Podcasts about haber bosch

Il processo Haber-Bosh per la produzione di ammoniaca, inventato agli inizi del ‘900 da Frizz Haber, è uno dei più importanti della storia della chimica. L’ammoniaca infatti è essenziale per la produzione di fertilizzanti e trova impiego anche nella produzione di plastiche, fibre sintetiche, esplosivi, farmaci, solventi e fluidi refrigeranti.Tuttavia il processo Haber Bosch è estremamente energivoro, motivo per cui il mondo della ricerca è fortemente impegnato a cercare delle alternative. Come ci racconta Federico Bella, professore di Chimica del Politecnico di Torino, il progetto Ginny, da lui ideato e finanziato con un ERC Grant dall’UE, consiste in un nuovo processo, completamente elettrificato, per sintetizzare ammoniaca direttamente da aria e acqua.

In the 1960s, a deep anxiety set in as one thing became seemingly clear: We were headed toward population catastrophe. Paul Ehrlich's “The Population Bomb” and “The Limits to Growth,” written by the Club of Rome, were just two publications warning of impending starvation due to simply too many humans on the earth.As the population ballooned year by year, it would simply be impossible to feed everyone. Demographers and environmentalists alike held their breath and braced for impact.Except that we didn't starve. On the contrary, we were better fed than ever.In his article in The New Atlantis, Charles C. Mann explains that agricultural innovation — from improved fertilization and irrigation to genetic modification — has brought global hunger to a record low.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I chat with Mann about the agricultural history they didn't teach you in school.Mann is a science journalist who has worked as a correspondent for The Atlantic, Science, and Wired magazines, and whose work has been featured in many other major publications. He is also the author of 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created, as well as The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World.In This Episode* Intro to the Agricultural Revolution (2:04)* Water infrastructure (13:11)* Feeding the masses (18:20)* Indigenous America (25:20)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Intro to the Agricultural Revolution (2:04)I don't think that people realize that the fact that most people on earth, almost the average person on earth, can feed themselves is a novel phenomenon. It's something that basically wasn't true since as far back as we know.Pethokoukis: What got my attention was a couple of pieces that you've worked on for The New Atlantis magazine looking at the issue of how modern Americans take for granted the remarkable systems and infrastructure that provide us comfort, safety, and a sense of luxury that would've been utterly unimaginable even to the wealthiest people of a hundred years ago or 200 years ago.Let me start off by asking you: Does it matter that we do take that for granted and that we also kind of don't understand how our world works?Mann: I would say yes, very much. It matters because these systems undergird the prosperity that we have, the good fortune that we have to be alive now, but they're always one generation away from collapse. If they aren't maintained, upgraded and modernized, they'll fall apart. They just won't stand there. So we have to be aware of this. We have to keep our eye on the ball, otherwise we won't have these things.The second thing is that, if we don't know how our society works, as citizens, we're simply not going to make very good choices about what to do with that society. I feel like both sides in our current political divide are kind of taking their eye off the ball. It's important to have good roads, it's important to have clean water, it's important to have a functioning public health system, it's important to have an agricultural system that works. It doesn't really matter who you are. And if we don't keep these things going, life will be unnecessarily bad for a lot of people, and that's just crazy to do.Is this a more recent phenomenon? If I would've asked people 50 years ago, “Explain to me how our infrastructure functions, how we get water, how we get electricity,” would they have a better idea? Is it just because things are more complicated today that we have no idea how our food gets here or why when we turn the faucet, clean water comes out?The answer is “yes” in a sort of trivial sense, in that many more people were involved in producing food, a much greater percentage of the population was involved in producing food 50 years ago. The same thing was true for the people who were building infrastructure 50 years ago.But I also think it's generally true that people's parents saw the change and knew it. So that is very much the case and, in a sense, I think we're victims of our own success. These kinds of things have brought us so much prosperity that we can afford to do crazy things like become YouTube influencers, or podcasters, or freelance writers. You don't really have any connection with how the society goes because we're sort of surfing on this wave of luxury that our ancestors bequeathed to us.I don't know how much time you spend on social media, Charles — I'm sure I spend too much — but I certainly sense that many people today, younger people especially, don't have a sense of how someone lived 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and there was just a lot more physical suffering. And certainly, if you go back far enough, you could not take for granted that you would have tomatoes in your supermarket year round, that you would have water in the house and that water would be clean. What I found really interesting — you did a piece on food and a piece on water — in the food piece you note that, in the 1980s, that was a real turning point that the average person on earth had enough to eat all the time, and rather than becoming an issue of food production, it became an issue of distribution, of governance. I think most people would be surprised of that statistic even though it's 40 years old.I don't think that people realize that the fact that most people on earth, almost the average person on earth, can feed themselves is a novel phenomenon. It's something that basically wasn't true since as far back as we know. That's this enormous turning point, and there are many of these turning points. Obviously, the introduction of antibiotics for . . . public health, which is another one of these articles they're going to be working on . . .Just about 100 years ago today, when President Coolidge was [president], his son went to play tennis at the White House tennis courts, and because he was lazy, or it was fashionable, or something, he didn't put on socks. He got a blister on his toe, the toe got infected, and he died. 100 years ago, the president of the United States, who presumably had the best healthcare available to anybody in the world, was unable to save his beloved son when the son got a trivial blister that got infected. The change from that to now is mind boggling.You've written about the Agricultural Revolution and why the great fears 40 or 50 years ago of mass starvation didn't happen. I find that an endlessly interesting topic, both for its importance and for the fact it just seems to be so underappreciated to this day, even when it was sort of obvious to people who pay attention that something was happening, it still seemed not to penetrate the public consciousness. I wonder if you could just briefly talk to me about that revolution and how it happened.The question is, how did it go from “The Population Bomb” written in 1968, a huge bestseller, hugely influential, predicting that there is going to be hundreds of millions of people dying of mass starvation, followed by other equally impassioned, equally important warnings. There's one called “Famine, 1975!,” written a few years before, that predicted mass famines in 1975. There's “The Limits to Growth.” I went to college in the '70s and these were books that were on the curriculum, and they were regarded as contemporary classics, and they all proved to be wrong.The reason is that, although they were quite correct about the fact that the human race was reproducing at that time faster than ever before, they didn't realize two things: The first is that as societies get more affluent, and particularly as societies get more affluent and give women more opportunities, birth rates decline. So that this was obviously, if you looked at history, going to be a temporary phenomenon of whatever length it was be, but it was not going to be infinite.The second was there was this enormous effort spurred by this guy named Norman Borlaug, but with tons of other people involved, to take modern science and apply it to agriculture, and that included these sort of three waves of innovation. Now, most innovation is actually just doing older technologies better, which is a huge source of progress, and the first one was irrigation. Irrigation has been around since forever. It's almost always been done badly. It's almost always not been done systematically. People started doing it better. They still have a lot of problems with it, but it's way better, and now 40 percent, roughly, of the crops in the world that are produced are produced by irrigation.The second is the introduction of fertilizer. There's two German scientists, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, who essentially developed the ways of taking fertilizer and making lots and lots of it in factories. I could go into more detail if you want, but that's the essential thing. This had never been done before, and suddenly cheap industrial fertilizer became available all over the world, and Vaclav Smil . . . he's sort of an environmental scientist of every sort, in Manitoba has calculated that roughly 40 percent of the people on earth today would not be alive if it wasn't for that.And then the third was the development of much better, much higher-yielding seeds, and that was the part that Norman Borlaug had done. These packaged together of irrigation fertilizer and seeds yielded what's been called the Green Revolution, doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled grain yields across the world, particularly with wheat and rice. The result is the world we live in today. When I was growing up, when you were growing up, your parents may have said to you, as they did me, Oh, eat your vegetables, there are kids that are starving in Asia.” Right? That was what was told and that was the story that was told in books like “The Population Bomb,” and now Asia's our commercial rival. When you go to Bangkok, that was a place that was hungry and now it's gleaming skyscrapers and so forth. It's all based on this fact that people are able to feed themselves through the combination of these three factors,That story, the story of mass-starvation that the Green Revolution irrigation prevented from coming true. I think a surprising number of people still think that story is relevant today, just as some people still think the population will be exploding when it seems clear it probably will not be exploding. It will rise, but then it's going to start coming down at some point this century. I think those messages just don't get through. Just like most people don't know Norm Borlaug, the Haber-Bosch process, which school kids should know. They don't know any of this. . . Borlaug won the Nobel Prize, right?Right. He won the Nobel Peace Prize. I'll tell you a funny story —I think he won it in the same year that “The Population Bomb” came out.It was just a couple years off. But you're right, the central point is right, and the funny thing is . . . I wrote another book a while back that talked about this and about the way environmentalists think about the world, and it's called the “Wizard and the Prophet” and Borlaug was the wizard of it. I thought, when I proposed it, that it would be easy. He was such an important guy, there'd be tons of biographies about him. And to this day, there isn't a real serious scholarly biography of the guy. This is a person who has done arguably more to change human life than any other person in the 20th century, certainly up in the top dozen or so. There's not a single serious biography of him.How can that be?It's because we're tremendously disconnected. It's a symptom of what I'm talking about. We're tremendously disconnected from these systems, and it's too bad because they're interesting! They're actually quite interesting to figure out: How do you get water to eight billion people? How do you get . . . It is a huge challenge, and some of the smartest people you've ever met are working on it every day, but they're working on it over here, and the public attention is over here.Water infrastructure (13:11). . . the lack of decent, clean, fresh water is the world's worst immediate environmental problem. I think people probably have some vague idea about agriculture, the Agricultural Revolution, how farming has changed, but I think, as you just referred to, the second half, water — utter mystery to people. Comes out of a pipe. The challenges of doing that in a rich country are hard. The challenges doing a country not so rich, also hard. Tell me what you find interesting about that topic.Well, whereas the story about agriculture is basically a good story: We've gotten better at it. We have a whole bunch of technical innovations that came in the 20th century and humankind is better off than ever before. With water, too, we are better off than ever before, but the maddening thing is we could be really well off because the technology is basically extremely old.There's a city, a very ancient city called Mohenjo-daro that I write about a bit in this article that was in essentially on the Pakistan-India border, 2600 BC. And they had a fully functioning water system that, in its basics, was no different than the water system that we have, or that London has, or that Paris has. So this is an ancient, ancient technology, yet we still have two billion people on the planet that don't have access to adequate water. In fact, even though we know how to do it, the lack of decent, clean, fresh water is the world's worst immediate environmental problem. And a small thing that makes me nuts is that climate change — which is real and important — gets a lot of attention, but there are people dying of not getting good water now.On top of it, even in rich countries like us, our water system is antiquated. The great bulk of it was built in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, and, like any kind of physical system, it ages, and every couple years, various engineering bodies, water bodies, the EPA, and so forth puts out a report saying, “Hey, we really have to fix the US water system and the numbers keep mounting up.” And Democrats, Republicans, they all ignore this.Who is working on the water issue in poorer countries?There you have a very ad hoc group of people. The answer is part of it's the Food and Agricultural Organization because most water in most countries is used for irrigation to grow food. You also have the World Health Organization, these kinds of bodies. You have NGOs working on it. What you don't have in those countries like our country is the government taking responsibility for coordinating something that's obviously in the national interest.So you have these things where, very periodically — a government like China has done this, Jordan has done this, Bolivia has done this, countries all over the world have done this — and they say, “Okay, we haven't been able to provide freshwater. Let's bring in a private company.” And the private company then invests all this money in infrastructure, which is expensive. Then, because it's a private company, it has to make that money back, and so it charges people for a lot of money for this, and the people are very unhappy because suddenly they're paying a quarter of their income for water, which is what I saw in Southwest China: water riots because people are paying so much for water.In other words, one of the things that government can do is sort of spread these costs over everybody, but instead they concentrate it on the users, Almost universally, these privatization efforts have led to tremendous political unhappiness because the government has essentially shifted responsibility for coordinating and doing these things and imposed a cost on a narrow minority of the users.Are we finally getting on top of the old water infrastructure in this country? It seems like during the Biden administration they had a big infrastructure bill. Do you happen to know if we are finally getting that system upgraded?Listen, I will be the only person who probably ever interviews you who's actually had to fix a water main as a summer job. I spent [it at] my local Public Works Department where we'd have to fix water mains, and this was a number of years ago, and even a number of years ago, those pipes were really, really old. It didn't take much for them to get a main break.I'm one of those weird people who is bothered by this. All I can tell you is we have a lot of aging infrastructure. The last estimate that I've seen came before this sort of sudden jerky rise of construction costs, which, if you're at all involved in building, is basically all the people in the construction industry talk about. At that point, the estimate was that it was $1.2 trillion to fix the infrastructure that we have in the United States. I am sure it is higher now. I am delighted that the Biden people passed this infrastructure — would've been great if they passed permitting reform and a couple of other things to make it easier to spend the money, but okay. I would like to believe that the Trump people would take up the baton and go on this.Feeding the masses (18:20)I do worry that the kind of regulations, and rules, and ideas that we put into place to try and make agriculture more like this picture that we have in our head will end up inadvertently causing suffering for the people who are struggling.We're still going to have another two billion people, maybe, on this earth. Are we going to be able to feed them all?Yeah, I think that there's no question. The question is what we're going to be able to feed them? Are we going to be able to feed them all, filet mignon and truffled . . . whatever they put truffle oil on, and all that? Not so sure about that.All organic vegetables.At the moment, that seems really implausible, and there's a sort of fundamental argument going on here. There's a lot of people, again, both right and left, who are sort of freaked out by the scale that modern agriculture operates on. You fly over the middle-west and you see all those circles of center-pivot irrigation, they plowed under, in the beginning of the 20th century, 100 million acres of prairie to produce all that. And it's done with enormous amounts of capital, and it was done also partly by moving people out so that you could have this enormous stuff. The result is it creates a system that . . . doesn't match many people's vision of the friendly family farmer that they grew up with. It's a giant industrial process and people are freaked out by the scale. They don't trust these entities, the Cargills and the ADMs, and all these huge companies that they see as not having their interests at heart.It's very understandable. I live in a small town, we have a farm down there, and Jeremy runs it, and I'm very happy to see Jeremy. There's no Jeremy at Archer Daniels Midland. So the result is that there's a big revulsion against that, and people want to downsize the scale, and they point to very real environmental problems that big agriculture has, and they say that that is reason for this. The great problem is that in every single study that I am aware of, the sort of small, local farms don't produce as much food per acre or per hectare as the big, soulless industrial processes. So if you're concerned about feeding everybody, that's something you have to really weigh in your head, or heavy in your heart.That sort of notion of what a farm should look like and what good food is, that kind of almost romantic notion really, to me, plays into the sort of anti-growth or the degrowth people who seemed to be saying that farms could only be this one thing — probably they don't even remember those farms anymore — that I saw in a storybook. It's like a family farm, everything's grown local, not a very industrial process, but you're talking about a very different world. Maybe that's a world they want, but I don't know if that's a world you want if you're a poor person in this world.No, and like I said, I love going to the small farm next to us and talking to Jeremy and he says, “Oh look, we've just got these tomatoes,” it's great, but I have to pay for that privilege. And it is a privilege because Jeremy is barely making it and charging twice as much as the supermarket. There's no economies of scale for him. He still has to buy all the equipment, but he's putting it over 20 acres instead of 2000 acres. In addition, it's because it's this hyper-diverse farm — which is wonderful; they get to see the strawberries, and the tomatoes, and all the different things — it means he has to hire much more labor than it would be if he was just specializing in one thing. So his costs are inevitably much, much higher, and, therefore, I have to pay a lot more to keep him going. That's fine for me; I'm a middle-class person, I like food, this can be my hobby going there.I'd hate to have somebody tell me it's bad, but it's not a system that is geared for people who are struggling. There are just a ton of people all over the world who are struggling. They're better off than they were 100 years ago, but they're still struggling. I do worry that the kind of regulations, and rules, and ideas that we put into place to try and make agriculture more like this picture that we have in our head will end up inadvertently causing suffering for the people who are struggling.To make sure everybody can get fed in the future, do we need a lot more innovation?Innovation is always good. I would say that we do, and the kinds of innovation we need are not often what people imagine. For example, it's pretty clear that parts of the world are getting drier, and therefore irrigation is getting more difficult. The American Southwest is a primary candidate, and you go to the Safford Valley, which I did a few years ago — the Safford Valley is in southeast Arizona and it's hotter than hell there. I went there and it's 106 degrees and there's water from the Colorado River, 800 miles away, being channeled there, and they're growing Pima cotton. Pima cotton is this very good fine cotton that they use to make fancy clothes, and it's a great cash crop for farmers, but growing it involves channeling water from the Colorado 800 miles, and then they grow it by what's called flood irrigation, which is where you just fill the field with an inch of water. I was there actually to see an archeologist who's a water engineer, and I said to him, “Gee, it's hot! How much that water is evaporated?” And he said, “Oh, all of it.”So we need to think about that kind of thing if the Colorado is going to run out of water, which it is now. There's ways you can do it, you can possibly genetically modify cotton to use less water. You could drip irrigation, which is a much more efficient form of irrigation, it's readily available, but it's expensive. So you could try to help farmers do that. I think if you cut the soft costs, which is called the regulatory costs of farming, you might be able to pay for it in that way. That would be one type of innovation. Another type of thing you could do is to do a different kind of farming which is called civil pastoral systems, where you grow tree crops and then you grow cattle underneath, and that uses dramatically less water. It's being done in Sonora, just across the border and the tree crops — trees are basically wild. People don't breed them because it takes so long, but we now have the tools to breed them, and so you could make highly productive trees with cattle underneath and have a system that produces a lot of calories or a lot of good stuff. That's all the different kinds of innovation that we could do. Just some of the different kinds of innovation we could do and all would help.Indigenous America (25:20)Part of the reason I wrote these things is that I realized it's really interesting and I didn't learn anything about it in school.Great articles in The New Atlantis, big fan of “Wizard and the Prophet,” but I'm going to take one minute and ask you about your great books talking about the story of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. If I just want to travel in the United States and I'm interested in finding out more about Native Americans in the United States, where would you tell me to go?One of my favorite places just it's so amazing, is Chaco Canyon, and that's in the Four Corners area — that whole Four Corners area is quite incredible — and Chaco Canyon is a sign that native people could build amazing stuff, and native people could be crazy, in my opinion. It's in the middle of nowhere, it has no water, and for reasons that are probably spiritual and religious, they built an enormous number of essentially castles in this canyon, and they're incredible.The biggest one, Pueblo Bonito as it's called now, it's like 800 rooms. They're just enormous. And you can go there, and you can see these places, and you can just walk around, and it is incredible. You drive up a little bit to Mesa Verde and there's hundreds of these incredible cliff dwellings. What seems to have happened — I'm going to put this really informally and kind of jokingly to you, not the way that an archeologist would talk about it or I would write about it, but what looks like it happened is that the Chaco Canyon is this big canyon, and on the good side that gets the southern exposure is all these big houses. And then the minions and the hoi polloi lived on the other side, and it looks like, around 800, 900, they just got really tired of serving the kings and they had something like a democratic revolution, and they just left, most of them, and founded the Pueblos, which is these intensely democratic self-governing bodies that are kind of like what Thomas Jefferson thought the United States should be.Then it's like all the doctors, and the lawyers, and the MBAs, and the rich guys went up to Mesa Verde and they started off their own little kingdoms and they all fought with each other. So you have these crazy cliff dwellings where it's impossible to get in and there's hundreds of people living in these niches in these cliffs, and then that blew up too. So you could see history, democracy, and really great architecture all in one place.If someone asked me for my advice about changing the curriculum in school, one, people would leave school knowing who the heroes of progress and heroes of the Agricultural Revolution were. And I think they'd also know a lot more about pre-Columbian history of the Americas. I think they should know about it but I also think it's just super interesting, though of course you've brought it to life in a beautiful way.Thank you very much, and I couldn't agree with you more. Part of the reason I wrote these things is that I realized it's really interesting and I didn't learn anything about it in school.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

EAH co-hosts Alicia Eastman and Patrick Molloy sat down with Karen Baert, the CEO and co-founder of Ammobia to learn about their high-efficiency innovation of the ammonia production process. We also discussed the role of ammonia and the challenges that clean tech innovators face. About Karen Baert: Karen has extensive experience across the sector having completed her Bachelors in Mechanical and Chemical Engineering in Brussels, Master in renewable energy at the Technical University Berlin, and MBA at Stanford University. Karen spent several years at Bain & Co., and worked with Breakthrough Energy Ventures, as well as Stanford GSB Impact fund, before co-founding Ammobia. Karen and her Co-founder and CTO are taking on the 100 year-old Haber Bosch process by developing their own reactor which offers potential for improved efficiencies in ammonia production with less emissions and lower capex. About Ammobia:Ammobia is developing Haber Bosch 2.0 - an innovative low cost, flexible process for clean ammonia production from clean hydrogen and air. They leverage the latest advances in materials science and catalysis to produce clean ammonia at low cost. Their processes and systems work across production scales and modes and they expect:- to require one third the capex- ⁠increased safety & flexibility (running directly on renewables)- ⁠80-90% lower emissions- ⁠10x reduction in pressure- ⁠150°C reduction in temperatureUS-based Ammobia closed an oversubscribed, US$4.2 million funding round in April. Led by Starlight Ventures and including Collaborative Fund, Chevron Technology Ventures, Arosa Capital, Zero Infinity Partners, R7, DNX Ventures and Plug and Play Tech Center, the funds will support a 1000x scale-up of Ammobia's next-generation synthesis technology. --Links: https://www.ammobia.co/https://ammoniaenergy.org/articles/funding-for-ammonia-energy-startups-in-2024/https://www.axios.com/pro/climate-deals/2024/04/03/ammobia-funding-green-ammonia

Ammonia is one of the largest-volume synthetic chemicals produced in the world. Globally, manufacturing plants produce about 200 million tons of it each year.  About 70% of ammonia is used to produce fertilizers. Most ammonia is produced using the Haber-Bosch process, which converts hydrogen and nitrogen into ammonia.  The process is energy-hungry, running at over […]

Hydrogen. What are you even supposed to think about it? If you've spent serious time focusing on climate policy, you've heard the hype about hydrogen — about the miraculous things that it might do to eliminate carbon pollution from cars, power plants, steel mills, or more. You've also seen that hype fizzle out — even as governments have poured billions of dollars into making it work.On this week's episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse give you a rough guide for how to think about clean hydrogen, which could help decarbonize the industrial — even the molecular — side of the economy by storing energy and helping to make clean steel and chemicals. Do we really need hydrogen to fight climate change? Where would it be useful? And why has it failed to take off in the past? What will Trump and China mean for global hydrogen policy? Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University.Mentioned:How the Haber-Bosch process was transferred after WWIThere's Something for (Almost) Everyone in the Hydrogen Tax Credit RulesThe Hydrogen LadderWhy it's so hard to ship hydrogenThe hydrogen tax credit could have had unintended emission consequences — here's the study about whyJesse on why Biden's hydrogen rules are on the right trackJesse's upshift; Rob's downshift.--This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …Intersolar & Energy Storage North America is the premier U.S.-based conference and trade show focused on solar, energy storage, and EV charging infrastructure. To learn more, visit intersolar.us.Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ammobia is enabling low cost clean ammonia production through their Haber-Bosch 2.0 technology - a low-capex, flexible ammonia production process. Karen Baert founded Ammobia in 2022 during her time at Stanford's Graduate School of Business. Previously, she spent time with Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the GSB Impact Fund, Bain Consulting, and multiple climate tech startups include Germany-based energy startup GWAdriga and US-based Redwood Materials.  In this episode we cover... [1:15] Why Ammonia is the “beer” of the energy transition [6:10] How ammonia is an enabler of the hydrogen economy [8:45] How Ammobia synthesizes hydrogen and nitrogen  [12:45] How Ammobia uses the Le Chatelier principle [14:35] How Ammobia reduces costs by 2x [15:35] How Ammobia will scale up their production  [19:10] Ammonia's GTM approach  [22:50] How farmers apply ammonia directly as a fertilizer [24:40] The downsides of ammonia and how we can mitigate them [29:40] What Karen has learned in the process of starting Ammobia [33:25] What the future looks like for Ammobia [38:50] Karen's advice for aspiring climate contributors [41:15] Karen, the Queen of Type 2 fun Connect with us: ⁠ Instagram⁠ | ⁠LinkedIn⁠ | ⁠X This episode was recorded on November 22, 2024.

