Comments on: Nitrogen trouble http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/ dispatches from Canada's capital Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:50:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Neal http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42838 Neal Fri, 30 May 2008 20:41:31 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42838 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is also a greenhouse gas that human activity is releasing into the atmosphere. This is largely a result of the use synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is also a greenhouse gas that human activity is releasing into the atmosphere. This is largely a result of the use synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.

]]> By: Litty http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42828 Litty Fri, 30 May 2008 18:06:21 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42828 "Hundreds of the world's coastal regions have dead zones. They mostly occur when spring rainfall gathers on land, makes its way into streams and rivers, and eventually tumbles down to the ocean. The rivers carry with them a cargo of nutrients, in particular nitrogen, from farms in the watershed. When this nitrogen reaches the sea it causes a brief frenzy of algal growth which depletes the water of oxygen. Fish, clams, shrimp, crabs, entire mussel reefs and other bottom-dwelling animals can be wiped out. Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist from Oregon State University, says this nutrient run-off from land is increasing the number, size, duration and severity of the dead zones. This is mainly because the use of fertilisers in agriculture is increasing. Sometimes the waste from animals or human sewage worsens the blight." Water seems to be the main vehicle here, not air. “Hundreds of the world’s coastal regions have dead zones. They mostly occur when spring rainfall gathers on land, makes its way into streams and rivers, and eventually tumbles down to the ocean. The rivers carry with them a cargo of nutrients, in particular nitrogen, from farms in the watershed. When this nitrogen reaches the sea it causes a brief frenzy of algal growth which depletes the water of oxygen. Fish, clams, shrimp, crabs, entire mussel reefs and other bottom-dwelling animals can be wiped out.

Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist from Oregon State University, says this nutrient run-off from land is increasing the number, size, duration and severity of the dead zones. This is mainly because the use of fertilisers in agriculture is increasing. Sometimes the waste from animals or human sewage worsens the blight.”

Water seems to be the main vehicle here, not air.

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42759 Milan Thu, 29 May 2008 19:18:11 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42759 Tristan, I think the main anthropogenic source of nitrogen is fertilizer runoff from farms - a consideration that is quite relevant in an era where biofuels are being used increasingly intensely as alternative fuels. Tristan,

I think the main anthropogenic source of nitrogen is fertilizer runoff from farms - a consideration that is quite relevant in an era where biofuels are being used increasingly intensely as alternative fuels.

]]> By: tristan http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42755 tristan Thu, 29 May 2008 19:04:24 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42755 I can't spell. "Nitrous oxide". I can’t spell. “Nitrous oxide”.

]]> By: Tristan http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42754 Tristan Thu, 29 May 2008 19:02:50 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42754 Wherever I wrote "Nitric oxide" in the last post, please read in "nitriceoxide", which is a common use but not technically appropriate term for NOx. Wherever I wrote “Nitric oxide” in the last post, please read in “nitriceoxide”, which is a common use but not technically appropriate term for NOx.

]]> By: Tristan http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42753 Tristan Thu, 29 May 2008 19:01:02 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42753 "Reactive Nitrogen" as you call it, or as it has been called by the automobile industry since the 70s, Nitric Oxides (NOx), are a real problem. However, the tone of your entry is confusing since they are a problem we have been accutely aware of since California took action against smog in the 70s. NOx's are produced in high temperature combustion under high pressure, which is unfortunately the most efficient way to burn gasoline. Thus, both performance and fuel economy fell when nitric oxide levels were radically reduced in 1972. However, after the invention of the catalytic converter (which utilizes platinum), problems of NOx in car emmisions have become largely a thing of the past - and even in the mid 80s cars with compression ratios as high as 12 to 1 were back on the road passing the new standards. So, in short, yes we should be concerned about nitric oxides, however, since we already are concerned about them and they are closely regulated, I don't see why we need to be any more worried about them as we already are. That said, I have no idea whether super tankers or container ships produce much NOx, but I would doubt it because they burn such a low grade fuel. I do know that at least in BC there is very tight regulation where waste wood is being burned - the temperature must remain within a strict window which maximizes combustion but minimizes N0x emissions. My father wrote some software for a mill which included not only control over the stack temperature but also automatic mailing of the data to the province when the temperature left the green zone so that the mill could be fined the requisite amount for emissions malcontrol. “Reactive Nitrogen” as you call it, or as it has been called by the automobile industry since the 70s, Nitric Oxides (NOx), are a real problem. However, the tone of your entry is confusing since they are a problem we have been accutely aware of since California took action against smog in the 70s. NOx’s are produced in high temperature combustion under high pressure, which is unfortunately the most efficient way to burn gasoline. Thus, both performance and fuel economy fell when nitric oxide levels were radically reduced in 1972. However, after the invention of the catalytic converter (which utilizes platinum), problems of NOx in car emmisions have become largely a thing of the past - and even in the mid 80s cars with compression ratios as high as 12 to 1 were back on the road passing the new standards.

So, in short, yes we should be concerned about nitric oxides, however, since we already are concerned about them and they are closely regulated, I don’t see why we need to be any more worried about them as we already are.

That said, I have no idea whether super tankers or container ships produce much NOx, but I would doubt it because they burn such a low grade fuel. I do know that at least in BC there is very tight regulation where waste wood is being burned - the temperature must remain within a strict window which maximizes combustion but minimizes N0x emissions. My father wrote some software for a mill which included not only control over the stack temperature but also automatic mailing of the data to the province when the temperature left the green zone so that the mill could be fined the requisite amount for emissions malcontrol.

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42741 Milan Thu, 29 May 2008 14:51:48 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42741 <a href="http://www.sindark.com/wiki/index.php?title=Major_climate_change_issues#Geoengineering" rel="nofollow">My previous posts about geoengineering</a> My previous posts about geoengineering

]]> By: Milan http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42740 Milan Thu, 29 May 2008 14:49:59 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42740 Claire, I think geoengineering is a crazy option given (a) how little we understand the magnitude of feedbacks in the climate system and (b) how likely unwanted consequences are. That being said, geoengineering is theoretically possible and could prove to be the most desirable option in a situation where accelerating runaway climate change has begun. Notably, geoengineering options that leave increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will not address the problem of oceanic acidification. Claire,

I think geoengineering is a crazy option given (a) how little we understand the magnitude of feedbacks in the climate system and (b) how likely unwanted consequences are. That being said, geoengineering is theoretically possible and could prove to be the most desirable option in a situation where accelerating runaway climate change has begun.

Notably, geoengineering options that leave increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will not address the problem of oceanic acidification.

]]> By: Claire http://www.sindark.com/2008/05/29/nitrogen-trouble/#comment-42733 Claire Thu, 29 May 2008 11:51:44 +0000 http://www.sindark.com/?p=2803#comment-42733 Milan- interested in your reaction to this article about 'eco-hacking': http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/29/greentech.geoengineering Claire Milan- interested in your reaction to this article about ‘eco-hacking’:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/29/greent ech.geoengineering

Claire

]]>