Plowing Carbon Into the Fields 467
OzPeter writes "A wheat farmer in Australia has eliminated adding fertilizer to his crop by the simple process of injecting the cooled diesel exhaust of his modified tractor into the ground when the wheat is being sown. In doing so he eliminates releasing carbon into the atmosphere and at the same time saves himself up to $500,000 (AUD) that would have been required to fertilize his 3,900 hectares in the traditional way. Yet his crop yields over the last two years have been at least on par with his best yields since 2001. The technique was developed by a Canadian, Gary Lewis of Bio Agtive, and is currently in trial at 100 farms around the world."
Ok, so how is this not BS? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's great but (Score:3, Interesting)
If he can really go without fertilizer in the long term, then it may also help with the human impacts on the nitrogen cycle [wikipedia.org].
Re:Ok, so how is this not BS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well those nitrogen compounds being depleted is why he has to pay $500,000 for fertilizer.
But you're right that this does absolutely nothing for reducing CO2 emissions.
Re:Ok, so how is this not BS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, except for that assuming it really saves him that much fertilizer, then the fertilizer won't have to be produced, transported and handled. How much energy is used in that process?
That being said, it sounds too good to be true.
Re:I suspect bad journalism (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the other contaminants, there are already put in the ground. Those that sink in the air will simply land on the ground and soak in. IOW, injecting this in the ground, PROBABLY is decent, and will probably end up being the norm for any diesel powered tractor in another 5 years.
Re:It can't possibly be enough... (Score:1, Interesting)
Fertilizer is made of nitrogen. Diesel exhaust is full of nitrogen oxides (NOx). So it follows that using the nitrogen compounds from his tractor exhaust would eliminate the need for fertilizer.
Plants take nitrogen from the soil and carbon from the atmosphere, so putting carbon into the soil wouldn't do anything for the plants -- but oxidizing atmospheric nitrogen (the N2 in that makes up 78% of the atmosphere is useless to plants and animals) and depositing it into the soil is actually a good idea.
dom
Re:Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Overpopulation (Score:5, Interesting)
(Currently, California has no additional land for farming or ranching to meet the needs of the ballooning population.)
California has plenty of land for farming. All along the back of the Sierra Nevada there is a huge valley full of decent land; the problem is water. All the water is being diverted into LA for drinking. If LA starts getting their water from the ocean, then we can begin to grow stuff there. The foothills would be another potential place to start growing, if the water were there. Also, if we really need to, we can switch from crops like almonds to crops like wheat or oats.
Wait. Now, you ask, "How will banning immigration help?"
Anti-immigration laws are like the war on drugs: neither one works. You may not realize it, but after drugs, one of the best sources of income for organized crime is human-trafficking: sneaking poor people into rich countries. If you continue to support anti-immigration laws, you will continue to support violence, human exploitation, and all the other problems that come with organized crime. There is no way to stop it. The only thing to do is legalize it.
People who worry about overpopulation don't realize that if we increase women's rights and reduce poverty in developing nations, the problem will take care of itself.
I am amazed at some of the replies. (Score:3, Interesting)
This approach makes good sense ASSUMING that you are using a diesel tractor. I am guessing that this will be the norm in another 5 years.
Re:Resident expert (Score:3, Interesting)
I am no expert in chemistry or toxicology, so that take my comment with heaps of salt
The major composition of emission(CO, CO2, NO2, SO2 gases) will no way get collected during condensation. The condensed liquid/solid will contain all sort of hydrocarbons with various amounts of nitrogen, sulfur and their oxides. It should be an interesting mixture/tar (which I am not really sure will be consistent), which is very likely to not fall under any category of posions (atleast at the dosage the farmer is using).
Re:Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorus in Deisel Fuel? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wealth and Population: Article by "The Economist" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You try to make an environmentalist happy... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is funny (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems to be these days that there are a lot of people that can't possibly believe there are any ecological solutions that don't involve the massive reduction in human emissions. When the talk is about global warming and reducing carbon output, they are on board and scream "You aren't a scientist, you have to listen to the scientists!" to anyone who questions it. However, when scientists have any other solution, one that DOESN'T involve an emission reduction, they get pissed off, and denounce those scientists. Suddenly they are experts in all the reasons that must be wrong.