How did fossil fuels become so embedded in our food systems? We trace this journey from the industrial extraction of guano, through the game-changing Haber-Bosch process, to today's globalized food system. Along the way, we uncover the hidden impacts on biodiversity, farmworkers, and our oceans—revealing the true cost of this reliance on fossil fuels.        In Fuel to Fork, a new podcast series powered by TABLE, IPES-Food and the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, we expose and explore the fossil fuels in our food, speaking to farmers, chefs, food industry experts, scientists and campaigners. Each episode delves deep into a different step of the food supply chain.         GuestsJennifer Clapp, IPES-FoodDarrin Qualman, National Farmers Union CanadaPat Mooney, IPES-Food and Etc GroupNavina Khanna, HEAL AllianceRashid Sumaila, University of British ColumbiaProduced by Matthew Kessler, Anna Paskal and Nicole Pita. Edited by Matthew Kessler. Audio engineering by Adam Titmuss. Cover art by Cover art by The Ethical Agency. Music by Blue dot sessions.

How did fossil fuels become so embedded in our food systems? We trace this journey from the industrial extraction of guano, through the game-changing Haber-Bosch process, to today's globalized food system. Along the way, we uncover the hidden impacts on biodiversity, farmworkers, and our oceans—revealing the true cost of this reliance on fossil fuels.        In Fuel to Fork, a new podcast series powered by TABLE, IPES-Food and the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, we expose and explore the fossil fuels in our food, speaking to farmers, chefs, food industry experts, scientists and campaigners. Each episode delves deep into a different step of the food supply chain.         GuestsJennifer Clapp, IPES-FoodDarrin Qualman, National Farmers Union CanadaPat Mooney, IPES-Food and Etc GroupNavina Khanna, HEAL AllianceRashid Sumaila, University of British ColumbiaProduced by Matthew Kessler, Anna Paskal and Nicole Pita. Edited by Matthew Kessler. Audio engineering by Adam Titmuss. Cover art by Cover art by The Ethical Agency. Music by Blue dot sessions.

Explore the fascinating intersection of food systems and climate change with Mark Easter, author of the book The Blue Plate: A Food Lover's Guide to Climate Chaos. Mark illuminates the unpredictable ways our food production impacts greenhouse gas emissions and how agricultural practices have both contributed to and buffered against climate change. You'll discover the complex history and evolution of agriculture, from the introduction of fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers to the innovative solutions that attempt a more sustainable future.Join our online community to discuss this episode with us directly!In this conversation, Mark unravels the powerful role of methane and the transformative impact of fossil fuel-dependent farming practices that emerged in the 20th century. He sheds light on agriculture's dual role as both a contributor to and a preventer of climate chaos, and how practices like the Haber-Bosch process have changed the landscape of farming. Mark discusses pioneering strategies for sustainable food production, from integrating livestock into farming systems to enhancing soil health with organic matter. Learn about his creative journey in writing "The Blue Plate" and the profound connections fostered between farmers and consumers through sustainable practices.Buy Mark's book HERE.Buy Daniel's new book HERE. 

Marian Tupy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, discusses his book "Super Abundance" with Gene Tunny. Tupy argues that resources are becoming more abundant relative to global population, a concept he calls "super abundance." He explains that human ingenuity has led to cheaper commodities over time. Tupy refutes Malthusian predictions of resource scarcity, citing examples like the Haber-Bosch process for synthetic fertilizer. He also addresses environmental concerns, emphasizing that economic growth and technological advancements can mitigate issues like ocean and air pollution and resource depletion.If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for Gene, please email him at contact@economicsexplored.com  or send a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. About this episode's guest: Marian Tupy, Cato InstituteMarian L. Tupy is the founder and editor of Human​Progress​.org, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.He is the co-author of the Simon Abundance Index, Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet (2022) and Ten Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know: And Many Others You Will Find Interesting (2020).His articles have been published in the Financial Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, Newsweek, the U.K. Spectator, Foreign Policy, and various other outlets both in the United States and overseas. He has appeared on BBC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, and other channels.Tupy received his BA in international relations and classics from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and his PhD in international relations from the University of St. Andrews in the United Kingdom.Source: https://www.cato.org/people/marian-l-tupyTimestamps for EP258Introduction and Overview of the Podcast (0:00)Explaining the Concept of Super Abundance (2:30)Methodology and Stylized Facts (6:48)Julian Simon and the Bet with Paul Ehrlich (9:46)Future Prospects and Human Ingenuity (12:45)Environmental Concerns and Degrowth (22:59)Population Growth and Resource Use (33:11)Final Thoughts and Future Prospects (34:08)TakeawaysTupy argues that human ingenuity continuously expands the resource base, making resources more abundant even as populations grow.The concept of "time prices" shows that resources are becoming cheaper relative to wages, supporting the thesis of super abundance.The famous Simon-Ehrlich bet demonstrates that commodities became cheaper over time, disproving doomsday predictions about resource depletion.Technological advancements, such as desalination and agricultural productivity, are key to sustaining resource abundance.Economic prosperity and technological innovation are essential for environmental protection.Links relevant to the conversationMarian's book Superabundance:https://www.amazon.com.au/Superabundance-Population-Growth-Innovation-Flourishing/dp/1952223393Simon–Ehrlich wager Wikipedia entry:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wagerRegarding the question, “Is it true that the majority of plastic in the oceans comes from Asia and Africa?” see:https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-it-true-that-the-majority-o-3aYOSMTyT6m9CcULDm7IugLumo Coffee promotion10% of Lumo Coffee's Seriously Healthy Organic Coffee.Website: https://www.lumocoffee.com/10EXPLOREDPromo code: 10EXPLORED 

Menos de la mitad de los desechos alimentarios de la Unión Europea (el 46%) fueron generados por el sector agroalimentario en 2022, según datos publicados por EUROSTAT (la oficina estadística de la UE).El domingo 13 de octubre se celebra en todo el mundo el “Día Mundial de los Fertilizantes” para conmemorar la tecnología de Haber-Bosch, invención que ha permitido fabricar fertilizantes minerales a gran escala a partir del nitrógeno del aire.El Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA) organiza el próximo 22 de octubre en su sede una jornada técnica sobre certificación de material vegetal de reproducción de frutales que abordará aspectos cruciales sobre normativa, certificación y el impacto económico del material vegetal certificado.CANALBRAIN. Grupo operativo para el Control Inteligente de Canales que pretende resolver es la complejidad en la gestión y distribución del agua en redes de canales con poca flexibilidad en la regulación ante variaciones de demanda.

Menos de la mitad de los desechos alimentarios de la Unión Europea (el 46%) fueron generados por el sector agroalimentario en 2022, según datos publicados por EUROSTAT (la oficina estadística de la UE). El domingo 13 de octubre se celebra en todo el mundo el “Día Mundial de los Fertilizantes” para conmemorar la tecnología de Haber-Bosch, invención que ha permitido fabricar fertilizantes minerales a gran escala a partir del nitrógeno del aire. El Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA) organiza el próximo 22 de octubre en su sede una jornada técnica sobre certificación de material vegetal de reproducción de frutales que abordará aspectos cruciales sobre normativa, certificación y el impacto económico del material vegetal certificado. CANALBRAIN. Grupo operativo para el Control Inteligente de Canales que pretende resolver es la complejidad en la gestión y distribución del agua en redes de canales con poca flexibilidad en la regulación ante variaciones de demanda.

Nitrogen is absolutely essential for all forms of life, plants, animals and microbes. Nitrogen is the basis for making amino acids, and amino acids are the basis for making proteins, enzymes. The historic nitrogen system was balanced and based on microbial activity transforming atmospheric nitrogen into soluable forms usable by plants and microbes. Eric Davidson's has been working to transform our food systems through better understanding terestrial nutrient cycling, cycling, greenhouse gas emissions from soils, global biogeochemical cycles, and how they impact sustainable agriculture. Charles Brooke has been working to accelerate the rate of action and innovation in reducing the climate impact of livestock production. He leads Spark Climate Solutions livestock enteric methane mitigation program.The modern nitrogen system is based on the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilzers produced through the energy intensive Haber-Bosch process developed just prior to World War I to manufacture munitions. The impact of this sythetic nitrogen has spread far beyond conflict. Synthetic nitrogen has enabled our modern food systems to produce enough food to feed 8 billion people. It has also resulted in widespred nitrogen pollution in water ways and ever incresing levels of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. Synthetic fertiliser production has been so successful that today 50 - 60% of all the nitrogen in human bodies in humans actually comes from Habe-Bosch processes.From a warming perspective nitrous oxide (or N2O) is about 270 times more potent than is carbon dioxide. However, unlike CO2 where levels are somewhat plateauing, N2O levels continue to rise. The use of nitrogen fertilizer is hugely inefficient. Half of all fertilizer put on the ground is lost. Additionl losses occur when plant proteins are fed to animals prior to human consumption. Nitrogen 2.0 is focused on reducing nitrogen wastage and pollution, and increasing the circularity of nitrogen use. The three components are:Feeding nitrogen directly to livestockDecreasing the nitrogen required by and provided to cropsIncreasing the recycling of nitrogen in manure back into our cropping systems Eric Davidson is Professor of the Appalachian Laboratory of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. He is also a Principal Scientist at Spark Climate Solutions. His most recent book Science for a Green New Deal; Connecting Climate, Economics, and Social Justice was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2022.Send us a text

To kick off our new series on counterfactual histories David talks to the geneticist and science writer Adam Rutherford about whether ‘What Ifs' make sense in science. If one person doesn't make the big discovery, will someone else do it? Are scientific breakthroughs the product of genius or of wealth and power? And how might the world have been a completely different place if the Haber-Bosch process had not been developed in Germany in 1913?Sign up now to PPF+ to get ad-free listening and all our bonus episodes: 24 bonuses per year for just £5 a month or a £50 annual subscription www.ppfideas.com Next time: What if… the French Revolution had happened in China? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this mind-blowing episode, we explore how one man's quest to create artificial fertilizer transformed the trajectory of human history. Inspired by listener Martin from Frankfurt, we dive into the story of Fritz Haber, whose discovery of the Haber-Bosch process for synthesizing ammonia not only revolutionized agriculture and saved billions from starvation but also fueled the rise of chemical weapons in World War I. From explosive bat guano to the delicate balance of ding-dongs and Twinkies, we unravel the complex web connecting fertilizer, food production, and the very bombs that shaped the 20th century. Brace yourself for a wild ride through the unintended consequences of scientific breakthroughs! —

Here's Martin's email to us which includes lots more information and links to learn more about his intriguing IF! From: Martin Subject: A world without NH3 (a What The If idea) I had another idea for a potential IF, or - to give credit where credit is due - my colleague Thomas has it. He read that BASF in Germany has sold an NH3 (ammonia) plant in Ludwigshafen (their main production site) after having produced NH3 there since 1913 It was the first industrial plant that realized the -then- completely new Haber-Bosch process. So Thomas asked: what (the if) would a world without NH3 look like? Then we started discussing :-) It's sort of chemist's lore that Haber and Bosch tested many, many catalysts before they found a good one to combine N2 and H2 to NH3. Some sources put the number of tested catalyst formulations to as many as 2500 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/haber-bosch-process#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20find%20a,Germany%2C%20now%20part%20of%20Ludwigshafen). What if they lost interest after test #1000 (and never found the iron-based catalyst that was ultimately the one)? Probably this (hypothetical) failed attempt on large scale would deter other groups of scientists at that time to even start their own catalyst developments? Anyhow, let's assume there has never been an industrial NH3 synthesis process in our "What the If" world. It's quite obvious that agriculture would have been very different. Our World in Data has the key answer here: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-with-and-without-fertilizer — without ammonia as fertilizer we would be able to feed max 4 bn people (instead 8). So many more famines? Or slower population growth? Certainly a different diet, less feed for animals, and more plants that can fixate N2 from the atmosphere. Our World in Data has a little fun with that: (https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-people-does-synthetic-fertilizer-feed#could-we-have-achieved-the-same-without-synthetic-nitrogen) more peas and beans (and some others — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nitrogen-fixing_crops — including lupines — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupinus#Uses — which leads -of course- directly to one of my favorite Monty Python sketches "Dennis Moore"). Not nice. I wouldn't survive the season, that's for sure (no / less fruits and other vegetables) Side note: I was surprised that per capita for many decades (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fertilizer-per-capita?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~OWID_EUR~CHN~IND~EGY~NLD~DEU~USA) the Western world had significantly higher values than Africa, India, Egypt. So without NH3 Europe / USA would have suffered more), probably more focus has to be put on bringing food on the table for everyone and less activities in new technologies etc. (basically staying longer at the bottom levels of Maslow's pyramid of needs) And then there is war. NH3 was an important ingredient to make TNT - some folks estimate that TNT has killed 100-150 million people in all wars combined. TNT Is Still With Us | Science | AAAS https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/tnt-still-us
Despite being an older explosive, TNT remains relevant due to its stability and relative safety compared to newer, more volatile alternatives. All the best, Martin

In World War 1, the Germans perfected chemical weapons by using a bastardized version of the Haber-Bosch fertilization process that revolutionized how food was mass produced worldwide. Its still used today. It was developed by German chemist, Fritz Haber. But, when the war broke out, he found a way to weaponize it, and chemical weapons were born. Fritz Haber was dubbed the Father of Chemical Warfare, and thousands and thousands of soldiers would die as a result of its use. One battle in particular was the Battle of Osoweic Fortress, in Poland. The Russians occupied it, and the Germans wanted it due to its strategic location, and a battle broke on Aug 6, 1915. The Germans deployed the chemical weapons, and this was one of the first times it had been used. The Russians had no protection from it, and most of their battalion was wiped out. But, a group of around 100 Russian soldiers whose insides were being dissolved, charged the field in a bayonet charge. They looked like corpses running at them. The Germans thought they were zombies, and this small band of dying Russian were able to push the German battalion back, and maintain the fortress. We are joined by Kev Carlton of the Dark Windows podcast on this one. Its a very interesting story, and one that the Germans would like to forget. Dark Windows Podcast YouTube Instagram Facebook X(Twitter) Website #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast #TrueCrimeComedy #TrueCrimeComedyPodcast #TrueCrimeCommunity #SerialKiller #Cult #CrimesKillersCultsandBeer #Sabaton #WW1 #History #Chemicalweapons #Zombie #WorldWarOne

On this episode, Nate is joined by ER doctor, nuclear power advocate, and podcast host Chris Keefer for a broad ranging conversation including the basics of nuclear energy, how he engages with opposing opinions, and hypotheticals for a future medical system. Coming from a broad background, Chris understands what it means to have a human to human conversation and put together the pieces of our systemic puzzle in a clear and compelling way. What role could nuclear play for our future energy needs - and how are different countries making use of it today? How can we prioritize the health and safety of people under energetic and resource constraints? Most of all, how do we listen to others that we don't agree with - regardless of the issue - to foster the diverse perspectives necessary to navigate the coming challenges of the human predicament?  About Chris Keefer: Chris Keefer MD, CCFP-EM is a Staff Emergency Physician at St Joseph's Health Centre and a Lecturer for the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto. He is also an avid advocate for expanding nuclear power as the President of Canadians for Nuclear Energy and Director of Doctors for Nuclear Energy. Additionally, he is the host of the Decouple Podcast exploring the most pressing questions in energy, climate, environment, politics, and philosophy. PDF Transcript Show Notes  00:00 - Chris Keefer works + info, Decouple Podcast, Canadians for Nuclear Energy 04:45 - Egalitarian hunter gatherer society, infant mortality 05:12 - Bow drill fire 07:10 - Yukon 07:30 - Humans and livestock outweigh wild mammals 50:1, not in the Yukon 08:10 - Dr. Paul Farmer 08:45 - Most humans use to work in agriculture, ~15% now involved in healthcare 10:56 - Ontario nuclear power, one of lowest electric grid in the world 12:01 - Justin Trudeau 12:24 - Simcoe Clinic, Canadian Center for Victims of Torture 14:01 - World population over time 14:36 - Paleodemography 14:59 - Degrowth 15:19 - Infant mortality in developed countries 15:55 - Tight link between energy, materials and GDP 20:54 - Duck and Cover Drills 21:05 - Environmental Movement and Nuclear 21:21 - Nagasaki bomb radiation injuries 21:49 - High dose radiation is deadly, low dose radiation less so 21:05 - Strontium-90 found in the teeth of babies 21:10 - Atmospheric weapons testing ban 22:33 - Fukushima meltdown, health impacts are negligible 23:09 - 20,000 people died from the Fukushima earthquake and following tsunami  23:47 - Fukushima contaminated water has been filtered out and is safe 24:24 - How radiation is measured 26:02 - Health effects from alcohol 26:16 - Drinking culture in the U.S. 27:22 - Nuclear energy density, land footprint 28:23 - Best nuclear applications and limitations 30:01 - Those who live in nuclear powered areas fare better 30:33 - Price of nuclear energy over the lifetime 30:45 - Nuclear power in France 31:18 - Canada energy history, center for nuclear research outside of the Manhattan Project 32:23 - 1000 people die prematurely every year due to coal 33:25 - Ontario population 33:38 - Candu Reactors 34:15 - Levelized cost of electricity, skewed with renewables 37:01 - Lazard Graphs 38:09 - Mark Jacobson 41:07 - Carbon emissions by power source 41:23 - Lifespan of nuclear plants 43:11 - Land use change impacts 43:31 - Nuclear and job creation 46:05 - US spending on military vs healthcare 48:49 - Meiji Restoration 49:33 - Vaclav Smil 50:42 - AI electricity demands 50:55 - AI risks 51:29 - Meredith Angwin  52:42 - Nuclear fuel 53:10 - 46% of uranium enrichment happens in Russia 54:15 - Known Uranium Reserves 54:25 - Haber Bosch  54:55 - Breeder Reactors 55:42 - Uranium in seawater 56:14 - Slow vs Fast Neutrons, fertile elements 57:04 - Sodium Fast Reactor 58:45 - China built a nuclear reactor in less than 4 years 1:00:05 - Defense in depth 1:01:11 - EMP, solar flare 1:01:30 - HBO's Chernobyl, wildlife thriving in chernobyl area 1:03:13 - Death toll from radiation in Chernobyl 1:05:13 - Scientific literature and confirmation bias 1:08:12 - Chernobyl Children's International 1:08:44 - Genome sequencing of highest exposures to radiation from chernobyl 1:09:09 - Germline mutations if the father smokes 1:10:02 - The Great Simplification animated video 1:10:32 - Peak Oil 1:12:10 - Complex 6-continent supply chains 1:12:30 - I, Pencil 1:15:19 - Nuclear Fusion 1:16:24 - Lawrence Livermore 1:17:45 - Tomas Murphy, Galactic Scale Energy 1:18:11 - Small Modular Reactor 1:19:26 - Cost saving in nuclear comes from scaling 1:19:34 - Wright's Law, economies of multiples 1:23:33 - Biden administration policies and advances on nuclear 1:24:00 - Non-profit industrial complex 1:24:24 - The size of the US non-profit economy 1:24:44 - Sierra Club, anti-nuclear history 1:25:14 - Rocky Mountain Club 1:27:15 - Hans Rosling 1:27:32 - Somalia infant mortality rate 1:27:42 - Cuba 1990s economic shock and response 1:27:42 - Vandana Shiva + TGS Episode 1:30:27 - Cognitive Dissonance 1:31:45 - Jonathan Haidt + TGS Podcast, Righteous Mind 1:32:48 - Fatality and hospitalization statistics for COVID for first responders 1:33:22 - Truckers protest in Ottawa 1:34:15 - The problem with superchickens  1:36:54 - How social media tries to keep you online 1:37:12 - Paleopsychology 1:37:55 - Tristan Harris and Daniel Schmachtenberger on Joe Rogan 1:39:45 - John Kitzhaber + TGS Episode, Robert Lustig + TGS Episode 1:39:55 - US healthcare 20% of GDP, 50% of the world's medical prescriptions are in the US  1:41:55 - Superutilizers 1:42:37 - Cuban medical system, spending, life expectancy, infant mortality 1:43:06 - Cuban export of pharmaceuticals 1:44:08 - Preventative medicine, chronic disease management 1:44:25 - Cuban doctor to person ratio, rest of the world 1:48:47 - Social determinants of health 1:49:20 - Cement floor reducing illness in Mexico 1:50:03 - Hygiene hypothesis 1:50:28 - Zoonotic disease and human/animal cohabitation 1:50:50 - Roundworm life cycle 1:52:38 - Acceptable miss rates 1:53:16 - Cancer screening effectiveness  1:53:58 - Drugs produced from nuclear plant byproducts 1:58:18 - Timothy O'Leary 2:02:28 - Superabundance 2:02:40 - Julian Simons and Paul Ehrlich bet 2:02:15 - Malthusian 2:06:08 - Pickering Plant Watch this video episode on YouTube

