Showing posts with label nitrogen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nitrogen. Show all posts

Friday, June 5, 2009

Phosphate Fears

This author is suggesting that the supply of phosphate is possibly vulnerable to exhaustion over the next century. Oh well here we go again.

First off, I consider it a certainty that the agricultural industry will modify all agricultural soils by adding a fifteen percent content of biochar in the entirety of the growing media. It will take a century or so, but the arguments are so compelling as to make this scenario an almost certainty. This means that today’s extravagant use of chemical fertilizers will become completely obsolete.

Second, waste processing is increasingly been designed so as to restore waste as a soil additive and the biochar revolution will accelerate that process. Combine that with a diversion of all marine waste into the same process stream and you are soon on the way to been a net gainer of phosphate.

Therefore, before we even look for mineral, we can have the problem solved. Recall that Amazonian terra preta culture was a rich sustainable garden system that had only one other input we know of. Their primary meat was river fish and their bones found their way into the soil. Assuming an hectare for a family and that the family of five consumed ten pounds of fish per day of which five pounds was phosphorous rich waste, we have almost a ton of nutrient rich waste per hectare and that is obviously optimistic. It is still a lot of good quality fertilizer.

Putting that aside, what about the mineral? That forms in stagnant lagoons as part of the natural cycle and is not any thing special. Over geologic history, millions of these lagoons were buried. We are now mining a couple of rich easy deposits. An uptick in price and I am sure we will be inundated by the stuff.

So this article on the danger of shortage is likely way off the mark but at least makes a good tale.


From the June 2009 Scientific American Magazine

Phosphorus Famine: The Threat to Our Food Supply

This underappreciated resource--a key component of fertilizers--is still decades from running out. But we must act now to conserve it, or future agriculture could collapse

As complex as the chemistry of life may be, the conditions for the vigorous growth of plants often boil down to three numbers, say, 19-12-5. Those are the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, prominently displayed on every package of fertilizer. In the 20th century the three nutrients enabled agriculture to increase its productivity and the world’s population to grow more than sixfold. But what is their source? We obtain nitrogen from the air, but we must mine phosphorus and potassium. The world has enough potassium to last several centuries. But phosphorus is a different story. Readily available global supplies may start running out by the end of this century. By then our population may have reached a peak that some say is beyond what the planet can sustainably feed.

Moreover, trouble may surface much sooner. As last year’s oil price swings have shown, markets can tighten long before a given resource is anywhere near its end. And reserves of phosphorus are even less evenly distributed than oil’s, raising additional supply concerns. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest producer of phosphorus (after China), at 19 percent of the total, but 65 percent of that amount comes from a single source: pit mines near Tampa, Fla., which may not last more than a few decades. Meanwhile nearly 40 percent of global reserves are controlled by a single country, Morocco, sometimes referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of phosphorus.” Although Morocco is a stable, friendly nation, the imbalance makes phosphorus a geostrategic ticking time bomb.

In addition, fertilizers take an environmental toll. Modern agricultural practices have tripled the natural rate of phosphorus depletion from the land, and excessive runoff into waterways is feeding uncontrolled algal blooms and throwing aquatic ecosystems off-kilter. While little attention has been paid to it as compared with other elements such as carbon or nitrogen, phosphorus has become one of the most significant sustainability issues of our time.

Green Revelation

My interest in phosphorus dates back to the mid-1990s, when I became involved in a NASA program aiming to learn how to grow food in space. The design of such a system requires a careful analysis of the cycles of all elements that go into food and that would need to be recycled within the closed environment of a spaceship. Such know-how may be necessary for a future trip to
Mars, which would last almost three years.

Our planet is also a spaceship: it has an essentially fixed total amount of each element. In the natural cycle, weathering releases phosphorus from rocks into soil. Taken up by plants, it enters the food chain and makes its way through every living being. Phosphorus—usually in the form of the phosphate ion PO43-—is an irreplaceable ingredient of life. It forms the backbone of DNA and of cellular membranes, and it is the crucial component in the molecule adenosine triphosphate, or ATP—the cell’s main form of energy storage. An average human body contains about 650 grams of phosphorus, most of it in our bones.

Land ecosystems use and reuse phosphorus in local cycles an average of 46 times. The mineral then, through weathering and runoff, makes its way into the ocean, where marine organisms may recycle it some 800 times before it passes into sediments. Over tens of millions of years tectonic uplift may return it to dry land.