A good example of this is what has happened with the new book Super Freakonomics. Levitt does the same thing he does in the original Freakonomics of stripping away morality from various issues and applying economics. His original book drew ire from conservative types because it presented a convincing argument that legalized abortion has lead to a reduction in crime, but liberal types were generally ok with it.
Well, now he's become someone high up on the enemies list because in Super Freakonomics he analyzes the economics of combating global arming through geoengineering methods, rather than reducing emissions. Note that he doesn't say it isn't real or isn't a problem, just looks at different solutions as being more economically feasible. Yet that has drawn massive ire from the environmentalist types.
It just seems to be an article of faith these days that the only thing good for the environment is to use less. Any solutions that involves anything else is shouted down. This being the same sort of thing. People point to science as the ultimate bastion of truth... so long as what it shows agrees with their world view. Any time something contrary comes out, all of a sudden they are the experts instead of the scientists.
Re:Ok, so how is this not BS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on the soil. If the soil is alkaline then the carbonic acid (which will form very easily and quickly if the soil isn't bone dry) will react and take the CO2 out.
It's not bunk, just unexplained (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right that NOx is a tiny fraction of the output, still N2 makes up over 75% of the fumes. It is thought diesel particulates can act as microscopic sponges and help soil absorbtion of nitrogen and other compounds. Still, little is known as to why this works which is why it is in a controlled trial development stage so scientists can study it. They've found reduced soil pH, increased nitrogen absorbtion and other good things, so the question isn't if it works but why it works.
Re:Making Local Fertalizer (Score:2, Interesting)
Synthesizing nitrogen is very expensive (in energy and in monetary price). If this exhaust idea worked you can be sure farmers would snatch it up. Unfortunately it is snake oil. AFAIK, there is no serious study showing any effect.
Using legumes to fixate nitrogen is something that *does* work and farmers are happy to do so if there is a market for the crop (we grow yellow peas as much as reasonably possible). Because organic farmers can get a premium for their other crops, they sometimes grow legumes purely for the residual nitrogen and plow them down instead of harvesting. Unfortunately organic farms requires quite a bit more fossil fuel than modern conventional farming (something most shoppers are probably unaware of).
Re:What a bunch of Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know which part of Canada you farm in but we probably spend more than that figure. It comes out to 52 $/acre. Using some spring 2009 prices: 60 lbs/acre of N, 25 lbs of P2O5, and 9 lbs of K comes to about 59 $/acre.
If that exhaust system worked it would be nice. Unfortunately there are no studies that show that it does. Probably the manufacturers are making out okay at $40,000 per system. Hmm.
Re:Ok, so how is this not BS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Overpopulation (Score:2, Interesting)
Not any more. That's what the article in The Economist was about - that after a certain level of affluence, births INCREASE again.
The best way to "let the problem take care of itself" is to walk away from problem areas and let the natives sort it out among themselves. Aid to starving populations where their past population was unsustainable has led to even more mouths to starve. Not too smart, Sally Struthers.
Re:Overpopulation (Score:3, Interesting)
All you need to do to end it is require proof of citizenship(that's actaully checked out) to get hired in this country. Then charge companies who don't comply with rico laws (sieze their assests etc) . This will never happen since companies make too much money off the backs of illegal immigrants working for less than minimum wage.
This is how it is in this country (DK), and it hasn't stopped illegal immigration. It beats me how anyone can live in DK without a CPR (roughly eq. to US social security number), yet it is a well-known fact that it happens. Besides, I don't think a democratic population could live without allowing some kind of immigation/emmigration; e.g. in the case of marriage.
Re:Plough (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, increasingly we don't plough or plow in Australia as a large proportion of dryland agriculture has shifted to no till / direct drill. Which has massively improved soil health.