What is “Green Ammonia”?Ammonia is a vital chemical that sustains half of all food production around the world (through the creation of agricultural fertilizer), but the process we use to make it results in significant greenhouse gas emissions. Ammonia, which is made up of nitrogen and hydrogen, requires extreme heat and pressure and large amounts of energy (usually from fossil fuels) in order to synthesize. “Green ammonia” production reduces this reliance on emission-intensive energy by using cleaner hydrogen inputs and processes that require less energy. Green ammonia, while easier on the planet, is a much harder task to accomplish than mainstream methods. In the Haber-Bosch process, the standard industrial procedure used today, high pressure steam is shot at methane or coal, breaking up the components to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This process requires fossil fuels as an input and releases greenhouse gasses during production, making it a significant contributor to climate change. Once the hydrogen is produced, the Haber-Bosch process synthesizes the hydrogen and nitrogen and separates out ammonia using high temperatures and extreme pressure swings, conditions that require large energy input. The Haber-Bosch process is so energy intensive that this chemical reaction alone accounts for about 1% of global annual CO2 emissions!The Chemical with the Biggest FootprintGreen Ammonia aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in multiple stages of this procedure through different approaches. Areas of research include creating reactors that convert sunlight and air into hydrogen, binding together the hydrogen and nitrogen under less pressure than nearly 200 atmospheres, and using less pressure to separate the finished ammonia from other residual gasses at the end of the procedure. The Ammonia Separation ChallengeWhile the Haber-Bosh process uses a large pressure change to liquefy ammonia gas, this method, and many current separation techniques, are carbon intensive and not fully compatible with cleaner hydrogen sources. Creating technology that can more efficiently capture ammonia at lower temperatures and pressures would reduce the energy costs of producing ammonia significantly. An added bonus? Downscaled reactors require lower temperatures and pressures, potentially enabling small-scale ammonia production on farms themselves.About Benjamin SnyderBenjamin Snyder is an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at the University of Illinois, where he conducts research combining inorganic, physical, and materials chemistry. He led green ammonia research as an Arnold O. Beckman Postdoctoral Fellow at UC Berkeley, focusing on alternative methods to separate ammonia. For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/green-ammonia-pioneering-a-sustainable-future-in-food-production/

Barry Goldman, founder and CSO of Pluton Biosciences introduces the concept of microbial cover crops as a new and innovative approach to improving soil health and sustainable agriculture. A plant cover crop e.g. alfalfa, is typically grown in the off-season and plowed back into the field to enrich the soil before the actual crop is planted. Barry and his team set out to see whether some bacteria can do this, particularly around nitrogen fixation, adding ammonia to the soil from the atmosphere. He points out that since the 1950s and 1960s the world's population has gone from roughly 3 billion people to 8 billion. Some part of that is due to the use of synthetic fertilizers - ammonia made from the Haber-Bosch process. That has fed a lot of people. But that process creates a lot of greenhouse gas as well.Is there another way to add nitrogen to the soil that avoids undesirable side effects? When Barry and I were classmates and labmates in grad school studying Salmonella genetics, We had a saying. “If you can imagine it, a bacterium is already doing it.” Starting with a soil sample containing about 10,000 different species, the scientists at Pluton Biosciences have identified a consortia of bacteria that will grow in the absence of carbon and nitrogen except for what they can get from the air. The consortia work together using energy from the sun to reduce CO2 into usable energy sources (photosynthesis) and fix N2 to ammonia which can be used to synthesize amino acids etc. As an additional benefit of deploying microbial cover crops on a large scale for nitrogen fixation, it's possible to sequester a significant amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. "If you could now take this on a hundred million acres, you removed a hundred million tons of CO2 per year... you can start tackling this and give ourselves more time to come up with even better solutions. We also believe we can put on 30 pounds of nitrogen per acre. So now, if you're on that for that much, you're essentially almost turning the amount of the Haber-Bosch process to zero. That's roughly 20 percent of the greenhouse gases that are being emitted. You put those two together, now you have a massive impact on climate change." Not subscribed yet? Can we fix that?Either way, I appreciate you spending time here.What would it take the bring this potential to reality?Of course, like anything else in life science, safety and efficacy matter. These consortia need to be tested in the field. Because they are not genetically modified, the EPA would be satisfied to know that the constituents of the consortia have been identified and are typically present wherever they are intended to be applied.The second challenge is getting farmers to test the consortia in their own field (or a portion thereof). They will want some assurance that they would at least be compensated for any reduction in yield. And to be paid for their effort as well. Testing in real-world fields is crucial to prove that these microbial cover crops work as expected. This involves multiple phases, from starting with a few fields to expanding once efficacy and safety are demonstrated. Amazingly, the consortia create a visible crust on the soil. Similar to what we discussed in a very early episode of this podcast, drone technology and machine vision can be used to monitor the fields and gather data on microbial cover crop performance.Oh yeah. What's the business model? Someone needs to pay for this. If the consortia works, the grower gets value from savings on synthetic fertilizer. There is also the carbon market. Right now that's at $15-30 per ton of carbon sequestered per acre. Finally, does the soil improve? Does it result in better yields (more revenue)?Barry reminds us that this is not a complete solution. But microbial cover crops have the potential to put a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions giving us more time to develop additional remedies for climate change.Your deepest insights are your best branding. I'd love to help you share them. Chat with me about custom content for your life science brand. Or visit my website.Intro Music stefsax / CC BY 2.5 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit cclifescience.substack.com

#139: Tom Willey is a longtime, organic vegetable farmer in Central California who has participated in recent trials seeking to minimize tillage in organic row crop production.  His thoughts on the reliance of of Haber-Bosch nitrogen, the overuse of compost, and intentionally moving towards the use of chemicals in organic leads to some lively conversation with Dave.Tom Willey has run TD Willey Farms with his wife Dennesse in Madera, CA since the mid-1980s.  Along with California farmers Scott Park, Phil Foster, Paul Muller, Dru Rivers, Andrew Brait and others, Tom has been participating in on-farm trials that aim understand how tillage can be minimized on organic vegetable farms. https://tdwilleyfarms.com/To watch a video version of this podcast with access to the full transcript and links relevant to our conversation, please visit:https://www.realorganicproject.org/tom-willey-merging-chemical-regenerative-with-organic-episode-one-hundred-thirty-nineThe Real Organic Podcast is hosted by Dave Chapman and Linley Dixon, engineered by Brandon StCyr, and edited and produced by Jenny Prince.The Real Organic Project is a farmer-led movement working towards certifying 1,000 farms across the United States this year. Our add-on food label distinguishes soil-grown fruits and vegetables from hydroponically-raised produce, and pasture-raised meat, milk, and eggs from products harvested from animals in horrific confinement (CAFOs - confined animal feeding operations).To find a Real Organic farm near you, please visit:https://www.realorganicproject.org/farmsWe believe that the organic standards, with their focus on soil health, biodiversity, and animal welfare were written as they should be, but that the current lack of enforcement of those standards is jeopardizing the ability for small farms who adhere to the law to stay in business. The lack of enforcement is also jeopardizing the overall health of the customers who support the organic movement; customers who are not getting what they pay for at market but still paying a premium price. And the lack of enforcement is jeopardizing the very cycles (water, air, nutrients) that Earth relies upon to provide us all with a place to live, by pushing extractive, chemical agriculture to the forefront.If you like what you hear and are feeling inspired, we would love for you to join our movement by becoming one of our 1,000  Real Friends:https://www.realorganicproject.org/real-organic-friends/To read our weekly newsletter (which might just be the most forwarded newsletter on the internet!) and get firsthand news about what's happening with organic food, farming and policy, please subscribe here:https://www.realorganicproject.org/email/

NOUVEAU - Abonnez-vous à Minuit+ pour profiter de Catastrophes - Histoires Vraies et de milliers d'autres histoires sans publicité, d'épisodes en avant-première et en intégralité. Vous aurez accès sans publicité à des dizaines de programmes passionnants comme Crimes - Histoires Vraies, Espions - Histoires Vraies ou encore Paranormal - Histoires Vraies.

NOUVEAU - Abonnez-vous à Minuit+ pour profiter de Catastrophes - Histoires Vraies et de milliers d'autres histoires sans publicité, d'épisodes en avant-première et en intégralité. Vous aurez accès sans publicité à des dizaines de programmes passionnants comme Crimes - Histoires Vraies, Espions - Histoires Vraies ou encore Paranormal - Histoires Vraies.

Soy Checkoff: https://www.unitedsoybean.org/"The Alchemy of Air" by Thomas HagerFoA 325: Electrified and Distributed Fertilizer Production with Nico Pinkowski of NitricityFoA 337: Synthetic biology for nature-based and data-driven farming with Travis Bayer and Adam Litle of Sound AgricultureFoA 348: Investing in the Future of Fertilizer with Sarah Nolet of Tenacious VenturesFoA 370: [History of Agriculture] William J Morse, the Father of the US Soybean IndustryWe learned in elementary school that soil, water and sunlight were what plants needed to survive. But for us to produce not just plants, but also food; food for billions of people, many of which live far away from the farm….we need fertilizer. Especially nitrogen. Lots and lots of nitrogen. Crops need other nutrients as well, but none are more essential than nitrogen. Before the 1900s, that nitrogen mostly came from manure or compost, or the very slow process of microbes that are able to fix small quantities of nitrogen from the air. And that last point, the fact that nitrogen is all around us in the air, was the basis for what is likely the greatest agricultural technology in history: the Haber-Bosch process, which involved the discovery and commercialization of how to convert atmospheric nitrogen in the air into the building block of modern agriculture: fixed nitrogen. The Haber-Bosch process, commercialized in the early 1900s is still where we get our nitrogen fertilizer today, for the most part. It's estimated that without this process, 2-3 billion of the world's population, about 40% would starve to death. If that doesn't hit home hard enough, it's also estimated that about half of the nitrogen in your body derived from a Haber-Bosch facility. Listen to this short excerpt from Alchemy of Air by Thomas Hager, which is the book that much of today's episode is based on. Hager says: “While the population nearly quadrupled during the 20th century, food production, thanks first to HB, second to improved genetic strains of rice and wheat, increased nearly seven fold. That is the simple math behind today's era of plenty”

A big part of what keeps you alive—among other things—is nitrogen. The plants you eat need it to grow, so for centuries farmers have been applying it to soil to make their acreage more productive.  Prior to the 20th century, nitrogen fertilizer used to come from animal feces, blood, and bones—which is still common in organic agriculture today—but most row crops these days are fertilized with human-made nitrogen, produced by a high-energy reaction known as the Haber–Bosch process. (Or if you take Fritz Haber's view of things rather than Carl Bosch's, you might just call it the Haber process.) The creation of synthetic nitrogen is a big reason we can feed eight billion humans today, since it enables us to produce a lot more food from the same acre of land. But, there's much to be desired about how we fertilize crops today. Not only is it highly energy-intensive to fix nitrogen from the air and turn it into something bioavailable to plants, but the application of all that nitrogen also creates major runoff pollution and air emissions problems from our farms. But what if, instead of doing the hard work of turning nitrogen into ammonia ourselves, we could simply coax soil microbes to do it for us? That's what a startup founded in 2011 called Pivot Bio is doing. They've gene-edited microbes to restore their natural ability to convert atmospheric nitrogen and deliver it to crops by adhering to the roots of the plants. These nitrogen-fixing microbes are applied either in the furrow at planting or directly on the seed before planting, forging a symbiotic relationship that allows the plant to thrive with less synthetic nitrogen. And we've got Pivot Bio's president and chief operating officer Lisa Nunez Safarian on the show to talk all about it. Nitrogen, it turns out, is very big business, with the global fertilizer business nearly $200 billion in value. As you'll hear, Pivot Bio has raised a whopping $600 million-plus from venture investors with a valuation nearing $2 billion—or one percent of the entire global fertilizer industry. Lisa tells us in this conversation that Pivot's microbes were used on three million cropland acres in 2022, reducing the need for a huge amount of synthetic fertilizer, and generating about $50 million in 2022 revenue for Pivot Bio. Even if you don't know much about agriculture, I promise this conversation is a comprehensible and riveting one that showcases the potential for biotechnology to slow climate change, clean up the environment, and produce more food with fewer resources. Discussed in this episode Lisa and Paul both endorse The Alchemy of Air by Thomas Hager. Lisa recommends reading The Infinite Game by Simon Sinek as well as The Five Dysfunctions of a Team and The Advantage (both by Patrick M. Lencioni). Paul recommends Resetting the Table by Rob Paarlberg, who we had on this show! More about Lisa Nunez Safarian Lisa Nunez Safarian leads commercial, manufacturing, and product development at Pivot Bio. Dedicating her career to advancing agriculture and helping farmers achieve better outcomes, Lisa oversees the day-to-day operations to ensure we are meeting the nitrogen needs of our customers. Prior to joining Pivot Bio, Lisa held several leadership positions at Bayer and Monsanto. Most recently, she served as President, Crop Science North America for Bayer where she launched innovative technologies and go-to-market strategies that grew the business. Before this role, Lisa served as Vice President, North America for Monsanto where she was responsible for strategy, execution, and commercial transformation of the $12B U.S., Canada, and Latin America North seeds, traits, licensing and crop protection businesses.

Fritz Haber is an undisputed genius and is considered one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th Century. He's an incredibly complex person, who has given so much to the world, but whether his inventions and intentions are good or evil are up for debate. Dalllas is joined by Dan Charles, Author of Master Mind: The Rise and Fall of Fritz Haber, the Nobel Laureate Who Launched the Age of Chemical Warfare to discuss the life and inventions of Fritz Haber and ask the complex question – was he evil? In 1918 Haber won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention of the Haber–Bosch process. At the time intensive farming was depleting the nitrogen in the soil, raising fears of a global food crisis. However Haber invented a method to synthesise ammonia from nitrogen gas and hydrogen gas. His process led to the synthesis of fertilisers, which helped feed the world's growing population and dwindling supply of food. However in WWII, Haber devoted his research and resources to meeting Germany's wartime demands, using chlorine gas as a chemical weapon and essentially birthed modern Chemical Warfare. After the war, Haber was criticised for his involvement in the gas-warfare program and thus leads us to ask the question. Was Fritz Haber an evil Inventor? Please note, this episode discusses topics of suicide and self-harm. If these topics are triggering, please skip this episode. You can seek help by calling Samaritans on 116 12. Edited by Alex Carlon, Produced by Alex Carlon & Freddy Chick. Senior Producer is Charlotte Long.Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free original podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians like Dan Snow, James Holland, Mary Beard and more.Get 50% off your first 3 months with code PATENTED. Download the app on your smart TV or in the app store or sign up at historyhit.com/subscribeYou can take part in our listener survey here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are you ready to explore the exciting intersection of technology and agriculture, and discover how it's revolutionizing the way we produce and use fertilizers? Join us for an illuminating conversation with John Ireland, founder of NTP Technologies, as he introduces us to the world of non-thermal plasma technology. Learn how John's company is turning the tide by producing sustainable, salt-free nitrate on-site for farmers, challenging the environmentally damaging Haber-Bosch process, and offering a greener alternative to synthetic fertilizers.We also follow John's inspiring journey into the realm of organic farming. He candidly addresses the pressing challenges that farmers face daily, from soil health to the global impact of fertilizers. Embrace the game-changing solution that John is bringing to the table: a cost-effective fertilizer machine that operates off-grid for two whole decades, easing the burden on farmers and reducing the environmental footprint. Lastly, we dive into the importance of networking in startup accelerators. John shares his own experience of leveraging the Big Launch Challenge, which played a major role in securing capital, recognition, and invaluable connections for his business. As we wrap up our conversation, we look forward to a future where technology and agriculture go hand in hand, paving the way for a cleaner, more sustainable future for us all. Tune in and join the conversation around the future of industrial agriculture.Support the showFollow RIoT on social media Instagram Twitter Facebook Linkedin

