2002 Norway had access to cheap Natural Gas from its own North Sea Gas fields, so rebuilding a Frank Caro plant was never considered.

The Frank Caro process was even used in the US. During WWI, President Wilson proposed a Dam at Muscle Shores Alabama for production of electricity for making ammo using the Frank Caro System. The dam was finished in 1924 and turned over to the TVA in 1934. It never did provide power for any Frank Caro process in the US, but that is why it was built. That dam is now call Wilson Dam and produces electricity for the TVA.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2261.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_Dam

By WWII the US had access to the Haber process and used it during WWII. From Texas Oil fields the US had massive "surplus" of Natural Gas, so adopting the Haber Process was a way to use that excess natural gas starting in the 1920s. The Haber Process is less labor intensive then the Frank Caro Process and uses less actual power, but is based on Natural Gas access. If you have no Natural gas, the Frank Caro process is competitive.

The problem is today, Natural Gas is available in most of the world, either through pipelines or compressed natural gas. Thus the Haber Process dominates the present day production of Nitrates. And in those areas without Natural Gas access, they just find it is cheaper to trade for Nitrates then to build a Frank Caro process plant.

Thus my comment that Nitrogen fixation using electricity has been known since the late 1800s, the Haber System started to replace the older Frank-Caro System during WWI, but the Frank Caro system continued to expand till 1945, it is only after 1945 that the Haber Process replaced rather then supplemented the older Frank Caro process.

As to N20, 62% of all N20 emissions are from natural sources,

http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/nitrous-oxide-sources

N2O is primarily removed from the atmosphere in the stratosphere by photolysis (breakdown by sunlight). This reaction is a primary source of the oxides of nitrogen (in the stratosphere), which play a critical role in controlling the abundance and distribution of stratospheric ozone. A secondary removal process (which accounts for about 10% of removal) is through a reaction with excited oxygen atoms.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/climate_change/pdf/nitrous_oxide_emissions.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_nitrous.cfm

77% of all Human Emissions (30% of all emissions) is tied in with Agriculture. 1/4 of those emissions is just runoff from the fields (7.5% of ALL emissions). This can be addressed by ordering farmers NOT to plant right up to any water ways on their property, thus you have a safety zone around such water ways that catch such run off. This has been advocated for decades but no one is willing to pass such a restriction (or pay for any loss of the use of land to the farmers if you adopt such restrictions).

Most of the rest of Farming production of N20 has to do with the fact most fertilizers are NOT absorbed by plants, instead is released into the atmosphere. Plants are only 10-15% efficient at absorbing N20, thus most fertilizers is loss. The only way around this is to reduce fertilization but that requires restrictions on how much fertilizer a farmer can buy. If done right, food production can be maintained with a substantial drop in the use of fertilizers. The biggest problem here is the research on this is just beginning and what I have read would require more frequent spraying of less fertilizer (something that requires more man hours and thus increase the cost to produce food).

The good part is N20 is the #3 source of global warming, and like most #3, a distant #3. In many ways addressing Carbon and Methane is much more important than N2O. To a degree N2O MAY even solve itself given the primary cause of its breakdown is sunlight (Increase carbon increase sunlight NOT reflected back into space, thus available to break up N2O). Again the research on that is just beginning and may be wishful thinking, but beside ending farming to the edge of waterways and reducing how much fertilizer is used by farmers, I do not see how else we can address the increase in N2O in the atmosphere.