A consequence of which is that injecting exhaust would be difficult for many arable farmers here.
Incidentally, I lived for a number of years within a few miles of where this guy is. In that region generally no nitrogen fertiliser is used and phosphorous is a) only applied every couple of years or so, and b) generally applied greatly in excess. So the reports that no fertiliser has been used without an impact on the crop for two seasons aren't really much evidence of anything yet...
Re:Overpopulation (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose that humankind made a concerted attempt to voluntarily produce less children. Our population declines from 6 billion to 3 billion. Then, humankind does not need so much food and so much energy. The farmer in this thread of discussion can shutdown his farm and engage in another activity.
Brilliant idea, but it falls flat due to one simple reason: evolution. Whoever doesn't go with this, whoever produces more children than they should, for whatever reason as long as it is affected by genes at least a bit, will have an evolutionary advantage.
So, whatever you do to reduce population growth, evolution will counter it. Those that were "resistant" to you method of population control will prosper and spread their "resistant" genes. Absent-minded, careless and/or uncaring people are resistant to birth control methods. People with strong maternal/paternal instinct are resistant to high standard of living and active lifestyle reducing number of children. Etc.
No, the only way to sensibly limit number of people is to decide how many people there should be. Then if there are too many, have peope fight each other until only desired amount is left. Not only would it solve the overpopulation problem, it'd make great reality TV too ("Remember, you could be the next Real Survivor(tm)!").
Re:What (Score:1, Interesting)
Which really does not matter. No offense. But we're talking about vastly longer terms here.
As the dosage makes the poison, and this is a multi-generation process of building up the toxins, it's a totally different situation as those short-term (< decades) effects.
It's the same problem as with so much of what we call "food" all over again. :/ :)
Small deficiencies, malformed molecules (especially proteins) and dosages of toxins are totally OK... except if you take them for 40 years in a row. Then you get all kinds of diseases.
Medicine is still calling those "age-related", as if the reason would be the age itself. Sometimes it is, but for every other time, it is not. They just come with the age. That's all.
So when you calculate the toxin buildup, you will end up with fields that are so deadly that nothing will ever grow there again. And either before or after that, with a "incubation time"/delay of some decades, people will get more cancer, more other diseases. And "nobody" will know why, because they only look at the short term, and don't think about such things. So it's "age" again, who gets the blame. As if there were some magical third reason besides genetics and the environment (which includes food, air, toxins in your home, etc.).
Re:What if we had a big ass war... (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you off on your overpopulation maunderings again?
The world isn't overpopulated. It is likely that most of the parts of the world you think are overpopulated (with the notable exceptions of China and India) have lower population densities than the parts you think are not overpopulated.
If the world were overpopulated, we've already proved out a simple, humane solution to the problem - raise everyone's standard of living to that of the USA and Western Europe. Then birthrates will fall naturally to low enough levels that population will decline.
Course, in that case, there's not yet any reason to believe that the population decline will STOP, but that's a problem for another day.
Re:Overpopulation (Score:3, Interesting)
I know some people who work in fast foods and hire a fair number of immigrants. Why? At the amount is he allowed by management to pay them, he can't get Americans with a work ethic to apply for the job. But it keeps the hamburgers cheap.
Anyway, first time he got a bad Soc card (I think they actually mis-spelled security on it) he brought it to his boss and asked him what to do about it. Boss said "I'm not trained in identifying legitimate social security cards, are you?" and told him to put down that they presented him with a card.
Another time someone's ID got hit by a random check and was found to be bad. They hired him back the next day when he came back with a better card.
There would have to be so much more government oversight than there is currently to actually have a chance of stopping this. And even then:
Fast food wages would have to increase drastically to get people to work there (not saying it's entirely a bad thing, but it has consequences, such as..).
Food prices would increase to match.
A lot of good (but illegal) people would be out of work. My friend doesn't hire people just because they're cheap - he's looking for good people who are solid workers, same as any employer.