In this episode, Anthony Wang, co-founder of ETFuels, describes his company's business model of using renewable energy to make green hydrogen, then using the hydrogen to make carbon-neutral methanol.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsAnthony Wang, a mechanical engineer by training, spent years as a researcher on hydrogen technologies. He worked with governments to develop policy and infrastructure plans — he was project manager on the EU's big hydrogen backbone project — and with private companies like Total and Shell to develop hydrogen technology roadmaps. He has authored or co-authored several industry-defining reports on hydrogen and been cited in countless publications.A few years ago, he decided to throw his hat in the ring and try to actually build hydrogen projects in the real world. All his research and contacts in the energy world led him to a very specific — and, to me, extremely intriguing — business model.ETFuels, the company he co-founded, develops projects that couple giant off-grid renewable energy installations with hydrogen electrolyzers; it then uses the resulting green hydrogen to synthesize carbon-neutral liquid fuels. (First up is methanol for shipping, but the company plans to branch out into other e-fuels.)This model somehow manages to implicate half the stuff I'm interested in these days — green hydrogen, markets for hydrogen fuels, off-grid renewables, coupling renewables directly with industrial loads — so I was eager to talk with Wang about it. We dug into the limits of “electrify everything,” the difficulty of transporting hydrogen, and the economics of e-fuels, among other things.This one gets fairly deep in the weeds, but if you find the real-world challenges of developing clean-energy projects interesting, you don't want to miss it. All right, then, with no further ado, Anthony Wang. Welcome to Volts. Thanks so much for coming.Anthony WangThank you so much for having me, David.David RobertsSo you were sort of recommended to me as somebody who knows a lot about hydrogen, about sort of green hydrogen, the markets. I know you've worked with public on policy roadmaps. I know you've worked with private companies on technology roadmaps. So I know you've given a lot of thought and sort of analysis to the green hydrogen phenomenon, the green hydrogen market. And you settled when you decided to start a company of your own, you co-founded this company, ETFuels. You settled on a very particular business model, which I just find sort of fascinating as it sort of implicates half the things I'm interested in these days in the energy world.So I wanted to just run through it with you and talk about why you made the choices you did and get into some of the bigger issues that way. So just for listeners' benefit, the idea here is you find a big piece of land somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. You build a bunch of renewable energy, mostly solar, maybe some wind. Instead of hooking the renewable energy up to a grid, you pipe it directly into electrolyzers and make green hydrogen out of it. And then instead of exporting the green hydrogen or selling the green hydrogen, you use the green hydrogen, combine it with CO2 to make methanol, basically, carbon-neutral methanol, which you are then going to sell to shipping companies. So that's a big puzzle. That's a big puzzle with lots of pieces put together. So I want to kind of start at the front end of it. My intuitive reaction to this is you're taking valuable renewable energy and then you're converting it to hydrogen, you lose a lot in that conversion, and then you convert it again to methanol and you lose a lot in that conversion as well. It sounds sort of inefficient.So the question comes up like, why not just sell the renewable energy? So why off-grid in the first place?Anthony WangFor us, obviously, it depends where you're talking in the world, right? So renewable energy, if you can get it connected to the grid, you're completely right, it's extremely valuable. I mean, you've seen what prices of power have done in the last couple of years in Europe and in the US. And if you can use it to electrify your vehicles or heat up a heat pump, that's a very good use of that renewable energy. That said, there are many places in the world where solar and wind, on a levelized cost of production basis, are the lowest cost sources of energy we have.And on top of that, most of these locations are not connected to grids. And so one question that always puzzled me a bit was everyone's talking about renewable energy getting cheaper and cheaper and being the lowest cost source there is. So why, why aren't we seeing that being reflected at all in, in the prices that we see a) on the wholesale market, and b) ultimately on our bills at the end of the month? And thought a lot about this, and I'm not an economist, but it does seem to me that while we've got very good at producing renewable energy in a very cheap way, I'd argue it's the cheapest that we've got.We seem to have made a lot less progress in transporting, storing and balancing that renewable energy in a way that meets the consumer when they need it, where they need it. We know also that the energy transition is going to put this massive strain on power grids. Today we transport about 20% of our final energy through the grid. And in a fully decarbonized system, I mean, depending who you talk to, that number should be going up to 60, 70, 80%. We should electrify as much as we can. But that also means that we need about three, four, five times the number of cables, transformers and substations.And right now the grid does not seem to be set up to deliver that. And so we wanted to marry that problem in a way with an opportunity that we saw in producing hydrogen. And obviously, when you lose 30% through energy, conversion losses. That's a huge deal if your power is super valuable. It's a lot less of a big deal when your power is virtually free, depending on where you are.David RobertsSo sort of to summarize that renewable energy itself at the point of production is super cheap, but all these balance of system costs, mainly transmission and distribution, end up boosting the cost anyway. So your idea is just to use the cheap renewable energy and avoid all those other costs. Basically just use the cheap energy directly and not have to pay those additional costs?Anthony WangYeah, exactly. And cost is quite a simple way of capturing it. But there's lots of other things right in projects it's also time. The biggest risk in developing renewable projects is often getting the grid connection permit. I think, not to bash too much on the grids, I've got lots of good friends there, but the numbers speak for this. So if you look at the US, I think the Berkeley National Lab found there's a two gigawatt backlog or 2000 gigawatts, sorry, of PV, wind and storage.David RobertsYeah. Terawatts.Anthony WangTerawatts, exactly. Which is like almost double of the installed capacity base today. And you see similar numbers in Europe. And the cost of interconnection, the deposits that developers are asked to put down are twice what they used to be. They can be almost as big as your CapEx of your solar project. So it's lots of things that have come together that are just making it very difficult to connect the phenomenal amounts of renewables that are available to the demand where it is.David RobertsSo, I'm curious how you see this playing out. Because the enthusiasm is for electrifying everything and as you say, that's going to mean like four or five times our grid capacity and nowhere that I know of is a shining example of how to build grid capacity that much, that fast. I don't know that anyone's doing it. So, do you think that is going to be a serious constraint at the macro level on electrifying everything? Do you think that's going to push a lot of activities to this sort of off-grid model?Anthony WangWe hope so. At ETFuels we're definitely pushing it. Look, I've got nothing against the electrify narrative. I think it makes total sense and where we can, we should. But the reality is that it's incredibly difficult. I mean, we're finding this ourselves. We're trying to develop projects which are in the middle of nowhere. And even there, permitting and consent can be a challenge. So, imagine building a transport cable that crosses the entire country. These transmission highways in Europe, we're talking about the European super grid. Governments are trying to kind of coordinate about who gets what space in the North Sea.We're talking about kind of hydrogen backbones that should cover the entire continent. And you can just see the political and practical implementation challenge of doing projects like that I think. I was working closely on a hydrogen pipeline project between Spain and France, these countries putting a pipe through the Pyrenees. I think now they've landed on kind of putting it through the Mediterranean Sea and said, you see presidents shaking hands about which pipelines should happen and then it still takes eight, ten, twelve years before they're actually implemented. So, I think it's a question of let's do everything as much as we can and whichever one gets to market first, you should have some merit to that.David RobertsRegular listeners will know that. I'm sort of fascinated by this question. We had John O'Donnell from Rondo, the heat battery company on and that's sort of his thesis of his company is kind of the same logic. The grid constraints are going to push a lot of renewables off-grid. Basically, they're going to be coupled directly with industrial applications and just skip all the grid stuff, which I find a fascinating trend. That's one of the reasons your kind of business model caught my eye. So then you're generating all this variable renewable energy which notoriously comes and goes, waxes and wanes, sort of out of your control and you're using it to make green hydrogen.So part of the conventional wisdom that I always hear is that's a bad match because electrolyzers need to be run a lot of the time to pay off. Basically to be worth the investment, they need what's called a high capacity factor. And if they're sort of tied to variable renewables, how do you think about that problem? Have you thought about putting anything in between them? This is the heat battery question again. Have you thought about putting anything in between them to smooth the supply of the energy to the electrolyzers? Or is a lower capacity factor just a cost you think is worth bearing?Anthony WangYeah, a really good question. Obviously when we started the business that was probably the first question that we looked into because obviously we're only doing this because we think that we have a commercially viable proposition and we can provide hydrogen at lower cost than what is currently available on the market. And fundamentally when you look at this equation, you're kind of balancing three variables, right? You've got on the one hand, your cost of power. Secondly, you've got the number of hours that you're able to run your kit on that power, which obviously is lower with renewables.And then the third is just the cost of the kit itself. So let's say the CapEx of the electrolyzer and the cost of balancing the power. And when we look at modeling this out across the year, there are places in Europe, in the world where your renewable energy wouldn't be producing often enough for this to be worth it, right? So if you only have a solar production model in the north of Europe, then it's probably not going to work. You can't run your electrolyzer for 1000 hours a year and hope it to make money but there are also places where it definitely can work.And you're seeing lots of projects these days which actually combine solar and wind together in these types of hybrid configurations. And that's useful, one because they're not entirely I mean, so wind is a bit more expensive, but it runs a bit more often. But then on top of that, depending on where you are and there are special deserts where this is particularly the case where the wind and solar production hours actually very anticorrelate very well, where you essentially have solar during the day and then wind which mainly blows at night, not exclusively, but mainly at night. And when you combine those two, you can get very, very steady profiles up to 5500 hours a year of essentially base load production.And when you spread that across an electrolyzer, and especially obviously today electrolyzers are still quite expensive, but going forward their cost will come down. You'll see that the numbers actually pan out very well. And when we've done the math, we come to conclusions where depending on the power that you're using but if you're comparing a hybrid solar wind project in, let's say, the deserts of Chile or in the Middle East or in Western Australia, you can easily get to production costs of hydrogen that are 40% lower than if you were using grid connected power, paying essentially wholesale prices in Northern Europe. So that's on the economic side.Then there's of course the question around can the electrolyzer even run flexibly?David RobertsRight.Anthony WangAnd this is a bit more of a technical question. Obviously, you've got different technologies. You've got PEM, so the Proton Exchange Membrane electrolysis, and you've got alkaline ones. PEM is more flexible. But even the latest kind of pressurized alkaline models are able to run flexibly depending on their ramp rate. The specific model, you may need to add a small battery in between. But in principle you don't need to run, especially if you got 6000 full load hours from your renewables. You're mainly looking at balancing on the kind of second to minute level and the technologies that are on the market today can handle that.So you don't need any additional storage. It's more of just a pure economic thing. If your power price is low enough and your hours are good enough, then you can make it work.David RobertsRight. So two things: You go to places where a hybrid renewable system can actually reach relatively steady production and then you go to places where the power is super, super cheap. So what about electrolyzers then? Let's talk about electrolyzers because you're saying you're going to produce green hydrogen that's cheaper than what's on the market. Is that purely because the power you're making it with is going to be cheaper? Or is there something about your electrolyzers that is special?Anthony WangYeah, and just to clarify, so when we say our green hydrogen is cheaper, I'm comparing to other green hydrogen projects, not the fossil hydrogen projects that are of course hydrogen that's on the market.David RobertsBrown or —Anthony WangYeah, exactly.David Robertsgray or whatever the hell.Anthony WangSo, that stuff's definitely cheaper at the moment. So for us, the innovation is not in the electrolyzer technology itself. We're not an equipment supplier or manufacturer with our own technology. Our development IP, I suppose, is in the integration of the different technologies. So we haven't really spoken about the methanol component, we'll get there. But what we essentially do is we find the optimal end-to-end project configuration that makes the economics work for the final offtaker. Because we start with what is the price that we need to hit for our final product, which is methanol, we'll talk about, it can be a bankable commercially viable product.And then we work backwards. So then we reverse engineer. Okay, what does that mean in terms of the electrolyzer size? What does that mean in terms of the hydrogen storage size? What does that mean in terms of the solar to wind ratio? What does that mean in terms of the battery if you need to add one? And so what we've done is we've optimized that end to end. And what you'll see is that you might have to do some slightly unintuitive sizing decisions from an engineering perspective. So that's kind of where our added value sits. And also just in terms of the development of those individual pieces of the project and pushing them forward at the same time.David RobertsYeah, I'm wondering how much now because even if you have a hybrid renewable system, I'm wondering how much sort of overbuilding you do to try to boost that capacity factor. Like are you overbuilding and throwing away a lot of power just because it's so cheap?Anthony WangYeah, we do a little bit of that. So maybe a couple of things. So a typical project for us, what that looks like we're actually developing in Europe and in the US. So in the US, a site will be very big, 8000 acres, which is 8000 football pitches. European ones, I think the American ones are half the size it's like 8000 ... Anyway, you get the point. It's huge. And most of that's earmarked for onshore wind. So about 6000 acres is onshore. Turbines are spaced far apart, so you need a lot of land. And the remaining 2000 acres is a mix of solar PV and the process plant itself.And that will give you about, I mean, these are rough numbers, but about 200 to 300 megawatt of onshore wind, one to 200 megawatt of solar PV. So you're looking at a combination of, let's say 400 renewables. And then we would probably put an electrolyzer that's around half the capacity next to that. So a 200 megawatt input electrolyzer. And that sounds like a very big delta. But actually, if you look at lots of the studies that have been done, they come to similar conclusions because you don't end up curtailing anywhere near half of the power you end up curtailing only a fraction of what you produce because there's only very few hours where both the solar and the wind are producing at peak.David RobertsRight.Anthony WangMaybe just to complete the picture of the project. So that produces about 20,000 tons of hydrogen a year, depending on your load factor, which is a lot of hydrogen. That's I think the equivalent of about 30'000 to 40,000 Tesla Model 3 batteries in a day that's getting produced.David RobertsSo the electrolyzer part to you is mostly just a commodity at this point. When you're looking at big cost centers like the big CapEx and OpEx costs, where are the big costs here? Like, are the electrolyzers themselves a big cost center or is it all down to kind of the cost of the power? Is that the biggest variable?Anthony WangIt's about 50/50. I mean, for us, we have kind of a renewables plant or part and then a process part, and it's about 50/50 between the two, the electrolyzer representing the main component of the process part. We've been doing a lot of, say, electrolyzer shopping in the last couple of months and you're probably wondering how that's going.David RobertsI am quite curious about what you're seeing out there in electrolyzer land.Anthony WangYeah, the reality is no one has actually built and constructed a 200 megawatt electrolyzer to date. It's not because electrolyzers are a risky technology, we've had them for hundreds of years. But at the scale that we're talking, we haven't really got that much experience. Even the biggest technology OEMs don't. And so as much as there is a big boom in the hydrogen space, I think for me personally, it's been quite a sobering experience being in the market, actually trying to procure these pieces of equipment because —David RobertsIs the hype getting a little out ahead of where the market is?Anthony WangObviously there's the hype and then there's the reality of getting things done on the ground. It's not that I'm disillusioned by what I've seen. It's more that you just realize that there are so many practical implementation considerations that you haven't thought of, right. Well, one is on pricing, obviously, because there's very little, very few of these projects have happened. There's not that much price liquidity and so no one really knows how much this stuff costs. Not even the EPCs who are meant to build this really know. So everyone's trying to figure it out. People are also aware that there are subsidies, so everyone's trying to make sure that they don't leave a penny on the table in terms of how they price their kit.And obviously you can imagine if everyone does that, then your economics go out the window. So that's on pricing and all the electrolyzer OEMs know the game and they're kind of looking to find a way to play into that. And then in terms of the actual technical and implementation challenges, ultimately this is going to be a process plant, right. This project is going to look a bit like a refinery. That means that every single valve needs to be lined up, every single power cable needs to be at the right voltage. And especially in our case, because we're off grid, for example, when you try to run your entire renewables to electrolyzer without — in the engineering terms, I think they call it like clock — you don't have a base frequency that you can follow, you end up having to create your own kind of grid stability. And that brings it with a bunch of challenges around frequency, voltages, harmonics.David RobertsRight? You're not getting any of those grid services. You kind of have to do all that yourselves.Anthony WangYeah, so turbines, usually they're connected to the grid, so they just follow the frequency of the grid. Whereas when you don't have that, you need to create it yourself and then your electrolyzer is there, kind of disturbing it a bit because it's not entirely efficient. And so there's lots of day-to-day engineering challenges that we need to overcome that, I at least, had not expected when we started this.David RobertsYeah, it does kind of seem like the mother of all optimization challenges you've taken on here. There's like so many variables moving at once. So you feed this cheap power into electrolyzers and just one last question about electrolyzers. Just from looking around in the market and your general sense of things, are you anticipating or do you feel like the sort of market is anticipating, substantial reduction in those costs or is that just kind of a fixed piece in the middle of this puzzle?Anthony WangYeah, good question. Obviously, when I speak with our suppliers, I always ask them because I hope that the prices that they give me today are not reflective of where they hope things will end up in the future. So today, they're obviously not pricing in that cost reduction. That said, all of them are very optimistic about the price reduction and usually, especially on the PEM side. I mean, when you talk to the PEM electrolyzer suppliers, they tell you that the reason they chose that technology is because it just has a lot more cost reduction potential.And you've got lots of levers there, right? You've got the raw materials themselves switching from the very precious ones to the slightly more common ones and that'll obviously reduce the cost. Then the second one is purely in terms of the design. So lots of the OEMs are trying to figure out ways to modularize not just the stacks and the core kind of arrays of the electrolyzer so the area where the hydrogen gets produced, but also the balance of system and the balance around that stack. So the purifiers, the transformers, rectifiers.David RobertsRight. All that stuff is still pretty bespoke at this point, right, for big electrolyzers?Anthony WangYeah, it is. And this is where the traditional OEM kind of equipment manufacturing model slightly overlaps with what traditionally an engineering company would have done. So the big EPCs would design stuff and engineer stuff to order rather than having prefabricated productized modules. But what you're seeing is that the intent is for electrolyzers to really follow what wind and solar have done, where in the future, if you need an electrolyzer project, you're not having to engineer for a year to find the right size of purifying tank. But you can just call up an OEM and they'll deliver you something that essentially comes out of a box.I mean, I'm simplifying, but that's the idea.David RobertsYeah, something containerized.Anthony WangYeah, exactly.David RobertsAnd if those cost drops manifest, will that be a substantial piece of making this kind of model viable in more places? In other words, is that a big lever or how big is that electrolyzer cost relative to say, the renewables on one side and the methanol on the other?Anthony WangYeah, we have our projections for this obviously. So we have our power part and our electrolyzer part. Obviously, we're more optimistic about the electrolyzer part coming down further. We don't expect renewable. I mean, there may be perovskite solar panels, you may have some thought on that, David, but on the renewable side, things will happen as they do. On the electrolyzer side, obviously, this is a huge part because when you think about that equation of cost of power, cost of the electrolyzer and then the number of hours as you reduce the fixed cost of your electrolyzer, the incremental impact of your cheap power just becomes even greater.So all the benefits that you get from going to the cheapest places in the world so your windy deserts just get magnified and you will get to a point where whereas today you use your power, let's say it's 50 kilowatt hours per kilogram of power that you need to make hydrogen. That efficiency conversion factor, when you reduce the cost of the electrolyzer, it'll make a huge difference to the economics for sure. We're very bullish on that and we're hoping that those costs come down but we're not relying on it. And our first project probably won't be benefiting from a lot of those cost reductions.David RobertsRight. And of course, there's also just scale and learning.Anthony WangYeah, of course.David RobertsJust the natural cost declines that come with more people buying more electrolyzers which I assume is going to be happening soon. So then you synthesize this green hydrogen and then the question is why not just sell the hydrogen? Why not sell the green hydrogen? It's pretty precious these days, a lot of people want it. Why not pipe or truck or however one carries hydrogen to customers? Why the third step?Anthony WangWhen we started this business we probably thought of two main challenges. One was excessive production costs and then the second was kind of the midstream transport challenges. And on the production costs, we've kind of covered that but to the midstream challenges. So maybe just as a bit of context. I spent my entire career in hydrogen and green molecules, working with power utilities, oil and gas companies. And at one point I actually led a project called the European Hydrogen Backbone, which was an initiative by the gas TSOs, the pipeline network operators in Europe to try to repurpose their pipelines from natural gas to hydrogen.I'm a mechanical engineer by training. I spent a lot of time doing hydraulic modeling of pipelines and compressors at the time, and I learned quite quickly that hydrogen is a relatively leaky gas. It's not the easiest to move around, and it's also the reason that we don't really transport or store it at large scale today. It's not that you can't do it. You can. But the economics and the practical details of implementing it become quite challenging.David RobertsYeah, just to pause there since you were just talking about having studied it, because I'm really interested in this question. When gas infrastructure companies talk about this, I've seen two things. One, I've seen mixing some hydrogen in, right, just sort of lower the carbon intensity. And then there's discussion of just turning the infrastructure over to hydrogen entirely. And my question is, just from an engineering standpoint, are those pipes ready for hydrogen? It seems like hydrogen is a lot harder to hold onto than natural gas. And there's thousands of miles of these pipes. Are they just going to work or is this going to be a thing where you have to go through the whole system and sort of fortify it?Anthony WangYeah, it's a good question. And I mean, just on blending and repurposing. So in Europe, the discussion is mainly on repurposing. So fully converting, not blending hydrogen into gas pipelines. I think it's a bit depending on the political environment where you are in Europe, blending is not really seen as a viable solution. The energy impact is tiny because hydrogen is less dense than natural gas. So when you blend like 10%, I mean, there's only a fraction of that on an energy basis.David RobertsYes, I mean, I think it's just a political fig leaf here. I'm sure it'll go away once the practical challenges become more clear here too, I think. But at least right now, natural gas companies are kind of waving it around as one of their "Please don't kill us" ideas.Anthony WangYeah, that's on blending. Just to clarify on the technical viability of repurposing, I mean, in Europe, they've actually done a lot of work on this and a lot of good work. I mean, the German TSOs have just had DNV GL, a very reputable engineering company, look at this and they essentially conclude that just on this, you do need to actually go through each single pipe and look at whether it's ready or not. So it does take a lot of work to do. But in Europe, the pipelines are in a very good state and you can repurpose them, but it will come at a cost. Mainly, at least currently, with the way that the codes are set up, is that you need to derate them. Which means that whatever pressure you are operating the natural gas pipeline at, if you want to operate it for purely hydrogen under the current safety standards, you have to lower the pressure. And when you look at the hydraulics of hydrogen, you really don't want to be piping it at low pressure because it just becomes very expensive. And so on the per kilometer or mile transported per megawatt hour, it becomes quite expensive.David RobertsIt's just more manageable at high pressure.Anthony WangWell, you want to store it at high p... So because hydrogen is a lot less energy dense than natural gas, to get the same energy content throughput, you need to compress it more and transport it at much higher velocities. So when you don't do that, you end up, kind of like, transporting hydrogen, but very slowly. It's a bit like a congested motorway. And so in terms of value for money, obviously you get a lot less throughput and capacity of transport. That's the main reason.David RobertsDo you think, I mean, in Europe, I suppose, is probably the most promising place of anywhere, that this is actually going to happen on a timeline that is meaningful? Or alternatively, are a lot of green hydrogen projects going to end up doing what you're doing, which is basically being off the hydrogen grid, converting hydrogen before you ship it out? I'm sure there'll be some of both. But how bullish are you on hydrogen infrastructure generally? Pipeline infrastructure?Anthony WangWell, we've not bet our company on it. That said, look, I mean, I wish them the best, right? Obviously it's a hugely ambitious project and I think that they're making progress. But ultimately I wouldn't want to for our projects and the ones that we're trying to raise financing for. The argument that you've got a business case because 5-10 years down the line there may be a hydrogen pipeline that comes in and it's the same for CO2 infrastructure, really. I mean, it's just not going to fly when it comes to raising debt financing for a project of this size.David RobertsAnd there's no practical way for you to build a pipeline even if you wanted to. So are there even alternative ways of transporting green hydrogen that are practical at all? Or is it pipelines or nothing?Anthony WangAt the scale that we're talking now — hydrogen is already transported in trucks and you can put it in tanks and stuff and that's usually compressed, you could liquefy it as well, but that's even more energy lossy. You end up having to compress it. So you pay for the compressors, which are expensive, or the liquefaction, and then it's again not very dense, so you end up having to pay a lot for the transport itself — and at the scale that we're talking, 20,000 tons a year, that's not something that you would want to be trucking around. Also from a safety perspective, I'm sure that's not ideal and lots of local authorities would not be very happy with that.David RobertsYeah, that's a lot of trucks.Anthony WangYeah.David RobertsSo it's just not practical, basically, at this point to build green hydrogen out in the middle of nowhere where the renewables are good.Anthony WangRight, yeah, exactly. And that's also why I think today most of the hydrogen projects that are actually getting somewhere and having traction are the ones that are near industrial clusters and by ports and next to an existing refinery, which makes total sense. Right. Decarbonize the existing hydrogen that you have. But that's not going to cut it when you're trying to integrate renewables from the best regions into where the demand sinks are.David RobertsRight. Yeah. Are there even exclusively hydrogen pipelines now? Is there much of that infrastructure now?Anthony WangSo it does exist. So there is what's already available and there are industrial clusters and there are pure hydrogen pipelines. They're mainly operated by the industrial gas company. So the Air Liquides, the Air Products of the world, but these tend to be quite small. So these are 10-20 inch pipelines that aren't meant to transport across long distances. These are mainly pipes to bring it from one side of the industrial site to the other or as a backup. I mean, they work, they're totally safe and people have experience building them. But at the scale that the natural gas pipeline companies are thinking, which is like 48-inch huge cross country type pipelines, we don't have anything at scale or that's commercially kind of running.But the TSOs, especially in Europe, are running pilots and trials. And I think there's one connecting Germany and France. There's a bunch of projects in the Netherlands. I know that the Dutch TSO is very active on this, so there's definitely stuff coming. But as to when and where exactly it'll be up and running, I don't know.David RobertsRight. And I'm thinking of the US. We have this huge hydrogen hub program. I'm sure you're familiar with it. It's a similar idea, building these huge industrial clusters. And I guess we're just going to have to build pipelines for all those in the US. Because there's not sort of curious about site selection for those too.Anthony WangYeah. As a principle, it's very difficult as an individual project developer to make a pipeline like this work. I mean, it really requires everyone to come together and the stars to align. And then you often need — this is why these companies are typically regulated, usually is, because that's the only way to finance it. And so I know we've looked at, for example, using pipeline transport, and as an individual company, there's no business case for building a pipe just for your own uses. It would have to be because you pool into it with other producers and off takers.David RobertsA little coordinated industrial policy to build that infrastructure. So you make the green hydrogen and then you combine the green hydrogen with CO2, basically to make methanol. So my first question about that is, where do you get the CO2? Because you've dodged the importing and exporting electricity problem, you've dodged the importing and exporting green hydrogen problem, but now you've got an importing CO2 problem. I guess my question is, how big of a problem is that? How available is CO2? How easy is it to get it where you need it?Anthony WangYeah, when we looked at this, it was like we kind of put the main energy carriers and commodities, we stack rank them electricity, hydrogen, CO2, methanol. Which one would you rather transport and which one would you rather store?David RobertsRight.Anthony WangAnd kind of where you end up is you really don't want to transport electricity if you've not got an existing cable network, you don't really want to transport hydrogen. CO2 is a bit easier. I mean, it's still not ideal. It's an industrial gas. You need to liquefy it. But it's better than hydrogen. Much better. But the best thing to transport in store is methanol because it's liquid at room temperature. So what we try to do is you try to bring everything into our sites and then make methanol there, and then ultimately transport the methanol out to a port and on the CO2.So we have two options, really. One is to work with industrial point sources and we try to work with companies who have either unavoidable process emissions so cement companies, or biogenic sources of industrial CO2. So pulp and paper.David RobertsSo this is carbon capture you're talking about CCS.Anthony WangYeah. So this is carbon captured.David RobertsIs there enough of that to supply you?Anthony WangSo, obviously, we've got quite a big carbon CO2 supply problem. So from an availability in the flu gases, for sure, obviously, I think you're asking about the carbon capture itself.David RobertsRight. Is enough being captured to supply a substantial market?Anthony WangInterestingly for us, when we started this, we looked at the market and said, okay, very few are actually capturing the carbon. But when we spoke to a lot of these potential CO2 capture companies and suppliers, to our surprise, lots of them already had been doing lots of engineering study and were very keen to implement this technology. The problem for them is they had nothing to do with the CO2. Interestingly, for a cement company, especially the ones that we spoke to in Europe, they're under such immense pressure with the EUTS, the European Carbon Cap and Trade system, where they're essentially, once that's in full swing, their product price doubles because it's one ton of CO2 per ton of cement.Cement sells for 50 euro per ton. So you can do the math. Right. So for them, they had to do something. So they've been studying this and looking to pull the trigger on some investment decisions.David RobertsI thought there were industrial uses of CO2. I thought there was a market there.Anthony WangYeah, CO2 is already used today for greenhouses, but at a very small scale. And usually, the CO2 is not coming from big industrial point sources, although there are some. So there's some ammonia plants that already capture CO2. So that's one is on the industrial point source. The other source that we think is a very good option and where we have lots of discussions, is with biomass, often anaerobic digestion. So if you look at RNG, what you have actually is a very pure source of CO2, because in the process of making RNG, what you do is you essentially purify RNG from biogas.And biogas is about 50% RNG and 50% CO2. So in the process of purifying RNG, you actually inadvertently purify CO2. But because there is no offtake for it, the CO2 is currently vented. People don't make a big deal out of it because it's biogenic CO2, right, because it comes from dairy manure or agricultural residue. But it's still right. It's CO2 that's vented into the atmosphere, which we could at that point, you're not really talking about carbon capture, right? It's just connecting it to a pipe because it's already pure. You don't need to scrub it or clean it.And that CO2 is a very good source for us because, a), it's very, very pure, so it's cheap, and b), it's obviously biogenic.David RobertsWell, if they were going to throw it away, if you hadn't come along, I would imagine they're willing to sell it to you quite cheaply.Anthony WangYeah, exactly.David RobertsSo in terms of just sort of absolute numbers, you're not worried about supply of CO2, you think you have enough CO2 to go on for a while or what's your outlook on that?Anthony WangYeah, so, I mean, just to give you an example, right, we have an agreement with Cemex, a major cement company, and their cement plant produces 450,000 tons of CO2. And one of our projects takes 150,000. So three of our projects are needed to decarbonize one cement plant, just to give you a sense of the scale. And then these guys have tens of these around the world, and that's just one company. So in terms of scale, we're not too worried about the CO2.David RobertsRight. So in terms of its availability in general, clearly there's a lot of it. But in terms of the mechanics of getting it to you, that's not a bottleneck at all. How does it come to you, by the way? Does it come to you in a truck?Anthony WangSo we use a combination of rail and trucks. So both CO2 and methanol, we rail and truck. Typically, what we find is that actually the CO2 producers or industrial facilities are again close to ports where traditional industries are. And so what we end up doing is we use the same infrastructure, so the same rails and same train rail, cars and trucks to import the CO2 and then export the methanol. And it's a similar principle where we use tankers. So you liquefy the CO2, put it on a train and then the methanol is already liquid and you export it out.And so that infrastructure all exists and it's just a matter of connecting to the right infrastructure.David RobertsAnd to be clear, you intend to only use captured CO2, not like natural CO2 from underground, because your sort of process is only carbon neutral if you're using the carbon that's been captured somewhere else.Anthony WangYeah, exactly. And I mean, there's lots of debate and discussion about what exactly is good CO2. Maybe that's a rabbit hole that we don't have time to dive into.David RobertsHave they made up a bunch of colors for that yet?Anthony WangWouldn't be surprised if they're getting to that stage. So in Europe they call it biogenic CO2, which ultimately means that it has to be CO2 with a short cycle. So it can't be CO2 that's from the ground basically. Right, but obviously, even with things like processed CO2, you can argue how green is that compared to if it was from agricultural residue? But then you can argue that some of the biomass that's being used today for power and heat production from wood in the Amazon forest isn't great either, so it's a pretty big topic.David RobertsOr direct air capture. Is direct air capture even enough of a thing for you to have thought about it? Or is that still just a gleam in somebody's eye, more or less market wise?Anthony WangYeah, it's not competitive at the moment, so obviously for us it'll be an option in the future. Today there is not nearly enough scale and it's not competitive enough for us to consider it. But I mean, I'm definitely keeping a close eye on it, but for now, we stick to the industrial point sources. Obviously, it would take out a lot of the transport considerations because we could power the direct air capture with our own renewables. So we could just put everything in the same location.David RobertsYeah, you could make your own CO2.Anthony WangExactly.David RobertsThat would add another piece to the optimization puzzle. You're going to have to bring AI in to deal with all this. So I think my knowledge of e-fuels is pretty sketchy, as I think most people's are. My understanding is that if you have hydrogen and CO2, there's a number of different fuels you can make. So of all the sort of possible fuel choices, why methanol? Is it easier, process-wise, to make it, or is it something about the market for it is better, or what are the sort of considerations?Anthony WangYeah, for sure. Obviously we had to pick one. We looked at the hydrogen market and if you look at where most experts think hydrogen will be used today and likely in the future, it's mainly as a feedstock. So it's for ammonia, methanol, steel and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). And so those are the main kind of derivatives that we considered. Obviously we looked at the technical side, so we've talked a bit about the transport options and methanol kind of comes out on top. There ammonia, better than hydrogen, but still quite a toxic gas as well. We had to pick one to start with for our first project.But I would like to add we're called ETFuels, not ET Green Methanol for a reason, not only because the latter is not very catchy, but also because we see our off-grid production model as a way to scale into a multi-fuel future. But for our first one, we chose methanol. Again, partially for technical reasons, but also part of it was just timing, because this was around the time that the big Danish shipping company called Mersk made a huge announcement that they essentially committed to methanol as their decarbonization fuel of choice. And they had put in an order for eight methanol-fueled vessels at the time.This was a couple of years ago. Obviously, that number of methanol ship orders has grown exponentially since then. Last I checked, in the first half of 2023, methanol vessel orders represented 62% of the order book, outstripping all other fuel types. And so for us, the message from the shipping sector was clear. If we're going to decarbonize and do anything in the next ten years, it has to be methanol, because the ammonia engines just aren't ready yet. So that was quite an obvious one for us. And then on top of that, methanol is already an existing market of 100 million tons a year, used as a chemical feedstock for various plastics and chemical products.So that's kind of the main reason that we went with that fuel.David RobertsSo you chose methanol because it's easy to transport at room temperature and there's a relatively guaranteed market for it, but you think the model, there's nothing about the model that's going to prevent you from moving into other kinds of e-fuels.Anthony WangYeah, exactly. I think one of the reasons the model is attractive, the off-grid model, is because so much of the cost and learnings are applicable to other fuels as well. So obviously the renewables is the same, the hydrogen production is the same, and this is the notion of hydrogen as this platform chemical. And then the final part is, depending on which fuel you go with, is 15-20% of the total CapEx. But you could have a train for ammonia, you could have one for methanol, you could even have one for e-methane, which some people are doing, which is kind of e-RNG.And so for us, it's — obviously we bet on methanol as our first. We think the market is ready there, but ultimately, ammonia might have a big future in shipping as well. And ammonia doesn't have the CO2 problem. So for us, it's a really good way to kind of keep our options open.David RobertsIs making methanol out of hydrogen substantially more or less expensive than making ammonia out of it, or methane? Or are there substantial cost differences in that last piece of the puzzle?Anthony WangSo the main difference is — they're all a bit different. So obviously, ammonia, the big benefit is you don't need CO2. So whatever you were paying for the CO2, you're now no longer paying for.David RobertsBetraying some rank ignorance here, but how on earth do you make hydrogen into ammonia?Anthony WangYou combine it with nitrogen, so you take nitrogen out of the air, so you purify nitrogen and then you run it through a reactor. It's a similar type of synthesis reactor where you basically run your gases at a certain temperature over a catalyst. So for ammonia, it's called the Haber Bosch reaction. For e-methane, it's called the Sabatier reaction. I think the methanol reaction doesn't have a name, but they all have similar principles, which is you put it into a chemical reactor, hydrogen plus some other compound.David RobertsRight, so it's not no, it's very similar.Anthony WangI mean, there are obviously some technical, detailed process differences. So ammonia in terms of reaction, temperature in terms of how well it operates under fluctuating load. So all of these processes, whereas the electrolyzer is very flexible, most of these chemical reaction kind of chemical plants are a lot less flexible because you need to maintain the temperature and the pressure. And it's much more like a refinery than an electrical kind of process. And then for methane, when you're obviously methanol, the last step is distillation, where you have to separate the methanol from the water, whereas with methane, you're separating a gas from water.So there are some kind of nuanced differences. But in terms of the big picture, I mean, your renewables is the same, your hydrogen is the same, and the last 20% you can kind of flex that if you need to.David RobertsSo in terms of carbon-neutral methanol, for which there is this sort of nascent market just emerging, these shipping companies just sort of getting into this. Are there lots of competitors? Do we know? I mean, is there a good sense yet, like, what it ought to cost? I guess it's far from commoditized at this point. But how mature is that final market? Or is this sort of like everybody's figuring this out as they go?Anthony WangProbably more the latter. I mean, there are definitely competitors. I'd say most e-fuel announcements you see are probably around ammonia because it's just slightly easier because you don't have to source CO2, which is a challenge. So for us, it's a competitive advantage, I think, that we know how to source CO2 and we know our way around that market. On your question around pricing, so of course people are figuring it out. There are a couple of pilot plants. There's a few that have just started, kind of just taken an FID. Orsted has just bought one in Sweden where they've started construction, but they aren't producing yet, so no one really knows how much it's going to cost until it's operational.Obviously, we know, today we would be producing at a price premium to fossil methanol. But that'll be the benchmark is — how many times more expensive are you compared to either fossil methanol or the fuel that you're replacing. So in our case it'll be fuel oil for shipping.David RobertsYeah. I'm guessing you're a lot more expensive than fuel oil at this point.Anthony WangYeah. So at this point we're significantly more expensive. Obviously what gives us comfort is that we're well one is the cost reduction trajectory of the technologies and the learning that we think we will gain and two is our relative cost differential against our direct competitors which we see as green methanol. Right. So we don't think we will be directly competing with fuel oil because one obviously from a regulatory perspective those get treated very differently and all the incentives that a shipping company, especially in Europe, in the US you've got the IRA in Europe there's lots of incentives for fuel switching demand side kind of quotas and ways to benefit.So you only get those if you're to decarbonize fuel. And for us, what gives us comfort is not so much the comparison to fuel oil but the comparison to other green methanol projects. And for us the off-grid nature gives us this competitive pricing advantage because of our cheaper power and that's what allows me to sleep at night.David RobertsWell, one question I have is, what counts exactly as carbon-neutral methanol? Because, as Volts listeners know, because they listen to the hydrogen tax credit episode, the question of what is the carbon intensity of your hydrogen is far from straightforward. And there's a lot of debate now about whether to require it to be off-grid or exactly how to measure the cleanliness of the electricity going into it, et cetera, et cetera. It's a very complicated debate here in the US. I'm sure you're very familiar with it over in Europe too, you are very clearly making carbon-free hydrogen because nothing's more additional than renewables that you are building yourself to attach to your electrolyzers, right.So you clearly pass the bar. But is that same debate live in Europe? Because if people can use cheaper grid renewables I don't know, maybe that actually wouldn't give them a cost advantage. I don't know. But is there debate right now over what counts as e-methanol?Anthony WangYeah, for sure and really good point on the additionality I hadn't mentioned. Thanks, David. It's a big part of why we've chosen this model as well. It's the cost, it's a scale and it's the additionality on the debate around what is green methanol. So for sure, I think in the US it's a bit of a different discussion. There's not really so much a definition of what is green methanol because you make it compete with fossil methanol through the IRA, through the tax credit. In Europe, we've just had a big legislation passed called the Delegated Act for Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin.Anyway, lots of rules kind of were described in that one is for green hydrogen, which is the one that you talked about, which I think is the similar discussion in the States around additionality temporal correlation, geographical correlation, which we comply with. And the second one is around CO2 essentially how you carbon account for the CO2 in a fuel like green methanol. And the European policymakers agreed on that. So the commissioned parliament and so what we have is up until 2040 any CO2 is okay. So that's kind of what they agreed on. And then beyond that, you would need to be either unavoidable process or you need to be biogenic.But for now, their argument is because there is so much CO2 that's kind of going into the atmosphere that we're not decarbonizing — all of those sectors, for those sectors, you can capture the CO2 and use it and it'll qualify as a "renewable fuel of non-biological origin." That's what they call it.David RobertsInteresting. So as I'm thinking about a project like yours in the US in a post-Inflation Reduction Act world, I'm sort of slightly boggled at the number of tax credits or subsidies that you could rack up with this. You could get tax credits for building the renewables, tax credits for green hydrogen which are substantial. I think there's tax credits for using the CO2. I think there's tax credits for the e-fuels. Like every piece of this is going to get money showered on it from the IRA. I'm wondering whether that makes these projects more attractive.I mean it must. And whether you've been thinking about that. And two, just on a more general basis, how you think about subsidies and whether you need them and to what extent this business model relies on them.Anthony WangYeah, we founded the company before the IRA, before all these policy and incentive mechanisms came out. And we founded it because we believe there to be a commercially viable proposition without it. So we didn't create a business that relies on or is reliant on subsidies. I don't think that would make for a very good business.David RobertsWell, there are plenty of them.Anthony WangYeah, I guess so. But I mean, obviously now for us what this means is kind of accelerated our trajectory so we can do things much faster and basically just get going. And obviously we can't not go for them because it'll make us less competitive because our competitors are. In terms of which ones exactly, I mean, we take quite an opportunistic approach. Obviously in the US we'll try to play into the tax credits the extent to which you can, I don't know, what I would call "double dip" in the sense that get benefits from the US credits and then export your fuel to Europe and then get more benefits there from avoiding the EU ETS.I don't think that's entirely clear. I mean, I'd be quite personally, as a taxpayer—if I were a US taxpayer—I'd be a bit skeptical of that. And even as a European one, I'm not sure how comfortable I feel with importing US-made fuel subsidized with US tax credits and then getting another whammy on top of that in Europe. Yeah, but I think that's all to be identified in Europe. Obviously, you've got the innovation funding there's all the onsite measures, which I think are much better. Like for example, the renewable fuel quota. That's a very clean quota for ships where they just have to switch a certain share of their fuel to be green.And then you've got various other kind of incentive schemes, carbon contract for differences, which are meant to be a support mechanism for hydrogen production. And so we'll see for us, basically what it means is that our projects are even more viable than they were a year and a half ago.David RobertsHave you done the math yet on a project with all the IRA subsidies? Because the green hydrogen tax credit is ginormous.Anthony WangYeah, obviously we've done the math just to give you maybe cut some numbers. So the $3 per kilogram hydrogen tax credit translates to about $600 per ton of methanol. And just to give you a sense of fossil methanol, so methanol made from natural gas today, I mean, I haven't checked the latest numbers, but historically it's kind of traded at around $500 per ton. So that's only for your hydrogen. And then on top of that, there is potentially a CO2 credit, which again, the extent to which we can play into that, I don't know. But the CCU tax credit is $60 per ton of CO2.And in terms of when you translate that to methanol, you would get to around $100. You multiply by 1.5. So again, it's a lot of you add it up, you get to like a $700 per ton of methanol tax credit compared to the fossil price of $500.David RobertsIs that enough to erase the delta with the fossil kind?Anthony WangYeah, we'd be in the money for sure.David RobertsI mean, it would be wild to be on the market selling carbon-free methanol that is cheaper than the carbon kind.Anthony WangSo that raises the question is what you're paying fo, right? That's where it's different in the US than in Europe. In the US, essentially that's the mentality, right? You're not trying to sell some different product, you're just trying to sell the same product cheaper. And that's why you need these support schemes to make that work. Whereas in Europe you're essentially saying, well, it's green, so it's okay that it's more expensive, but you have to do it because it's green. So it's kind of a different mentality.David RobertsYeah, there are more sticks in Europe and we're all carrots over here in the US.Anthony WangYeah, but I mean, from a developer and financiers perspective, it's not clear which one is better because obviously with the renewables, the drawback in the States was that one year you had them one year you didn't. Whereas in Europe the demand side signal meant that you had a very kind of fixed base load of demand.David RobertsRight. Yeah, that's interesting. So, the final question is just, it does seem like to some extent this business model is a reaction not to technological factors, but to socioeconomic factors. So, for instance, the limits of the grid and the slowness of getting on the grid, the slowness of interconnection, the lack of hydrogen pipelines, these are kind of bottlenecks or pressures that one can imagine easing over time. Right? One can imagine the grid getting built out more. One can imagine green hydrogen, I don't know, I actually have trouble imagining green hydrogen infrastructure being built. But who knows, it could happen.So, I wonder if those became easier and they were less of pressure points, would some of the rationale for this business model go away?Anthony WangYeah, I'm not sure if I fully agree with that statement. Just from the perspective of — yeah, okay, there are challenges with the incumbents and the pace that they're getting things done. But for us, it's also fundamentally what is a more efficient way to run the energy system. It's not just because it's not being done, we need to find some loophole that can make it work. Fundamentally, you can ask the question if you had a renewable energy system or an energy system that was driven mainly by renewables, is it more efficient to overbuild your grid, to run all that stuff intermittently —I mean, I've been part of grid planning sessions in Europe and when you've got capacity factors of solar of 15% to 20% and wind of 25% to 35%, you have to build an enormous grid to balance that. By the time that you've actually built out the grid to kind of run your power system base load, your balancing cost, sometimes they call it balance of system, basically the cost of all the extra stuff to keep it running becomes quite excessive. So, I think a study by Imperial estimated that that cost would be 50 to 60 pounds per megawatt hour of just pure balancing costs. That's in addition to the renewable costs, which by the way are a lot less cheap in Europe than they are in Chile.And so, you very quickly get to power prices which are much higher than what we are paying today. And then you can wonder, wouldn't it be more efficient if you could import some of that cheap power, put panels where it's sunny or put turbines where it's windy and import the power. And then also the other thing is, does it even make sense to try to aim for this type of base load, supply driven system or should we be running more flexible assets? And in many ways, what we've got is just a flexible asset, right? It's an electrolyzer that follows the renewables.And so, the system benefit of an asset like that is quite big. So, I don't think I fully agree with your framing of the business model. I think there's more to it than just it's a way to bypass all of the slow incumbent infrastructure. But it's definitely a good question and I don't think anyone really knows the answer until we've tried both paths.David RobertsSo, you think that the limits of electrify everything are more than just incidental or contingent? You think we're going to run into these balancing cost issues and it's going to make more sense to run more stuff on liquid e-fuels?Anthony WangNot for everything, obviously. I wouldn't ever buy a diesel car and then hope to ever be able to afford e-diesel rather than an electric car. So, obviously there are time and place for everything. For certain sectors, though, I definitely think, I mean, I'd rather fuel my ship or my airplane with an e-fuel made where renewables are cheap than to try to do that next to Heathrow Airport in London or something like that. So, I think, as always, it depends and we're very targeted in where we go. We're not looking to sell e-fuel to heat homes or do anything like that.It's very targeted to the sectors which are hard to abate and don't have other options.David RobertsThis has been super fascinating. I hope listeners agree. I hope we haven't gone too far down the technical rabbit hole and lost people. But I find this, this is where all the sort of interesting issues in the energy world are hitting the ground, right? Like you're trying to actually do these things. And as, as you said, when you start trying to actually do things, whole different challenges arise and whole different sort of questions arise about optimization and stuff like that. So, super fascinating to walk through this with you. Thanks so much for coming on, Anthony.Anthony WangThanks for having me, David. It was a pleasure.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Everything I didn't know about fertilizers, published by Helene K on June 28, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. At a recent EA meetup, someone mentioned fertilizers in the context of climate change and global food production. Admittedly, I had never thought about fertilizers before, except when I've been trying to get the tomato plants on my balcony to grow more than five tomatoes per season (I have yet to find my green thumb). Turns out fertilizers are a wildly fascinating topic! I dug into the topic a bit and decided to write up my findings as I assume others might also learn a lot about fertilizers and how they fit into the bigger picture. This post is the product of around twelve hours of research. It is by no means comprehensive and I wonder if I've come to the right conclusions in some sections. Any feedback is highly welcome, as well as corrections and resources that could fill in gaps or contradict anything I've written here. Summary Fertilizers provide what plants need to grow: nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus (in addition to sunlight and water). Humans have used organic fertilizers for thousands of years and started using synthetic fertilizers in the 20th century. While phosphate and potassium fertilizer is made from mined phosphorus and potash, respectively, nitrogen fertilizer is mostly produced through combining hydrogen from natural gas with atmospheric nitrogen via the Haber-Bosch process. 58% of fertilizers are nitrogen fertilizers, with China, the US, India and Russia being the world's largest producers. Potash is mainly mined in Canada, Belarus and Russia, phosphorus comes mostly from China. Fertilizers have vastly increased food production in the last 100 years and it is estimated that about 50% of today's global population rely on fertilizers for their food supply, making fertilizers one of the “four pillars of civilization”. In comparison to almost all other regions in the world, crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa are still very low, an unsettling fact given Sub-Saharan Africa's fast population growth and high rates of undernourishment. This is partly the result of too little fertilizer use. Because fertilizer is so good at increasing crop yields, it means we can produce more food on the same or even less farmland, helping to preserve wildlife habitats and biodiversity. Many countries around the world use a lot of fertilizers—in fact, many use too much, including China, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Thailand, and could maintain their food production even with lower fertilizer use. Producing ammonia for nitrogen fertilizers relies heavily on natural gas, consumes around 2% of the global energy supply and constitutes about 5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, so we need to find ways to produce nitrogen fertilizer more sustainably. There is a range of ongoing development for producing “green ammonia” but most of them are still in their early stages, and it is unclear whether new production technologies can cover future needs for ammonia. Although higher crop yields and fertilizer use seem to be vital for improving food security in Sub-Saharan Africa, the issue is relatively unexplored in EA. It seems worthwhile to have a deeper look into this issue and think about potential cost-effective interventions as well as how they compare to top interventions in global health and development. What are fertilizers? Plants need three things to grow: sunlight, water and nutrients. Fertilizers provide plants with the latter, more specifically with phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen [1]. Hang on, but why do we need to give a plant nitrogen? Isn't our air made up of 78% nitrogen? Yes, but atmospheric nitrogen cannot be used by plants directly and instead needs to be converted into ammonia or other nitrogenous compounds in the soil. This process...