Harvesting breaks up the cycle because it removes phosphorus from the land. In prescientific agriculture, when human and animal waste served as fertilizers, nutrients went back into the soil at roughly the rate they had been withdrawn. But our modern society separates food production and consumption, which limits our ability to return nutrients to the land. Instead we use them once and then flush them away.

Agriculture also accelerates land erosion—because plowing and tilling disturb and expose the soil—so more phosphorus drains away with runoff. And flood control contributes to disrupting the natural phosphorus cycle. Typically river floods would redistribute phosphorus-rich sediment to lower lands where it is again available for ecosystems. Instead dams trap sediment, or levees confine it to the river until it washes out to sea.

So too much phosphorus from eroded soil and from human and animal waste ends up in lakes and oceans, where it spurs massive, uncontrolled blooms of cyanobacteria (also known as blue-green algae) and algae. Once they die and fall to the bottom, their decay starves other organisms of oxygen, creating “dead zones” and contributing to the depletion of fisheries.

While Supplies Last

Altogether, phosphorus flows now add up to an estimated 37 million metric tons per year. Of that, about 22 million metric tons come from phosphate mining. The earth holds plenty of phosphorus-rich minerals—those considered economically recoverable—but most are not readily available. The International Geological Correlation Program (IGCP) reckoned in 1987 that there might be some 163,000 million metric tons of phosphate rock worldwide, corresponding to more than 13,000 million metric tons of phosphorus, seemingly enough to last nearly a millennium. These estimates, however, include types of rocks, such as high-carbonate minerals, that are impractical as sources because no economical technology exists to extract the phosphorus from them. The tallies also include deposits that are inaccessible because of their depth or location offshore; moreover, they may exist in underdeveloped or environmentally sensitive land or in the presence of high levels of toxic or radioactive contaminants such as cadmium, chromium, arsenic, lead and uranium.

Estimates of deposits that are economically recoverable with current technology—known as reserves—are at 15,000 million metric tons. That is still enough to last about 90 years at current use rates. Consumption, however, is likely to grow as the population increases and as people in developing countries demand a higher standard of living. Increased meat consumption, in particular, is likely to put more pressure on the land, because animals eat more food than the food they become.

Phosphorus reserves are also concentrated geographically. Just four countries—the U.S., China, South Africa and Morocco, together with its Western Sahara Territory—hold 83 percent of the world’s reserves and account for two thirds of annual production. Most U.S. phosphate comes from mines in Florida’s Bone Valley, a fossil deposit that formed in the Atlantic Ocean 12 million years ago. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the nation’s reserves amount to 1,200 million metric tons. The U.S. produces about 30 million metric tons of phosphate rock a year, which should last 40 years, assuming today’s rate of production.

Already U.S. mines no longer supply enough phosphorus to satisfy the country’s production of fertilizer, much of which is exported. As a result, the U.S. now imports phosphate rock. China has high-quality reserves, but it does not export; most U.S. imports come from Morocco. Even more than with oil, the U.S. and much of the globe may come to depend on a single country for a critical resource.

Some geologists are skeptical about the existence of a phosphorus crisis and reckon that estimates of resources and their duration are moving targets. The very definition of reserves is dynamic because, when prices increase, deposits that were previously considered too expensive to access reclassify as reserves. Shortages or price swings can stimulate conservation efforts or the development of extraction technologies.

And mining companies have the incentive to do exploration only once a resource’s lifetime falls below a certain number of decades. But the depletion of old mines spurs more exploration, which expands the known resources. For instance, 20 years ago geologist R. P. Sheldon pointed out that the rate of new resource discovery had been consistent over the 20th century. Sheldon also suggested that tropical regions with deep soils had been inadequately explored: these regions occupy 22 percent of the earth’s land surface but contain only 2 percent of the known phosphorus reserves.

Yet most of the phosphorus discovery has occurred in just two places: Morocco/Western Sahara and North Carolina. And much of North Carolina’s resources are restricted because they underlie environmentally sensitive areas. Thus, the findings to date are not enough to allay concerns about future supply. Society should therefore face the reality of an impending phosphorus crisis and begin to make a serious effort at conservation.

Rock Steady

The standard approaches to conservation apply to phosphorus as well: reduce, recycle and reuse. We can reduce fertilizer usage through more efficient agricultural practices such as terracing and no-till farming to diminish erosion [see “
No-Till: The Quiet Revolution,” by David R. Huggins and John P. Reganold; Scientific American, July 2008]. The inedible biomass harvested with crops, such as stalks and stems, should be returned to the soil with its phosphorus, as should animal waste (including bones) from meat and dairy production, less than half of which is now used as fertilizer.