Our large portions of our economy built on cheap labor would collapse. We lost full-service gas stations when they implemented minimum wage laws. A lot of the bottom end of our economy would fall out.
I'm not saying that this is a good situation - I'm saying it's the situation we have right now with illegal immigration. Personally I think we could fix 90% of the problems if we just let the damn people immigrate legally. I have another friend who is trying to get citizenship - even as a college-educated person with an upper-middle class job (ie, not someone walking across the border with no job and few prospects) it will take her between seven and fourteen years. Do people honestly think that people would pay thousands of dollars to smugglers, risk their lives and possessions to sneak across the border to work at a fast food joint if standing in line were a reasonable option?
As an interesting note - my friend is losing a lot of his Mexican workers soon. The DMV introduced much more stringent ID requirements to be able to renew a license plate. Since most of them want to lay as low as possible - they have valid plates and most of them have accident insurance - not being able to get a valid plate is causing them to move on to other states that aren't as strict.
Re:What if we had a big ass war... (Score:3, Interesting)
You've obviously not spent a lot of time looking at US Census data. Excluding immigration (and the related reproduction - immigrants don't tend to live at the standard of living of the US and Western Europe for several generations), US population has been on the decline for the last several decades.
Re:It is funny (Score:3, Interesting)
Hydroelectric power sort of depends on the sun to evaporate the water involved (that's where the water gets the potential energy it has, the sun does the initial work against gravity, and then later we harvest that energy).
Correct - the sun is the source of the energy.
I'm not sure about tidal, but I think the sun is at least involved in the tides.
No, it's the moon. The source was the supernova explosion that gave rise to the solar system, and kinetic/potential energy to the earth-moon system.
The winds also get their energy primarily from the sun.
Correct.
Geothermal is probably not dependent on the sun.
Correct - this time the energy comes from heating caused by radioactive decay of elements (and their decay products) created in the supernova explosion.
Re:Overpopulation (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, self-service is a gain, IMHO. I avoid filling up in Weymouth, MA, and I fill up right before entering Jersey. Why? "Full Service" is no longer full-service staffed by entry-level mechanics or senior mechanics manning the pumps during slow times; it's now mouth breathers, and NOT full service. They don't clean your windshield, check your fluids, or the air pressure in your tires. What they do is top off the tank, keep clicking the pump until they can't get any more in (often times damaging your charcoal canister), scratch your paint, and be rude to you. Why should I pay a premium to damage my car?
In SOME rare cases a "loss" in service is actually a net gain. I'd rather get out, fill it myself, taking care to not overfill, not scratch the paint, and clean the window without leaving streaks, and clean the back window if it needs it. The ONLY drawbacks are my hands smelling like gasoline for a short while, and dealing with cold in the winter.
Now, if "full service" were the full service that used to be in place through the '70s, I'd agree.
Was World War II really the worst? (Score:3, Interesting)
The most gruesome war ever, the IIWW, left 65 million dead
Was World War II really the -worst- war ever? Sure, in terms of numbers, it may seem that way, but if we turn to the Islamic expansion, or, any of the conquests of ancient times, we find entire civilizations and cultures were simply evaporated. After World War II, Germans were still predominantly German speaking and Christian (except for what was once called East Prussia), but, after the Islamic conquest of Egypt, the native tongue was completely eradicated and a 3000 year old religion was destroyed. Or, look at the essential extermination of Celtic cultures due to Roman incursions from the South and Asian cultures from the East... People were going house to house, killing the men, the children, taking the women, basically raping them, and then producing new children to a new culture. Compared to that, firebombing might almost seem civilized. I would even bet that the likes of Julius Caesar or Genghis Khan would see Hitler's invasion of Russia as probably even a bunch of pussies.
Re:Overpopulation (Score:3, Interesting)
Middle class/rich people usually have no desire to come here
I second this. My wife's American and so for family reasons we moved to the US. Didn't like and so we moved on to Canada. Still close enough for family visits but with decent public education, health care and less toxic politics (only downside is that the border is pain in the buttocks).