Geoffrey Drumm is an Egyptologist and self-taught chemist who has theorized that several ancient Egyptian pyramids were not pharaonic burial chambers - they were industrial manufacturing plants for ammonia based fertilizer and the raw materials used for metallurgy. His presentation begins inside the red pyramid, whose three chambers mirror the three stages of nitrogen fixation used in the Haber-Bosch process we depend upon today. We talk about the physical evidence his investigations have uncovered, the difficulty of doing research in Egypt, and pervasive belief of a primitive history for ancient civilizations Support the scientific revolution by joining our Patreon: https://bit.ly/3lcAasB Tell us what you think in the comments or on our Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub (00:00:00) Go! (00:03:41) Pursuit of Ancient Secrets (00:08:09) Functional Architecture (00:26:25) History of Egyptology (00:53:31) Chemical Reactions of the Red Pyramid (01:07:37) Ancient Chemistry (01:22:15) Haber Bosch Process (01:51:40) The End of Excavation (02:17:18) The Pump Shaft (02:22:53) Chemical Composition of the Residue (02:34:34) Bent Pyramid & Great Pyramid (02:43:27) Acoustic Catalysis (03:05:02) Ancient Ireland (03:18:47) Coating of the Red Pyramid (03:26:21) Ultrasound and the Pyramids (03:31:31) Wrap #asdf Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: https://www.youtube.com/c/DemystifyingScience AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics https://www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics Join our mailing list https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Michael Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. - Blog: http://DemystifySci.com/blog - RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss - Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD - Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySci MUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

De verdwenen pensioenmiljoenen van Edith Schippers maken Maarten woest. Tom was dagvoorzitter bij een bijeenkomst van de overheid over de chaos in Nederland. En zitten we in een identiteitscrisis door het verdwijnen van de zuilen?