We will also have to treat our wastewater to recover phosphorus from solid waste. This task is difficult because residual biosolids are contaminated with many pollutants, especially heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, which leach from old pipes. Making agriculture sustainable over the long term begins with renewing our efforts to phase out toxic metals from our plumbing.

Half the phosphorus we excrete is in our urine, from which it would be relatively easy to recover. And separating solid and liquid human waste—which can be done in treatment plants or at the source, using specialized toilets—would have an added advantage. Urine is also rich in nitrogen, so recycling it could offset some of the nitrogen that is currently extracted from the atmosphere, at great cost in energy.

Meanwhile new discoveries are likely just to forestall the depletion of reserves, not to prevent it. For truly sustainable agriculture, the delay would have to be indefinite. Such an achievement would be possible only with a world population small enough to be fed using natural and mostly untreated minerals that are low-grade sources of phosphorus. As with other resources, the ultimate question is how many humans the earth can really sustain.

We are running out of phosphorus deposits that are relatively easily and cheaply exploitable. It is possible that the optimists are correct about the relative ease of obtaining new sources and that shortages can be averted. But given the stakes, we should not leave our future to chance.

Toxic Assets

Fertilizer runoff and wastewater discharge contribute to eutrophication, uncontrolled blooms of cyanobacteria in lakes and oceans, often large enough to be seen from orbit. Cyanobacteria (also known as blue-green algae) feed on nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers. When they die, their decomposition depletes the water of oxygen and slowly chokes aquatic life, producing “dead zones.” The largest dead zone in U.S. waters, topping 20,000 square kilometers in July 2008, is off the Mississippi delta; silt from the river is visible in a 2001 satellite image at the right. More than 400 dead zones now exist worldwide, covering a combined area of more than 245,000 square kilometers. Researchers disagree about which element—phosphorus or nitrogen—should be the main focus of cost-effective water treatment to prevent eutrophication. Cyanobacteria living in freshwater can extract nitrogen from the air, so limiting phosphorus runoff is essential, as was confirmed in 2008 by a 37-year-long study in which researchers deliberately added nutrients to a Canadian lake. “There’s not a single case in the world where anyone has shown that you can reduce eutrophication by controlling nitrogen alone,” says lead author David Schindler of the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Cyanobacteria living in seawater seem unable to take in atmospheric nitrogen but may get enough phosphorus from existing sediment, other researchers point out, urging controls on nitrogen as well. 
—Davide Castelvecchi, staff editor

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Effect of Low Temperature Pyrolysis

The whole article is a bit of heavy reading but it is packed with data. This paper is a welcome addition to the literature that should now turn into a flood. We are beginning to replace educated guesses with hard facts.

The first hard fact that we can accept is that the best process temperature for agricultural biochar is unsurprisingly low as was certainly the case with classic terra preta. Most literature suggested that 350C degrees were about right. In fact the nature of an earthen kiln as certainly was used would suggest that a combustion front would pass through the bulk of the material and that the material would be hit with a peak temperature generated by the flame.

Remaining moisture would dampen the final temperature somewhat and perhaps provide a little measure of product control.

We also discover that the agricultural characteristics are markedly superior at the lower temperature. This is important because the tendency with metal kilns is to run to higher temperatures in order to speed the process. That earthen kiln methodology looks more foolproof by the day.

Certainly my intuition told me that an earthen kiln approach was likely the best method and that it was likely to remain a very good option. Once you are into metal, you are no longer losing surplus heat into the atmosphere and you really then need to draw off the volatiles some other way as the pyrolysis boys are trying to do.

The earthen kiln allows all the volatiles to be burned while using enough heat to char out the feedstock only. This is eminently practical for the agricultural industry from the subsistence farmer up. Corn culture makes it practical for the subsistence farmer as does elephant grass in Africa. The simple creation of shallow trench by removing top soil with a blade should allow any other form of farm waste to be packed and enclosed in dirt to form a similar kiln. And bales can be set on end, wrapped in a metal sheet and covered with a layer of dirt before set afire.

The importance of the dirt is that it will smother the red hot char as it loses structural integrity. You want it burning to that point at which you need to stop the process as fast as possible.

EFFECT OF LOW TEMPERATURE PYROLYSIS CONDITIONS
ON BIOCHAR FOR AGRICULTURAL USE

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Gaskin%20et%20al%202008.pdf

J. W. Gaskin, C. Steiner, K. Harris, K. C. Das, B. Bibens

ABSTRACT. The removal of crop residues for bio‐energy production reduces the formation of soil organic carbon (SOC) and therefore can have negative impacts on soil fertility. Pyrolysis (thermoconversion of biomass under anaerobic conditions) generates liquid or gaseous fuels and a char (biochar) recalcitrant against decomposition. Biochar can be used to increase SOC and cycle nutrients back into agricultural fields. In this case, crop residues can be used as a potential energy source as well as to sequester carbon (C) and improve soil quality. To evaluate the agronomic potential of biochar, we analyzed biochar produced from poultry litter, peanut hulls, and pine chips produced at 400°C and 500°C with or without steam activation. The C content of the biochar ranged from 40% in the poultry litter (PL) biochar to 78% in the pine chip (PC) biochar. The total and Mehlich I extractable nutrient concentrations in the biochar were strongly influenced by feedstock. Feedstock nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg) were concentrated in the biochar and were significantly higher in the biochars produced at 500°C. A large proportion of N was conserved in the biochar, ranging from 27.4% in the PL biochar to 89.6% in the PC biochar. The amount of N conserved was inversely proportional to the feedstock N concentration. The cation exchange capacity was significantly higher in biochar produced at lower temperature. The results indicate that, depending on feedstock, some biochars have potential to serve as nutrient sources as well as sequester C. Keywords. Agricultural residues, Biochar, Bioenergy, Black carbon, Carbon sequestration, Charcoal, Plant nutrition, Pyrolysis, Soil fertility, Soil organic carbon.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

James Galloway on Nitrogen

This article has just been published by James Galloway and rings a loud alarm over the unheralded failure of the agricultural environment to sponge up all the soluble nitrogen that is been dumped on the land every year to maximize crop yield. This is not a new problem, but it is certainly an ignored problem.

I will make a brave conjecture however and that is that the application of biochar will halt this ongoing nitrogen leachate problem. The evidence available as well as prior work on zeolites conforms to this conjecture. The mere fact that terra preta retains fertility in a rainforest environment additionally supports this conjecture. What we lack is a good scientific work up that can be used by all proponents.

The reason that this mechanism works is the existence of solid crystalline acids throughout the biochar matrix caused by the heating process. These immobile acids grab mobile free ions such as nitrogen ions and other fertilizer ions and holds them until a living organism plucks them free.

That is why I am quite happy to have the commercial fertilizer industry produce powdered coked coal as a fertilizer media to deliver the nutrients to the soil. If every free fertilizer ion arrived in the soil bound to charcoal, then there would be little escapement of the fertilizer into the ground water.

I suspect that if we had a true understanding of soil nutrient dynamics, a carbon protocol would have been mandated decades ago.

The corollary of this conjecture is that the amount of applied fertilizer can be cut dramatically. Again we simply do not have the science worked up as yet. Perhaps we need to convince the fertilizer industry that they can make as much money shipping carbon as shipping fertilizer.

To be fair, the industry surely works to a price point based on a dollar price per treated acre. That will not change at all. The question is then about the costs of additives and fillers. Displacing ten percent of the filler with powdered coked coal is no trick at all. If that then leads to a fifty percent drop in the actual chemical percentage with the same agricultural result, we may even have a net drop in costs.

It would be a sweet irony if the advent of a proper carbon buffered fertilizer protocol succeeded in been more profitable than all previous protocols.


Public release date: 15-May-2008

Contact: James Galloway

Addressing the 'nitrogen cascade'

Papers in Science discuss incessant cycling of reactive nitrogen in environment

While human-caused global climate change has long been a concern for environmental scientists and is a well-known public policy issue, the problem of excessive reactive nitrogen in the environment is little-known beyond a growing circle of environmental scientists who study how the element cycles through the environment and negatively alters local and global ecosystems and potentially harms human health.

Two new papers by leading environmental scientists bring the problem to the forefront in the May 16 issue of the journal Science. The researchers discuss how food and energy production are causing reactive nitrogen to accumulate in soil, water, the atmosphere and coastal oceanic waters, contributing to the greenhouse effect, smog, haze, acid rain, coastal "dead zones" and stratospheric ozone depletion.

"The public does not yet know much about nitrogen, but in many ways it is as big an issue as carbon, and due to the interactions of nitrogen and carbon, makes the challenge of providing food and energy to the world's peoples without harming the global environment a tremendous challenge," said University of Virginia environmental sciences professor James Galloway, the lead author of one of the Science papers and a co-author on the other. "We are accumulating reactive nitrogen in the environment at alarming rates, and this may prove to be as serious as putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Galloway, the founding chair of the International Nitrogen Initiative, and a co-winner of the 2008 Tyler Prize for environmental science, is a longtime contributor to the growing understanding of how nitrogen cycles endlessly through the environment. In numerous studies over the years he has come to the realization of the "nitrogen cascade," and has created with his colleagues a flow chart demonstrating the pervasive and persistent effects of reactive nitrogen on Earth's environment (
www.initrogen.org).