India Policy Watch #1: Fertility 2.0Insights on current policy issues in India— RSJFirst, the good news. “India may have already surpassed China as the world's most-populous nation in a milestone that adds urgency for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to create more jobs and ensure the country sustains its world-beating growth.The South Asian nation's population stood at 1.417 billion as of end 2022, according to estimates from the World Population Review, an independent organization focused on census and demographics.That's a little over 5 million more than the 1.412 billion reported by China Tuesday when authorities there announced the first decline since the 1960s.” (from Business Standard, 18 Jan)We have argued for long on these pages that people are resources. They aren't a problem. We have a governance problem if our default view of people is that they are a burden. We have a chapter in our book (HAVE YOU ORDERED YOUR COPY YET?) explaining why ‘aabadi isn't barbaadi”. There's an extract from that chapter in the next section of this edition. Here's another news item that caught my attention this week:“State-run Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd (RCF) and National Fertilizers Ltd (NFL) plan to build five new factories to manufacture super-efficient nano-urea under a licence from IFFCO Ltd, a development that promises to ease India's mounting fertilizer subsidy burden.The two companies have signed arrangements with IFFCO, a producer in the cooperative sector which holds the patent for nano-urea, a person aware of the matter said on condition of anonymity. They will pay royalties to IFFCO for producing nano-urea, a nanotechnology-based product 100 times more efficient than conventional urea, which will shrink the quantity of fertilizer usage and thereby lower the subsidy burden. It also boosts nutrient availability, enhances productivity, helps soil health and reduces the carbon footprint in fertilizer production.”(from Mint, 19 Jan)It is useful to appreciate why policymakers and well-meaning thinkers over the ages have worried about population increase. One mental model we have is about the finiteness of resources available on earth to support human life (or life in general). There's a biological load that the planet can support, and after this limit has been reached, we will face scarcity. Malthus, who was among the first to articulate this, put it simply - the growth of human population is exponential, while food and other resources needed to support life grow linearly. And unless wars, famines or other events correct this, we will hurtle towards a ‘Malthusian catastrophe'. He wrote about in the late 18th century with a warning that unless preventive checks on population are done at a policy level, the catastrophe might be upon us by the mid-19th century. Of course, we know it didn't turn out that way. What happened then? It is difficult to prove this conclusively, but it is likely that spontaneous order worked. As demand increased, producers searched for additional resources like new arable land (maybe more colonialism), worked harder (two crop cycles instead of one) or became more productive through technology (early mechanisation of agriculture using tools of the industrial revolution). Yet, there was a lurking feeling through the late 19th and early 20th century that we might reach the limit of sustenance. Till Haber and Bosch did their thing.Plants need nutrients, specifically N (Nitrogen), P (Phosphorus) and K (Potassium). NPK plus water and the sunlight is the only way to convert solar energy into food. Plants get these nutrients from the soil. When they die, they give them back to the soil. This is how life sustains itself. But this wasn't enough to sustain a civilisation. We needed more plants, and soon we realised we had natural limits of these nutrients. Among them, Nitrogen was the most elusive. It is the most abundant element in the atmosphere, but it is available in an inert form. And it was almost impossible to isolate it. There were workarounds to this. Certain plants (like legumes) could ‘fix' Nitrogen from the atmosphere. That is, their rhizomes could support bacteria that could convert the inert Nitrogen into ammonia that could then enrich the soil. Or, we found large guano deposits in Chile and Peru, which were rich in Nitrates, and we exported them worldwide. But these weren't enough to sustain the ever-growing demand for food. Synthesising ammonia became one of the great scientific problems of the time. In 1909, a German scientist, Fritz Haber, achieved this breakthrough in his lab. Soon, he and a BASF engineer, Bosch, translated this lab experiment into a commercial process. Ammonia could now be mass-produced. It was not the most efficient process because it required a lot of fuel. But, it revolutionised agriculture production around the world. It was possibly the single most important innovation of the 20th century that had no shortage of great ideas. Agriculture productivity grew between 3-5 times across most countries in that century, and it is safe to say urea and synthetic fertilisers were the single biggest reason for it. Haber-Bosch process is a wonderful example of human ingenuity where a technological breakthrough unlocked a new productivity frontier when we had thought we had reached its limit. But this came with costs. There's no elegant way for plants to absorb Nitrogen from urea. It has to be spread on soil and then sprayed on leaves. About 30-40 per cent of it gets used at best. The rest is wasted. It leaches into groundwater and rivers and kills aquatic ecosystems. They eventually end up in our food and into us. The production of urea requires a huge amount of fossil fuel. Nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, is a byproduct of the Haber process. The environmental impact of synthetic fertilisers has begun to undermine their benefits. It is still a force of good but with an asterisk next to it. In India, we have an additional burden of fertilisers. Fertilisers are expensive to manufacture. The input costs keep going up. A 45 kg bag of granulated urea costs about Rs. 4000 to manufacture. This is unaffordable for most Indian farmers, or so the government believes. So, it subsidises fertilisers. The farmer gets the same bag for Rs. 266. The government (and therefore the taxpayer) pays Rs. 3750 per bag for this subsidy to the fertilizer manufacturers. Put together, the annual fertiliser in India totals Rs. 2.5 lakh crores (trillion). It is not a small number. It is about half of our total healthcare spend. We, here, take a dim view of subsidies. Subsidies distort markets and create deadweight losses. The producers (often government entities in India) don't have the incentive to be competitive. Private players don't have an incentive to come in. They are delivered inefficiently and do not often reach the intended recipients. Then there are interest groups formed to perpetuate the subsidies because they benefit from them, and this leads to rent-seeking behaviour from the state. And, finally, all of this is funded by the State whose track record of using taxpayers' money in the most effective manner is dismal. There's no economic rationale to justify subsidy. Yet, once you have gotten this gravy train going, it is impossible to bring it to a halt. You can argue that India shouldn't have so many marginal farmers in the first place who find urea prices impossible to afford. That getting these farmers out of agriculture is the only viable future for them. But there's a human cost to pay in the short term to go down this path. There's electoral cost too. So, we will continue down the path of ever-increasing fertiliser subsidies and dig ourselves into a deeper hole. And, we will have the union minister for fertilisers proudly claiming that we will have a 40 per cent increase in subsidies during this year.That brings me back to the news item about nano urea. India is setting four new plants, apart from the one already in production, that will manufacture nano-urea under a licence from IFFCO Ltd. Nano urea seems like some miracle drug. On paper, if one were to believe the hype, it is 100 times more efficient than conventional urea, will boost crop productivity by 20 per cent, improve soil health and reduce carbon footprint. The patent is held by IFFCO based on the work done by a young Indian scientist, Ramesh Raliya, who returned from the US to set up Nano Biotechnology Research Centre with IFFCO. There have been some field pilots done, and based on that, the fertilisers ministry has decided to double down on production. I hope they have been scientifically rigorous on the tests and aren't buying their own hype. Let me take just take the claim that nano urea is super efficient by, say about 80 per cent (not some 99 per cent that the literature shows). What does it mean in terms of urea consumption? Liquid nano urea will replace the urea that's spread on leaves and plants directly. It won't possibly substitute the urea spread on the soil. I could be wrong here, but that's my understanding reading through the patent that's filed. If this were true and 50 per cent of urea is what's sprayed directly on plants (which is where efficiency will be seen), we would see a net reduction of about 40 per cent of urea consumption. Let's keep it at this broad level. The total subsidy budget for next year is likely to be about Rs. 2.5 lakh crores. Urea accounts for about two-thirds of the total subsidy, which comes to about Rs 1.7 lakh crores. And we might eventually end up saving about 40 per cent of it. That's a cool Rs 70,000 Crores. I mean, why build 5 factories? Build 50 and start exporting this. Besides the subsidy savings and the impact on the current account because of lower imports, there is all the positive impact on the environment and carbon footprint. It seems too good to be true. But that's what the Haber-Bosch process looked like when it was used commercially. “Bread from air” was how people saw it. Like they say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Well, I'm rooting for nano urea to live up to its hype. It will again show that the answer to our problems is not to go back on scientific progress and development. It is to find a forward-looking solution for the problems that's brought upon us by the progress of the past. Science will ultimately solve the problems created by science. Jan Nisar Akhtar (father of Javed Akhtar) wrote this line in a song from Chhoo Mantar (1956):“Tumhi ne dard diya hai, tumhi dawaa dena” (God, it is you who has given me this pain, and it is you who must provide succour too).Akhtar was talking about God. He might as well be talking about science.An Excerpt from Missing in Action: Why Should You Care About Public Policy— A chapter from our upcoming book that releases tomorrowChapter 25: Aabadi Isn't BarbaadiThere was a time not so long ago when a population clock (counter) would play for a few ominous seconds on Doordarshan (DD). During the ‘80s, the State-run DD was the only channel in the country and right in the middle of a film or an episode of B.R. Chopra's Mahabharat we would see the counter ticking away furiously, eighty-one crore Indians and counting. Thus sobered about the grim reality of our population, we would go back to the fifth day of the great war wondering about Abhimanyu. Over the years, governments of all hues have viewed our population as a problem. This is a view that most citizens also hold because this has been drummed into their heads. Population explosion or ‘janasankhya visphot' is a hook on which Indians hang a lot of their problems. People are seen as hungry stomachs to feed rather than enterprising brains that can contribute to prosperity. From an economic perspective, population is a neutral variable. It can be good or bad depending on the context. We will examine it in the Indian context in this chapter.The supposed ills of a large population have an outsized influence on our policymaking. The near-death experience in the mid-60s when we were in danger of being a global basket case casts its long shadow on our thinking. The idea that the human population would outpace farm productivity leading to hunger, pestilence and deaths has been debunked over the years. The role of human capital, institutions and ideas on productivity have been established by economists like Solow and Romer. Yet we persist with the Malthusian notion. As Julian Simon argued in his 1981 book The Ultimate Resource, we are an intelligent race who innovate in the face of scarcity. Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource that can make other resources plentiful. More humans lead to more ideas, bigger markets, larger infrastructure spending and, paradoxically, higher prices for scarce resources, which leads to conservation or search for replacement products. There is empirical evidence to support this has been good for the world over the last century.Pitted against Simon was Paul Ehrlich whose 1968 book The Population Bomb was a stronger and more logical update of the Malthusian argument for a different era. Ehrlich believed human exploitation of resources would make them scarcer and costlier until we ran out of them. Famously, in 1980, Ehrlich and Simon placed a bet on the future prices of five metals ten years later. Here's Ronald Bailey in his book The End of Doom (Thomas Dunne, 2015) about the bet:In October 1980, Ehrlich and Simon drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Ehrlich the same quantities that could be purchased for $1,000 of five metals (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten) ten years later at inflation‐​adjusted 1980 prices. If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990. There was no note in the letter. The price of the basket of metals chosen by Ehrlich and his cohorts had fallen by more than 50 percent. The cornucopian Simon won.Population isn't a problem. The ability to tap human capital to produce ‘catch-up' growth and ‘cutting-edge' growth is the issue in India. We have failed to create institutions or policy frameworks that enable the ultimate resource. As Nitin Pai, director of the Takshashila Institution, a think tank, puts it eloquently: under-governance, and not overpopulation, is India's problem.To say that our public institutions have the capacity to handle only so large a population is not an argument to reduce the population. It is an argument to enlarge the capacity of our public institutions. Like Procustes, we cannot chop off the legs of sleepers who were too tall to sleep on his bed. We need longer beds. Enlarging capacity is about better ideas, better technology, better people and more people engaged in governance. It is wholly wrong to attribute our failure to scale up governance to keep pace with population growth to ‘overpopulation'. (Source)Nevertheless, we continue to blame our population. Several prime ministers in the past have failed to appreciate this and PM Modi, in his address to the nation on 15 August 2019, followed the same line. This sentiment is shared by large sections of our society too. It's not difficult to find Malthusians opposing migration on the grounds that there are just way too many people in their city.We will get older before getting richer. That is the plain truth. At a mere $2000 per capita income, we are sliding below-replacement fertility rate in most of the states. This is a bigger problem than our imagined overpopulation. In 2040, we will be an old, low-income country lacking a social security net. At this time, the only moral imperative is income growth. Everything else pales in comparison. But we continue with false trade-offs between growth and other higher-order virtues—equity, environment and national pride. This is not to argue that these aren't important. But we should consider our priorities as a $2000 per capita income economy. Not what we imagine ourselves to be.….Not(PolicyWTF): Pausing Before PreachingThis section looks at surprisingly sane policies- Pranay KotasthaneOur judiciary sometimes behaves like a panchayat. Some court orders preach so much that they resemble WhatsApp rants by your neighbourhood uncle. Then there's also a tendency to succumb to the performative pressure in today's times, where every decision needs to take a moralising tone rather than confront tough trade-offs. However, the judiciary surpassed itself on at least two occasions in the last two weeks, and it deserves all the appreciation for it.The first instance was its Jan 10 order on a petition demanding an urgent Supreme Court hearing on the Joshimath land subsidence issue. Taking a pragmatic stance on the issue, the Chief Justice of India deferred the hearing by a week on the grounds that:"Everything which is important in the country need not come to us. There are democratically elected institutions to see this. They can deal with what falls under their control. We'll keep it on 16th” (LiveLaw)In normal circumstances, the Court would have gone on a “development vs environment” tirade, which would have helped none. For acknowledging that it cannot—and doesn't need to—solve everything wrong, the Supreme Court deserves praise. On Jan 16th, the Supreme Court stuck to its guns, explaining that it could not intervene since the Uttarakhand High Court was already considering the issue. "You don't want to use this issue for social media sound bytes. From the order of the High Court, it seems that the issues raised are in an IA before the High Court. Over and above if you have any other issues, we can give you liberty to approach the High Court with them. (LiveLaw).It's rare when institutions resist the temptation to expand their scope, and for this reason, the Supreme Court's order stood out.The second reason was, of course, the Supreme Court Collegium's decision to respond publicly to the union government's objections regarding certain appointments. The objections by the union government were comical and sad at the same time. In one instance, the government opposed the appointment because of the person's sexual orientation and because he had a Swiss partner. Laughably, the sole premise of the union government's opposition to the current method of appointments is that it lacks “transparency, objectivity, and social diversity”. In another instance, the union government didn't like that a candidate shared an article criticising the PM. The government isn't even pretending that the judiciary needs to align with the government's views. In the third instance, the union government didn't like the fact that the candidate was “highly opinionated and selectively critical on social media.” Note the importance given to the candidates' social media profiles. We'll see more chapters of this stand-off between the judiciary and the executive soon. But for now, the judiciary's forthright stance against the government's ludicrous objections deserves praise. India Policy Watch #2: Another Impossible Trinity Insights on current policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneThe “impossible trinity” or the “policy trilemma” is a useful thinking aid. The framework is represented a choice among three favourable options, only two of which are possible at the same time. There's nothing scientific about it, but it can help shed light on the trade-offs involved.For instance, living in many Indian cities can be represented as a trilemma between these three parameters: * A decent standard of living: means that a median resident can afford a dignified dwelling, can commute without fearing death or disability, and can breathe non-hazardous air most of the time.* Economic dynamism: means that the place offers a wide range of economic opportunities at all income levels. &* Individual liberty: means that a place allows an individual to be herself, where community beliefs do not suppress individual initiative, preferences, and expressions. Some intentionally broad generalisations follow from this characterisation. Most of our smaller towns offer a reasonable standard of living but no economic dynamism and little individual liberty. Places like Goa and perhaps cities in Kerala offer a decent standard of living and individual liberty but far fewer economic opportunities. Cities such as Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru offer economic dynamism and higher individual liberty but come at the expense of losing a decent standard of living. Finally, there are cities in Gujarat which might offer you economic dynamism and a reasonable standard of living, but then you might have to eat meat sheepishly and consume alcohol surreptitiously. Does this trilemma make sense to you? And are there places that have resolved this impossible trinity? HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters* [Paper] This USIP paper explains the methods used in judicial appointments as a trade-off between independence and accountability rather well. * [Book] Another edition compiling lessons from policy successes, this time from the Nordic countries.* [Paper] Smriti Parsheera's paper on the governance of Digital Public Infrastructure in India is essential reading for anyone interested in technology policy. A critique by Rahul Matthan is here. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Wel of geen tanks: Duitsland is er nog niet uit. Maarten en Tom analyseren het vernietigende voorjaarsoffensief waarmee Rusland Oekraïne terug wil pakken. ➡️ Luisterboek VS na Koude Oorlog (tip!)

Het zwartste scenario is een vernietigende kernoorlog tussen Rusland en de VS. Maarten en Tom vertellen over het Manhattanproject. Dat stelde de VS in staat om tijdens WO II in het diepste geheim een atoombom te maken. Maarten adviseert: Breekt nu een kernoorlog uit, pleeg dan binnen een uur zelfmoord. ➡️ Tip: Luisterboek VS na Koude Oorlog

Maarten en Tom krijgen af en toe flinke kritiek. Reageerders doen dat vaak anoniem onder een schuilnaam. Maarten is het spuugzat en roept Finger Spitzengefühl, greendutch, Supergroofer en Toni1278 op hun identiteit te onthullen.

The Haber-Bosch process, which turns nitrogen and hydrogen into ammonia, produces an essential ingredient in fertilizers and explosives. But it's responsible for 2% of global emissions.  Ammonia could become an important low-carbon fuel, because when combusted it emits no carbon. We could use it in ships, heavy industry and even mixed in with coal or gas in power plants.  So what's keeping us from using it as a new low-carbon fuel? And why would you use it instead of hydrogen, which you already need to make ammonia? In this episode, Shayle talks to Julio Friedmann, chief scientist at Carbon Direct. Julio and a team of colleagues just co-authored a report on low-carbon ammonia for the Innovation for Cool Earth Forum. They cover topics like: Why some countries like Japan, Singapore and Korea are especially interested in developing ammonia infrastructure. How ammonia compares to other low-carbon fuels like methanol and hydrogen. How we would need to retrofit coal and gas power plants to co-fire with ammonia Addressing ammonia's corrosion and toxicity issues. The areas that need more research, such as ammonia's impact on air quality and radiative forcing. Key constraints like human capital and infrastructure. Recommended Resources: Innovation for Cool Earth Forum: Low-Carbon Ammonia Roadmap Canary: Watch this TED talk to get up to speed on green ammonia and shipping Canary: The race is on to build the world's first ammonia-powered ship Chemical & Engineering News: Will Japan run on ammonia? Full transcript here. Catalyst is a co-production of Post Script Media and Canary Media. Catalyst is supported by Antenna Group. For 25 years, Antenna has partnered with leading clean-economy innovators to build their brands and accelerate business growth. If you're a startup, investor, enterprise, or innovation ecosystem that's creating positive change, Antenna is ready to power your impact. Visit antennagroup.com to learn more.