In its inert form, nitrogen is harmless and abundant, making up 78 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. But in the past century, with the mass production of nitrogen-based fertilizers and the large-scale burning of fossil fuels, massive amounts of reactive nitrogen compounds, such as ammonia, have entered the environment.

"A unique and troublesome aspect of nitrogen is that a single atom released to the environment can cause a cascading sequence of events, resulting ultimately in harm to the natural balance of our ecosystems and to our very health," Galloway said.

A nitrogen atom that starts out as part of a smog-forming compound may be deposited in lakes and forests as nitric acid, which can kill fish and insects. Carried out to the coast, the same nitrogen atom may contribute to red tides and dead zones. Finally, the nitrogen will be put back into the atmosphere as part of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, which destroys atmospheric ozone.

Galloway and his colleagues suggest possible approaches to minimizing nitrogen use, such as optimizing its uptake by plants and animals, recovering and reusing nitrogen from manure and sewage, and decreasing nitrogen emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

"Nitrogen is needed to grow food," Galloway says, "but because of the inefficiencies of nitrogen uptake by plants and animals, only about 10 to 15 percent of reactive nitrogen ever enters a human mouth as food. The rest is lost to the environment and injected into the atmosphere by combustion.

"We must soon begin to manage nitrogen use in an integrated manner by decreasing our rate of creation of reactive nitrogen while continuing to produce enough food and energy to sustain a growing world population.”

Galloway's next effort is to create a "nitrogen footprint" calculator that people can access on the Internet, very similar to current "carbon footprint" calculators.

He says people can reduce their nitrogen footprints by reducing energy consumption at home, traveling less, and changing diet to locally grown vegetables (preferably organic) and fish and consuming less meat.

Galloway is quick to point out that along with the problems of excess reactive nitrogen in many areas of the world, there also are large regions, such as Africa, with too little nitrogen to grow enough food for rapidly growing populations. In those regions, the challenge is find ways to increase the availability of nitrogen while minimizing the negative environmental effects of too much nitrogen.

I copied this out of a post by Ron Larson. An industrial fertilizer should thus easily avoid almost any nitrogen losses.

“My knowledge on the relationship between nitrogen and biochar mostly comes from a visit to one nitrogen researcher in Australia last year (Dr. Lukas van Zweiten at IAI conference) who claims 80% reduction in nitrous oxide release in field trials with biochar (see towards end of

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/aug/tech/rr_biochar.html?sa_campaign=rss/cen_mag/estnews/2007-08-01/rr_biochar ).

Note that most nitrous oxide comes from agriculture, so 80% is potentially a big deal - and N2O is much worse than CO2 for climate impacts.”

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Nutrient Accumulation

Now that we understand the corn carbon protocol and how it is able to deliver powdered charcoal into the soil to form Terra Preta soils, we can make a couple of observations.

Corn charcoal will form a powder requiring very little additional work. Wood charcoal is lumpy and must be crushed to a fine powder for it to be of much value. In the soil, is is important to maximize the available surface area of the charcoal.

This powdered charcoal is activated carbon and will both absorb and adsorb. This means that it will grab and hold nutrients which can then be accessed. In fact the soil will begin to accumulate nutrients in the top layer were it is needed.

The normal nutrient cycle sees the nutrients drawn from the overall soil mass which in forests can be twenty to thirty feet thick. They are very mobile and tend to migrate deep into the soils. Dying vegetation releases these nutrients back on the surface so that they can once again begin this cycle. Charcoal in the surface layer changes this dramatically because a portion of these nutrients are grabbed by the charcoal.

Thus, over hundreds of crop cycles we can expect the nutrient load to be shifted into the surface layer. Obviously this is dramatically true in respect to tropical soils were the most need exists today. And temperate soils are also amenable to this type of soil enhancement and this sets the stage for large scale industrial organic agriculture, hugely minimizing the need to replenish nutrients with select chemicals.

A really interesting experiment would be to soak the powdered charcoal in nitrogen fertilizer to see how long it has an effect on the crops. In other words, what is the decline curve? It is currently measured in weeks.

The corn carbon protocol appears capable of preventing unused nutrients from escaping into the subsoil. This is a revolution that compares to the invention of the plow and for the same reason. the plow recovered nutrients and returned them to the seed bed. This prevents them from even escaping the seed bed