This episode is a little something different. On this episode of the podcast, we're sharing a reading of Maren's recent Substack piece entitled The Legacy of the '“Men Who Pulled Bread From Air” which breaks down the legacy of the Haber-Bosch process, The Green Revolution, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution in food systems. The piece discusses the states of emergency that bred these periods of innovation, as well as the ramifications that have befallen the planet due to them. Trying to understand where we come from as well as where we are going, Maren gives a history lesson and poses some important questions. Are we going down the right path? Should we continue down the road of high-tech, hyper-industrial agriculture? What sort of food system is aligned with living on Earth sustainably forever? Understanding where we come from is an important first step on figuring out where to go. The industrial food system is only 100 years old. Is it our fate to be tethered to it forever? Are there viable alternatives to turn to? Do we need to continue down a path of control, uniformity, and chemicals? We hope you enjoy this reading, and please, if you haven't, subscribe to our Substack. Consider becoming a paid subscriber so we are more able to produce essays and researched content like this in the future. Or if you'd prefer, consider joining our Patreon community. We just created a new tier for $3 a month, which is less than a cup of coffee and helps cover some of Patreon's fees! Editing: Jake Marquez Music: “Reckoner” by Radiohead

James Fleay, an Australian engineer and project manager in the energy sector, joins Dr. Keefer to discuss the "Hydrogen Alliance" proposed between Canada and Germany. This Hydrogen Alliance is coming under increasing scrutiny due to allegations of a conflict of interest arising out of the Premier of Newfoundland, Andrew Furey's luxury trip to a lodge owned by Canadian billionaire John Risley this summer. Risley happens to be one of the principal investors in a project called Nujio'qonik, one of three projects competing to be part of the Canada German Hydrogen Alliance alongside EverWind Fuels in Nova Scotia and the Port of Belledune project in New Brunswick. Beyond a potential political scandal lies a very real energy scandal. Fleay describes the chemistry, thermodynamics, and economics required to turn electrons generated by wind turbines in Canada into ammonia to be shipped across the Atlantic to be burned in German Power plants, a process which he describes as being "The least efficient way to get electrons on the German grid imaginable." Decouple takes a look at who will foot the bill and who will profit. The total output of the Canada German Hydrogen Alliance which requires a near doubling of Canada's total national wind fleet, expensive electrolysis equipment, ammonia production through the energy intensive Haber Bosch process, large scale shipping and potential energy hungry reconversion to hydrogen for burning as fuel in German thermal plants is almost equal to the output of a single German nuclear station, ISAR 2, one of the three remaining nuclear plants still under threat of closure in Germany. With the myth of cheap Canadian exportable hydrogen as a tool to replace Russian natural gas busted we examine Canada's only truly green and ultra low carbon energy export: its nuclear technology and uranium which is already used in near carbon free power plants domestically and around the world offsetting a full 1/3 of Canada's total all sector emissions. Hang onto your hats. This is an interesting one.

For this episode of the No-Till Farmer podcast, brought to you by SOURCE by Sound Agriculture, we caught up with Steve Savage to chat with him about a couple of his recent articles. Stay tuned to hear him discuss the history of no-till farming, why the practice has been so important, and how it will play a role in the future of conservation. He'll also share why he says using the term “synthetic nitrogen” is misleading, the inconvenient truth about the greenhouse gases associated with making compost, how small-scale, local Haber-Bosch nitrogen production could help reduce the reliance on foreign inputs and more.

The final episode in the Haber Bosch series with local comedian Selena! We are wrapping up our story about the Haber Bosch process. As always your host is Dylan Gardner and theme music is by Biran Mylls.

Anson Williams grew up in a modest home in Burbank which his WWII-veteran father bought with a VA loan. His idyllic childhood unfolded against the sunshine and particular American optimism of the 1950s and 1960s. So when he and his friend Ron Howard were cast in "Happy Days," Garry Marshall's nostalgic look back at the 1950s, he fit neatly within the 1970s zeitgeist. The show, which ran from 1974 to 1984, made Williams' Potsie Weber, along with Howard's Richie Cunningham, Don Most's Ralph Malph and Henry Winkler's Fonzie, among the best-known characters of the era, viewed each week by nearly 70 million people. Williams soaked up lessons on set from Marshall and Howard and has now amassed 43 credits to date as a director, in addition to his 100+ acting credits. He now lives in Ojai, a place he's been visiting for decades and regards as a haven and sanctuary from the manic pace of the outside world. He's announced his bid for Mayor and is committed to bringing a collaborative, cooperative style to Ojai's pressing issues such as affordable housing, fire and drought threats and a spirit of civic goodwill and trust. We also talked about glider piloting, fishing with Henry Winkler, setting up innovative school programs, Annie Besant and much more. We did not talk about the Shoeless Joe Jackson and Black Sox scandal of 1919, the Haber-Bosch method nor lost metallurgic technologies of the Bronze Age.

Another episode with Selena the comedian. This episode includes more history plus Taylor Swift and Eminem, and Magneto and Avatar, and even Legally Blonde! Science and popculture? It's all here!

Today's Episode is the beginning of the Haber Bosch Process series with local Lubbock comedian Selena Martinez. We are learning about South America and guano, and Germany, and the scientific process! As always, your host is Dylan (they/them) and music is by Brian Mylls.

Nate explains how our culture is "energy blind" and the implications. The YouTube video, featuring charts and graphs, of this podcast is available now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjhb8Nu1Sk 00:35 - Jason's info + book, Post Carbon Institute, Farmland LP, CSAs 02:57 - What is a CSA 04:39 - Biodiversity and geography of the Amazon rainforest and the Andes 05:14 - How will the Amazon and Andes change with climate change 06:17 - The Future is Rural 06:56 - Net energy positive 07:18 - Optimal foraging theory 08:46 - Chewing the cud and ruminant digestion 09:32 - Fiber, cellulose and human digestion 10:16 - NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium/Potash) 11:01 - Haber Bosch process 14:30 - The Law of Return 15:11 - What is soil? Is it different from dirt? 16:30 - Hydroponics 17:10 - What makes healthy soil? (structure, microbiome, nutrients) 17:24 - Malabon soil 19:49 - How many farms are managing for healthy soils 20:10 - At the current rate our topsoil will be gone in 60 years 20:54 - What percentage of the US labor force are farmers? (~1%) 21:22 - How has the labor force shifted from pre-industrial times? (70-90%) 22:35 - Modern agriculture is an energy sink 23:17 - Past food systems were energy positive (10:1-5:1) 23:35 - The Oil Drum essay (EROI on Nate's potatoes) 25:04 - It takes 10-14 calories to produce, process, and transport every 1 calorie of food we eat 26:50 - Over the last hundred years we have had more energy available every year 27:03 - Trophic pyramids 27:51 - Entropy 31:01 - Supply chain disruptions 31:55 - Fossil fuel depletion 33:48 - Conventional crops no longer have the genes to be grown in organic agriculture 37:16 - Heavy mechanization has led to heavy specialization and regionalization 39:27 - Smaller farms have higher energy returns and higher yields 44:27 - ½ a hectare is needed to feed one person (variation from 2/10th to a whole hectare) 47:46 - Dennis Meadows TGS Episode 51:33 - Potato Famine in Ireland 53:03 - Problems with modern industrial animal agriculture (CAFOs) 54:31 - Diets were tailored to fit the land they're based in 56:13 - In Minnesota there are more pigs than people 56:20 - Population numbers of our livestock 1:00:05 - Energy blindness 1:00:23 - Norman Borlaug and Paul Ehrlich 1:01:09 - Permaculture 1:07:34 - The world's amazing and diverse life 1:09:03 - Chuck Watson TGS Episode 1 and 2 on Nuclear Risk 1:10:20 - Nature is remarkably resilient 1:10:37 - Building back healthy soil

Nuno Maulide é químico e professor catedrático na Universidade de Viena, onde é diretor do Instituto de Química Orgânica, a sua área de investigação. Publicou, juntamente com Tanja Traxler, o livro «Como se Transforma Ar em Pão -- Estas e outras questões a que só a química sabe responder». -> Apoie este projecto e faça parte da comunidade de mecenas do 45 Graus em: 45graus.parafuso.net/apoiar _______________ Índice da conversa: (4:33) Início: Porque há tão pouca divulgação na Química? Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman (12:19) A atribuição do Prémio Nobel da Química é mais “conservadora” do que noutras áreas? | Egas Moniz e o Nobel | Carl Djerassi (inventor da pílula) | Adolf Windaus (colesterol) (24:22) Química Orgânica. | Porque é toda a vida baseada em carbono? | Aminoácidos (via hidroxiácidos) | Porque é que a natureza continua a ser melhor em muitas reacções químicas? A Origem da Vida na Terra (33:10) “Transformar ar em pão”: processo de Haber-Bosch. Biomimetics (44:43) Porque há reações que funcionam só em pequena escala? Process chemistry (54:17) A revolução dos plásticos: a descoberta da síntese do polietileno. | E o problema da poluição. | Será possível produzir gasolina a partir de plástico? | E criar espumas através de CO2? | E tratar os resíduos da produção de azeite? (1:04:50) Porque é tão comum o carbono, tanto na vida como no que produzimos? Alternativas: silício | Porque as mesmas moléculas podem ter formas diferentes? …e como ajuda a explicar os efeitos da febre. | Mecanoquimica. (1:10:39) É igual comer pão e açúcar refinado? | É possível criar uma “ração humana” equilibrada? (e a comparação com os livros electrónicos). Sal, açúcar e gordura. Gorduras trans. | Leite sem lactose Livros recomendado: (vários de) Malcolm Gladwell; vários de Simon Sinek _______________ O convidado deste episódio é o químico Nuno Maulide, e conversámos a propósito do livro que publicou recentemente, com Tanja Traxler: «Como se Transforma Ar em Pão -- Estas e outras questões a que só a química sabe responder». O Nuno é químico e professor catedrático na Universidade de Viena, onde é diretor do Instituto de Química Orgânica, a sua área de investigação. Muitos de vós terão ouvido falar dele pela primeira vez em 2019, quando foi eleito Cientista do Ano, na Áustria; uma distinção que não é única: o Nuno é também o mais novo membro permanente da Academia de Ciências austríaca, e o único estrangeiro fora dos países germanófonos a integrá-la.  O impacto do prémio acabou por motivar a escrita deste livro, que pretende divulgar a sua área de formação junto do grande público, explicando questões a que, como diz o subtítulo, só a química sabe responder. A nossa conversa começou precisamente por este ponto: porque é que a química é ainda pouco divulgada e os químicos são muitas vezes menos proactivos do que outras áreas da ciência neste trabalho de divulgação? Eu próprio, como digo no início, tenho tido vários convidados físicos e biólogos, mas o Nuno é apenas o segundo químico que recebo no 45 Graus…   Falámos também de vários aspectos da Química. E aqui vale a pena clarificar alguma terminologia técnica que o convidado utiliza.  A Química estuda sobretudo moléculas e o modo como estas se formam a partir de átomos, que se ligam entre si; átomos de oxigénio, heterogénio, carbono, etc. Para formar moléculas, os átomos partilham entre si um ou mais electrões da sua camada exterior.  E, como o convidado refere a certo ponto, pode haver vários tipos de ligações: Quando cada átomo partilha um eletrão, estamos a falar de uma ligação simples. É o que acontece, por exemplo, nas moléculas de água, com dois átomos de hidrogénio e um de oxigénio (daí o H2O). Mas pode haver também ligações duplas ou mesmo triplas, em que os átomos se ligam via três electrões partilhados. E quanto maior o número de ligações, como explica o convidado, mais difícil é quebrá-las em laboratório -- o que é essencial se quisermos sintetizar compostos novos -- e isso explica muitos dos desafios da química moderna.  Durante a nossa conversa, focámo-nos sobretudo na área de investigação do Nuno, a Química Orgânica, que trata do estudo das moléculas que têm por base em átomos de carbono. E aqui cabe muita coisa, pois as moléculas com base em carbono estão não só em muitos produtos familiares, como os combustíveis fósseis e os plásticos, mas também -- mais importante ainda -- em toda a vida existente na Terra. Falámos por isso de alguns processos químicos essenciais à vida moderna, como o de de Haber-Bosch, dos seus custos (como a poluição), e também da dificuldade que continua a existir, mesmo com todos os progressos na química, em replicar muitas reacções químicas da natureza em laboratório -- o que implica que os métodos que a indústria química são, na prática, mais força bruta do que sofisticação.  E falámos do papel do carbono na vida na Terra. Será que era forçoso que todas as formas de vida fossem baseadas nele, ou é uma coincidência? Finalmente, no último trecho da conversa, abordámos ainda a química que existe naquilo que comemos, e de alguns mitos que existem nesta área.  _______________ Obrigado aos mecenas do podcast: Julie Piccini, Ana Raquel Guimarães Galaró family, José Luís Malaquias, Francisco Hermenegildo, Nuno Costa, Abílio Silva, Salvador Cunha, Bruno Heleno, António llms, Helena Monteiro, BFDC, Pedro Lima Ferreira, Miguel van Uden, João Ribeiro, Nuno e Ana, João Baltazar, Miguel Marques, Corto Lemos, Carlos Martins, Tiago Leite Tomás Costa, Rita Sá Marques, Geoffrey Marcelino, Luis, Maria Pimentel, Rui Amorim, RB, Pedro Frois Costa, Gabriel Sousa, Mário Lourenço, Filipe Bento Caires, Diogo Sampaio Viana, Tiago Taveira, Ricardo Leitão, Pedro B. Ribeiro, João Teixeira, Miguel Bastos, Isabel Moital, Arune Bhuralal, Isabel Oliveira, Ana Teresa Mota, Luís Costa, Francisco Fonseca, João Nelas, Tiago Queiroz, António Padilha, Rita Mateus, Daniel Correia, João Saro João Pereira Amorim, Sérgio Nunes, Telmo Gomes, André Morais, Antonio Loureiro, Beatriz Bagulho, Tiago Stock, Joaquim Manuel Jorge Borges, Gabriel Candal, Joaquim Ribeiro, Fábio Monteiro, João Barbosa, Tiago M Machado, Rita Sousa Pereira, Henrique Pedro, Cloé Leal de Magalhães, Francisco Moura, Rui Antunes7, Joel, Pedro L, João Diamantino, Nuno Lages, João Farinha, Henrique Vieira, André Abrantes, Hélder Moreira, José Losa, João Ferreira, Rui Vilao, Jorge Amorim, João Pereira, Goncalo Murteira Machado Monteiro, Luis Miguel da Silva Barbosa, Bruno Lamas, Carlos Silveira, Maria Francisca Couto, Alexandre Freitas, Afonso Martins, José Proença, Jose Pedroso, Telmo , Francisco Vasconcelos, Duarte , Luis Marques, Joana Margarida Alves Martins, Tiago Parente, Ana Moreira, António Queimadela, David Gil, Daniel Pais, Miguel Jacinto, Luís Santos, Bernardo Pimentel, Gonçalo de Paiva e Pona , Tiago Pedroso, Gonçalo Castro, Inês Inocêncio, Hugo Ramos, Pedro Bravo, António Mendes Silva, paulo matos, Luís Brandão, Tomás Saraiva, Ana Vitória Soares, Mestre88 , Nuno Malvar, Ana Rita Laureano, Manuel Botelho da Silva, Pedro Brito, Wedge, Bruno Amorim Inácio, Manuel Martins, Ana Sousa Amorim, Robertt, Miguel Palhas, Maria Oliveira, Cheila Bhuralal, Filipe Melo, Gil Batista Marinho, Cesar Correia, Salomé Afonso, Diogo Silva, Patrícia Esquível , Inês Patrão, Daniel Almeida, Paulo Ferreira, Macaco Quitado, Pedro Correia, Francisco Santos, Antonio Albuquerque, Renato Mendes, João Barbosa, Margarida Gonçalves, Andrea Grosso, João Pinho , João Crispim, Francisco Aguiar , João Diogo, João Diogo Silva, José Oliveira Pratas, João Moreira, Vasco Lima, Tomás Félix, Pedro Rebelo, Nuno Gonçalves, Pedro , Marta Baptista Coelho, Mariana Barosa, Francisco Arantes, João Raimundo, Mafalda Pratas, Tiago Pires, Luis Quelhas Valente, Vasco Sá Pinto, Jorge Soares, Pedro Miguel Pereira Vieira, Pedro F. Finisterra, Ricardo Santos _______________ Esta conversa foi editada por: Hugo Oliveira _______________ Bio: Nuno Maulide, professor catedrático na Universidade de Viena, foi eleito Cientista do Ano, na Áustria,  aos 39 anos, e distinguido pela Academia Austríaca de Ciências com o prémio, Ignaz Lieben, a distinção mais antiga atribuída a cientistas, pelos seus contributos excecionais para o desenvolvimento de novos mecanismos de reação em química orgânica, que podem levar à produção de novos medicamentos, mais ajustados às necessidades dos doentes. É o mais novo membro permanente e o único estrangeiro fora dos países germanófonos a integrar a Academia de Ciências austríaca. Dedica-se a repensar a química de síntese, que está na origem de quase tudo o que usamos. Quer retirar-lhe lixo e torná-la mais sustentável. Atualmente está a trabalhar num projeto para reinventar a síntese do Mentol e a tornar mais amiga do ambiente e eficiente – é um dos projetos da startup que ele cofundou em Portugal. No seu livro, este cientista vai explicar entre muitas outras questões que só a química sabe responder, por exemplo, por que razão as maçãs devem ser guardadas sozinhas para se manterem frescas mais tempo? Porque é que choramos quando cortamos uma cebola? Porque é que as casas de banho no Quénia cheiram menos mal do que nos Estados Unidos da América? Ou como se transforma ar em pão?

Take a deep breath ...Nitrogen gas makes up almost 80 percent of the atmosphere.We breathe it in and out all day long, but in this state it is useless to the plants we grow to feed the world.Above our heads is a vast vault of unusable nitrogen; under our feet, a limited amount of fixed nitrogen.Synthesis of this unusable nitrogen into fertilizer through the Haber-Bosch process has fuelled the population growth of the last 100+ years.Yet we often take for granted that the air we breath is clean.45,000 immature deaths occur in the UK alone yearly because of Nitrous Oxide pollution.What if you could take that pollution and turn it into a product that produces higher yields….Dr Apostolos Papadopoulos (Tolis) Inventor and Developer of Technologies at Crop Intellect has done just that with R-LEAF.Crop intellect was established in 2011 to preform, research and develop innovations that are out of the ordinary and disruptive.After they sold the Chlorophyll Increase Activator to Cargill to be commercialized globally it was time for something new!  R-LEAF is a disruptive technology  that is based on photocatalyst (A material which absorbs light to bring it to higher energy level and provides energy to a reacting substance to make a chemical reaction occur.)R-LEAF captures Nitrous Oxide from the atmosphere and turns it into Nitrate which is food for plants.The secret of successful farming is moving nitrogen around.Even the Queen uses R-LEAF!This episode Dan and Dr Apostolos Papadopoulos (Tolis) dive deep into science and innovations.  In this episode, you will learn:Tolis's professional backgroundPatented products Tolis's has createdHow Tolis has taken 100 year old technology and used it in todays technologyWhy this technology is so important in today's practicesWhy Nitrous Oxide is an issueHow is Nitrous Oxide being producedHow much Nitrous Oxide is being sequesteredHow much Nitrogen is being produced per monthWhy producers aren't interested in reducing their nitrogen applicationsWhat Tolis is being compensated for carbon creditThe pros and cons of R-LEAFHow R-LEAF compares to other bacteria based productsWhat type of application method is used for R-LEAFThe impact Tolis's product will make in urban areasWhat Tolis is currently recommending for application ratesWhat the economic return on this practice and product isThe lifespan of one application of R-LEAFWhere R-LEAF is currently at in the lifecycle of getting to marketHow much money has been raised currently for R-LEAFTolis's words to producers who are skeptical Connect with Tolis: Website:https://cropintellect.co.ukTwitter: https://twitter.com/crop_intellectFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/Crop-Intellect-Ltd-196699347202607Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/apostolos-papadopoulos-02843220/ Aberhart Family of Companies:https://aberhartagsolutions.cahttps://aberhartfarms.comhttps://suregrowth.cahttps://www.convergencegrowth.com Connect with us on AGvisorPro: https://link-app.agvisorpro.com/aberhart-danIf you want to be part of the Growing the Future community, make sure to say hi on social at: https://linktr.ee/GrowingthefuturepodcastFacts sourced from The Alchemy of Air written by Thomas Hager

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why pessimism sounds smart, published by jasoncrawford on April 25, 2022 on LessWrong. Pessimists sound smart. Optimists make money.–Nat Friedman (quoted by Patrick) I've realized a new reason why pessimism sounds smart: optimism often requires believing in unknown, unspecified future breakthroughs—which seems fanciful and naive. If you very soberly, wisely, prudently stick to the known and the proven, you will necessarily be pessimistic. No proven resources or technologies can sustain economic growth. The status quo will plateau. To expect growth is to believe in future technologies. To expect very long-term growth is to believe in science fiction. No known solutions can solve our hardest problems—that's why they're the hardest ones. And by the nature of problem-solving, we are aware of many problems before we are aware of their solutions. So there will always be a frontier of problems we don't yet know how to solve. Fears of Peak Oil and other resource shortages follow this pattern. Predictions of shortages are typically based on “proven reserves.” We are saved from shortage by the unproven and even the unknown reserves, and the new technologies that make them profitable to extract. Or, when certain resources really do run out, we are saved economically by new technologies that use different resources: Haber-Bosch saved us from the guano shortage; kerosene saved the sperm whales from extinction; plastic saved the elephants by replacing ivory. In just the same way, it can seem that we're running out of ideas—that all our technologies and industries are plateauing. Technologies do run a natural S-curve, just like oil fields. But when some breakthrough insight creates an entirely new field, it opens an entire new orchard of low-hanging fruit to pick. Focusing only on established sectors and proven fields thus naturally leads to pessimism. To be an optimist, you have to believe that at least some current wild-eyed speculation will come true. Why is this style of pessimism repeatedly wrong? How can this optimism be justified? Not on the basis of specific future technologies—which, again, are unproven—but on the basis of philosophical premises about the nature of humans and of progress. The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as “universal explainers” (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort—that is, by human agency. The opposite view is that progress is a matter of luck. If the progress of the last few centuries was a random windfall, then pessimism is logical: our luck is bound to run out. How could we get that lucky again? If the next century is an average one, it will see little progress. But if progress is a primarily matter of agency, then whether it continues is up to us. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Why pessimism sounds smart, published by jasoncrawford on April 25, 2022 on LessWrong. Pessimists sound smart. Optimists make money.–Nat Friedman (quoted by Patrick) I've realized a new reason why pessimism sounds smart: optimism often requires believing in unknown, unspecified future breakthroughs—which seems fanciful and naive. If you very soberly, wisely, prudently stick to the known and the proven, you will necessarily be pessimistic. No proven resources or technologies can sustain economic growth. The status quo will plateau. To expect growth is to believe in future technologies. To expect very long-term growth is to believe in science fiction. No known solutions can solve our hardest problems—that's why they're the hardest ones. And by the nature of problem-solving, we are aware of many problems before we are aware of their solutions. So there will always be a frontier of problems we don't yet know how to solve. Fears of Peak Oil and other resource shortages follow this pattern. Predictions of shortages are typically based on “proven reserves.” We are saved from shortage by the unproven and even the unknown reserves, and the new technologies that make them profitable to extract. Or, when certain resources really do run out, we are saved economically by new technologies that use different resources: Haber-Bosch saved us from the guano shortage; kerosene saved the sperm whales from extinction; plastic saved the elephants by replacing ivory. In just the same way, it can seem that we're running out of ideas—that all our technologies and industries are plateauing. Technologies do run a natural S-curve, just like oil fields. But when some breakthrough insight creates an entirely new field, it opens an entire new orchard of low-hanging fruit to pick. Focusing only on established sectors and proven fields thus naturally leads to pessimism. To be an optimist, you have to believe that at least some current wild-eyed speculation will come true. Why is this style of pessimism repeatedly wrong? How can this optimism be justified? Not on the basis of specific future technologies—which, again, are unproven—but on the basis of philosophical premises about the nature of humans and of progress. The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as “universal explainers” (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort—that is, by human agency. The opposite view is that progress is a matter of luck. If the progress of the last few centuries was a random windfall, then pessimism is logical: our luck is bound to run out. How could we get that lucky again? If the next century is an average one, it will see little progress. But if progress is a primarily matter of agency, then whether it continues is up to us. Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org.

Doomberg, the anonymous author of the popular Substack publication on energy, finance, and the economy at-large, walks us through their recent piece titled "Farmers on the Brink." "Never have we been more certain in our beliefs while fervently wishing that we are wrong," is how Doomberg describes their prediction of widespread foot shortages following the "perfect storm" of record gas prices, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and skyrocketing costs for virtually every important farming input, such as fertilizers, herbicides, propane, diesel fuel, machinery, and even labor. Who will get hurt, who will be fine, and at what cost? Read Farmers on the Brink: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/farmers-on-the-brink Support Decouple on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/decouple

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Flywheels of progress, published by jasoncrawford on March 23, 2022 on LessWrong. What causes progress? I've been investigating this for five years, and I still don't have a full answer. But part of the picture is starting to come into focus. Here's my current, incomplete model: Progress compounds. It builds on itself. Progress begets progress. This is why progress is super-linear: exponential, or indeed, over long periods, even super-exponential. The form this takes is a number of feedback loops, or self-reinforcing cycles. By the nature of such loops, they act as if they had inertia: they are hard to get started, but hard to stop once going. Hence, a flywheel: the perfect metaphor for a loop or cycle with a lot of inertia. There are several of these, at multiple levels, overlapping, and all operating simultaneously. Here are some that I can see: Technology. Some technologies are fundamental, enabling many other technologies. Precision machining allows for the invention of many more types of machines. New engines and energy sources do the same. Information technology speeds up the dissemination of ideas and makes it easier for people to collaborate. Many technologies enable themselves: we use machine tools to make machines, we burn oil to drill for and to transport oil, we design computers on computers. Wealth. Some level of surplus wealth is needed to fund research and development. When half the workforce had to be farmers just to feed the other half, the surplus simply wasn't there. In the Renaissance, science was funded by wealthy patrons. As surplus builds up, we have more to invest in experimentation, invention, and new businesses; and progress in these areas raises our productivity, which gives us more surplus. Science. Science enables advanced technology: electromagnetism enabled both electrical power and electronic communications; applied chemistry created everything from plastic to the the Haber-Bosch process; microbiology gave us sanitation, vaccines, and antibiotics. And technological and economic progress then in turn enable scientific progress, both by creating surplus wealth to fund it (as per the previous point) and by creating new scientific instruments and techniques, from the microscope and the thermometer to the LHC, LIGO, and JWST. Markets. Transportation and communication technology have globalized markets that used to be narrowly local. Larger markets support more goods and more kinds of goods. Products that require specialized manufacturing need markets large enough to recoup that investment; you can't fund the factory needed to build a working threshing machine or reaper if you are only selling to the farmers in your local village. Government. Progress was enabled in part by reforms in law and government, such as the dissolution of the guild system or the development of corporate law. Nations that have better legal support for progress become wealthier and therefore stronger militarily, and thus able to defend themselves, and their example has inspired other nations to reform their own governments and laws (as India and China did over the last few decades). Population. All else being equal, the more people who are trying to drive progress, the faster it will go. For a long time, progress led to higher population as well. Improvements in agriculture increased the carrying capacity of the land, leading to higher population densities. By the 18th century, sanitation improvements were lowering mortality rates, and more children were surviving to adulthood. But this cycle may have flipped from self-reinforcing to self-reducing (in engineer's terms, from “positive” to “negative” feedback): By the 20th century, technology, wealth and education had lowered fertility rates as well. Now global fertility rates are falling, world population growth is slo...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Flywheels of progress, published by jasoncrawford on March 23, 2022 on LessWrong. What causes progress? I've been investigating this for five years, and I still don't have a full answer. But part of the picture is starting to come into focus. Here's my current, incomplete model: Progress compounds. It builds on itself. Progress begets progress. This is why progress is super-linear: exponential, or indeed, over long periods, even super-exponential. The form this takes is a number of feedback loops, or self-reinforcing cycles. By the nature of such loops, they act as if they had inertia: they are hard to get started, but hard to stop once going. Hence, a flywheel: the perfect metaphor for a loop or cycle with a lot of inertia. There are several of these, at multiple levels, overlapping, and all operating simultaneously. Here are some that I can see: Technology. Some technologies are fundamental, enabling many other technologies. Precision machining allows for the invention of many more types of machines. New engines and energy sources do the same. Information technology speeds up the dissemination of ideas and makes it easier for people to collaborate. Many technologies enable themselves: we use machine tools to make machines, we burn oil to drill for and to transport oil, we design computers on computers. Wealth. Some level of surplus wealth is needed to fund research and development. When half the workforce had to be farmers just to feed the other half, the surplus simply wasn't there. In the Renaissance, science was funded by wealthy patrons. As surplus builds up, we have more to invest in experimentation, invention, and new businesses; and progress in these areas raises our productivity, which gives us more surplus. Science. Science enables advanced technology: electromagnetism enabled both electrical power and electronic communications; applied chemistry created everything from plastic to the the Haber-Bosch process; microbiology gave us sanitation, vaccines, and antibiotics. And technological and economic progress then in turn enable scientific progress, both by creating surplus wealth to fund it (as per the previous point) and by creating new scientific instruments and techniques, from the microscope and the thermometer to the LHC, LIGO, and JWST. Markets. Transportation and communication technology have globalized markets that used to be narrowly local. Larger markets support more goods and more kinds of goods. Products that require specialized manufacturing need markets large enough to recoup that investment; you can't fund the factory needed to build a working threshing machine or reaper if you are only selling to the farmers in your local village. Government. Progress was enabled in part by reforms in law and government, such as the dissolution of the guild system or the development of corporate law. Nations that have better legal support for progress become wealthier and therefore stronger militarily, and thus able to defend themselves, and their example has inspired other nations to reform their own governments and laws (as India and China did over the last few decades). Population. All else being equal, the more people who are trying to drive progress, the faster it will go. For a long time, progress led to higher population as well. Improvements in agriculture increased the carrying capacity of the land, leading to higher population densities. By the 18th century, sanitation improvements were lowering mortality rates, and more children were surviving to adulthood. But this cycle may have flipped from self-reinforcing to self-reducing (in engineer's terms, from “positive” to “negative” feedback): By the 20th century, technology, wealth and education had lowered fertility rates as well. Now global fertility rates are falling, world population growth is slo...

Stephen Crolius is the co-founder and president of Carbon Neutral Consulting, a New York-based sustainable business consultancy. He and his team recently released The Ammonia Report, an analysis of the prospects for using ammonia as a maritime fuel instead of heavy fuel oil, the petroleum-derived traditional source of maritime energy. So much of what we buy today is shipped halfway around the world. Sometimes, the components of a product are shipped from the U.S. to Asia, processed and then shipped back. Almost all of that shipping activity burns oil today, which accounts for about 1.8% of humanity's annual carbon footprint, according to the European Commission's Climate Action office. We need to change the fuels used to power sea-going freight vessels to sustainable alternatives, and several are emerging. One of those is ammonia.Stephen previously served with the Clinton Foundation's Climate Initiative and as president of the Ammonia Energy Association. Ammonia has been used in fertilizers since the early twentieth century, a development made possible by the emergence of the Haber-Bosch process for mass producing the chemical, which revolutionized farming. Now ammonia is coming into use as a fuel or an intermediate storage medium for energy that can be processed to yield pure hydrogen in fuel applications. You can follow the developing story of ammonia fuels at https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/.

#GeekingOutSeries/Safety101/ChemicalsinFood/1This post is part of the Geeking Out series which presents data-driven information on food and farming, safety in the kitchen, practical science for cooks, cooking techniques and processes and other relevant nerdy stuff that every cook should know.  For the next few weeks, we will be covering topics from the chapter, Safety 101. This is the first of four parts.While the idea of pathogens posing a danger to our health is established knowledge-- we’ve all learned about it in elementary science for one, my reference to many chemicals that are in our food system as “poison” may raise some eyebrows.  I’m referring to three kinds: toxic chemicals that go on our crops such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides; are present in our meat and poultry like steroids and antibiotics, and are in ultra processed foods like sugar additives and preservatives. While there’s a growing body of woke citizens, health professionals, scientists, environmental groups and even government agencies like the CDC that acknowledge the toxicity in our food production system, most Americans don’t realize the gravity of the situation for a number of reasons.It’s fairly new. Widespread chemical use in agribusiness is relatively recent, gaining traction only in the mid twentieth century.  The adverse effects caused by chemical fertilizers and additives in our food were not easily identified or immediately apparent, sometimes taking years to diagnose. It’s only in the last decade there’s been broad consensus that sugars, particularly high fructose corn syrup, are linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer.      Corporate greed.  The main reason for the use of chemicals in our food system is to increase efficiency and lower production costs (but not environmental and public health costs), which means bigger profits for companies. Big Business loves its bottom line and will do anything to protect it. Large amounts of money are spent trying to convince the public their products are great or that studies showing harmful effects are conflated. Sound familiar?  We’ve been down this road before with the tobacco industry denying for decades that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. Human nature.  Our tendency towards the path of least resistance means it’s easier not to change old habits or question previously established beliefs, despite growing available data that should convince us otherwise.  Plus, it’s not easy keeping up with food trends --margarine was in, now it’s out; wine was out, now in; coffee is…what now? It doesn’t help we’re bombarded with billions of dollars in unhealthy food advertising, brainwashing us since we were children. Sorting through the muck of false or misleading information is overwhelming.  To top it all, we’re not hardwired to be on red alert if we think the danger posed is far away.  Unlike e coli which could make you sick right away, toxic chemicals in our food system are a slow poison and it’s easy to believe we’re okay until we’re not.  Just like a lobster unaware it’s slowly boiling to death (also a good metaphor for why we’re not all panicking about global warming).Knowledge is key.  Stories can put things in perspective and convince us to take action. I hope that understanding how and why America’s food system is in crisis might be the nudge we all need to make food choices that benefit the planet and ourselves, and not just Big Business.Chemical Fertilizers, Herbicides and PesticidesIt’s impossible to overemphasize the danger posed by many chemicals in our food system.  They are not only toxic to us, but to other animals, the soil, the environment. Why the US is able to legally serve its populace harmful food comes down to corporate greed, how big money can influence government regulations, and insidious marketing that’s shaped culture and tastes predisposed to unhealthy food that keeps corporate coffers full.  For a detailed understanding of America’s food system from production to consumption,  I will defer to a few books that have strongly influenced me over the years:  Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, Third Plate by Dan Barber and Micheal Pollan’s  Omnivore’s Dilemma and Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation.Monoculture America:  An OverviewMost commercial farming practices monoculture, the cultivation of a single crop in an area.  Think of those sweeping fields of Idaho corn or row after row of potatoes.  It’s ubiquitous and you could be forgiven for thinking this is how farming always was.  But that’s not right.  American Indians and other farmers practiced polyculture, planting diverse crops which were mutually beneficial not only to each other, but to maintaining and building soil health. The Three Sisters of Native American agriculture is one such well-known companion planting of corn, beans and squash. Jo Robinson in her book, Eating on the Wild Side describes:‘The Wyandot people, renamed Hurons by the French were masters of this art.  Each spring, the Wyandot women would walk to a cleared field and spread a mound of fish waste every three or four feet.  They covered the fish with dirt and then planted a few corn seeds in the center of each mound. When the corn leaves reached hand height, they planted beans next to the corn, then sprinkled pumpkin seeds between the mounds. The corn stalks grew tall and sturdy, providing support for the limply twining beans.  The beans made their contribution by drawing nitrogen dioxide out of the air and converting it to a stable form of nitrogen that could be used by all three plants, but especially by the nitrogen-hungry corn.  The broad squash leaves fanned out beneath the corn and beans, preventing weeds from growing, cooling the soil, and slowing the evaporation of water.”The function of the beans to draw out nitrogen dioxide from the air and convert it into a kind of nitrogen plants can use (ammonia and nitrate) is what’s called nitrogen-fixing.  Legumes, clover, lupines are some of the nitrogen-fixers commonly used to replenish the soil.  Another popular companion planting example is the home gardener’s tomatoes-basil combination.  According to the Farmer’s Almanac, not only do they taste good together, but the basil helps increase tomato yield and repels pests like mosquitoes, flies and aphids.In companion planting, not only is there a symbiotic relationship between plants, but the diversity provides insurance of crop survival. Blight might take down corn, but maybe the squash will survive. And when planting is diverse, it’s harder for pests to home in on their favorite food. Vast swaths of single crops are an all-you-can eat buffet waiting to happen.But in the 20th century, a confluence of events propelled America and much of the world’s agriculture into a monoculture landscape dependent on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.     In 1909, A German chemist named Fritz Haber discovered a chemical way of “fixing” nitrogen, which is to produce liquid ammonia, the raw material for making nitrogen fertilizer. By 1913, the Haber-Bosch process was used to produce liquid fertilizers in greater quantities and by the time World War II was over, munitions factories which used ammonium nitrate for explosives, could find a new lease in life producing chemical fertilizers, thereby increasing supply and lowering costs to farmers.In the mid-50’s, another scientist, Norman Borlaug bred a variety of dwarf wheat that tripled yield with the use of fertilizers.  The wheat variety, regimen of fertilizers and single crop cultivation (monoculture) were tested in Mexico and then later in India, which was on the brink of a famine. With the template for breeding high-yield crops dependent on fertilizers a huge success, The Green Revolution of the 60’s was born and exported to many parts of the world, including the Philippines, where “miracle” rice, another fast yielding crop, was developed. And this is how monoculture agriculture dependent on chemicals became the norm in American Agriculture.The Ravages of Monoculture AgricultureThe Green Revolution had noble intentions and was a miracle with its bountiful yields, earning Borlaug the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize.  But decades later, we’ve learned what it has cost us. Forcing land to produce more than nature intended with chemical fertilizers is like me having to put in 70 hour work weeks on uppers.  Eventually, both the land and I are going to self-destruct, affecting everything in our wake.  Artificially propped up by speed, I may be able to function temporarily on this mad schedule. But besides the adverse effects on body and mind (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you need a refresher on Breaking Bad), I’d probably be an insufferable maniac to co-workers and family. It’s a vicious cycle.  An organism builds tolerance over time, so after the initial productivity, more chemicals are required.Land stripped of nutrients and toxic with chemicals becomes sick and unable to protect itself;  plants that grow in this environment are stressed and susceptible to diseases like blight.  Pollinators that feed on the toxic plants become sick and die. Declining bee population is largely linked to pesticides and habitat loss and in the US, winter losses commonly reach 30-50%. And drift-prone weed-killers like dicamba kill valuable food sources for bees—weeds.  Bees have been in serious decline over the last decade.  Pollinators, especially honeybees, are responsible for one in every three bites of food we take, according to the USDA.  You get the picture.  All these fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides are killing our pollinators.But they’re also killing us.  200,000 people die every year of acute pesticide poisoning worldwide, according to a UN report released in 2017.  That doesn’t include chronic illnesses and other diseases attributed to indirect exposure such as in contaminated food. And then there’s Roundup.To be continued…Interested to learn more? Read my companion posts on Cooking Subversive:I Cook to Reclaim My Health Superpowers of the Garden Get full access to Cooking Subversive at cookingsubversive.substack.com/subscribe

New startup seeks to disrupt the Haber-Bosch process to provide more sustainable sources of nitrogen for farmers.

In this Conversation, Jason Crawford and I talk about starting a nonprofit organization, changing conceptions of progress, why 26 years after WWII may have been what happened in 1971, and more. Jason is the proprietor of Roots of Progress a blog and educational hub that has recently become a full-fledged nonprofit devoted to the philosophy of progress. Jason's a returning guest to the podcast — we first spoke in 2019 relatively soon after he went full time on the project . I thought it would be interesting to do an update now that roots of progress is entering a new stage of its evolution.   Links Roots of Progress Nonprofit announcement Transcript So what was the impetus to switch from sort of being an independent researcher to like actually starting a nonprofit I'm really interested in. Yeah. The basic thing was understanding or getting a sense of the level of support that was actually out there for what I was doing. In brief people wanted to give me money and and one, the best way to receive and manage funds is to have a national nonprofit organization. And I realized there was actually enough support to support more than just myself, which had been doing, you know, as an independent researcher for a year or two. But there was actually enough to have some help around me to basically just make me more effective and, and further the mission. So I've already been able to hire research [00:02:00] assistants. Very soon I'm going to be putting out a a wanted ad for a chief of staff or you know, sort of an everything assistant to help with all sorts of operations and project management and things. And so having these folks around me is going to just help me do a lot more and it's going to let me sort of delegate everything that I can possibly delegate and focus on the things that only I can do, which is mostly research and writing. Nice and sort of, it seems like it would be possible to take money and hire people and do all that without forming a nonprofit. So what what's sort of like in your mind that the thing that makes it worth it. Well, for one thing, it's a lot easier to receive money when you have a, an organization that is designated as a 5 0 1 C three tax status in the United States, that is a status that makes deductions that makes donations tax deductible. Whereas other donations to other types of nonprofits are not I had had issues in the past. One organization would want to [00:03:00] give me a grant as an independent researcher, but they didn't want to give it to an individual. They wanted it to go through a 5 0 1 C3. So then I had to get a new. Organization to sort of like receive the donation for me and then turn around and re grant it to me. And that was just, you know, complicated overhead. Some organizations didn't want to do that all the time. So it was, it was just much simpler to keep doing this if I had my own organization. And do you have sort of a broad vision for the organization? Absolutely. Yes. And it, I mean, it is essentially the same as the vision for my work, which I recently articulated in an essay on richer progress.org. We need a new philosophy of progress for the 21st century and establishing such a philosophy is, is my personal mission. And is the mission. Of the organization to just very briefly frame this in the I, the 19th century had a very sort of strong and positive, you know, pro progress vision of, of what progress was and what it could do for humanity and in the [00:04:00] 20th century. That optimism faded into skepticism and fear and distrust. And I think there are ways in which the 19th century philosophy of progress was perhaps naively optimistic. I don't think we should go back to that at all, but I think we need a, we need to rescue the idea of progress itself. Which the 20th century sort of fell out of love with, and we need to find ways to acknowledge and address the very real problems and risks of progress while not losing our fundamental optimism and confidence and will to, to move forward. We need to, we need to regain to recapture that idea of progress and that fundamental belief in our own agency so that we can go forward in the 21st century with progress. You know, while doing so in a way that is fundamentally safe and benefits all of humanity. And since you, since you mentioned philosophy, I'm really like, just, just ask you a very weird question. That's related to something that I've been thinking about. And [00:05:00] so like, in addition to the fact that I completely agree the philosophy. Progress needs to be updated, recreated. It feels like the same thing needs to be done with like the idea of classical liberalism that like it was created. Like, I think like, sort of both of these, these philosophies a are related and B were created in a world that is just has different assumptions than we have today. Have you like, thought about how the, those two, like those two sort of like philosophical updates. Yeah. So first off, just on that question of, of reinventing classical liberalism, I think you're right. Let me take this as an opportunity to plug a couple of publications that I think are exploring this concept. Yeah. So so the first I'll mention is palladium. I mentioned this because of the founding essay of palladium, which was written by Jonah Bennet as I think a good statement of the problem of, of why classical liberalism is [00:06:00] or, or I think he called it the liberal order, which has maybe a slightly different thing. But you know, the, the, the basic idea of You know, representative democracy is you know, or constitutional republics with, with sort of representative democracy you know, and, and basic ideas of of freedom of speech and other sort of human rights and individual rights. You know, all of that as being sort of basic world order you know, Jonah was saying that that is in question now and. There's essentially now. Okay. I'm going to, I'm going to frame this my own way. I don't know if this is exactly how gender would put it, but there's basically, there's, there's basically now a. A fight between the abolitionists and the reformists, right. Those who think that the, the, the, that liberal order is sort of like fundamentally corrupt. It needs to be burned to the ground and replaced versus those who think it's fundamentally sound, but may have problems and therefore needs reform. And so you know, I think Jonah is on the reform side and I'm on the reform side. I think, you know, the institutions of you know, Western institutions and the institutions of the enlightenment let's say are like [00:07:00] fundamentally sound and need reform. Yeah, rather than, rather than just being raised to the ground. This was also a theme towards the end of enlightenment now by Steven Pinker that you know, a lot of, a lot of why he wrote that book was to sort of counter the fundamental narrative decline ism. If you believe that the world is going to hell, then it makes sense to question the fundamental institutions that have brought us here. And it kind of makes sense to have a burn it all to the ground. Mentality. Right. And so those things go together. Whereas if you believe that you know, actually we've made a lot of progress over the last couple of hundred years. Then you say, Hey, these institutions are actually serving us very well. And again, if there are problems with them, let's sort of address those problems in a reformist type of approach, not an abolitionist type approach. So Jonah Bennett was one of the co-founders of palladium and that's an interesting magazine or I recommend checking out. Another publication that's addressing some of these concepts is I would say persuasion by Yasha Munk. So Yasha is was a part of the Atlantic as I recall. [00:08:00] And basically wanted to. Make a home for people who were maybe left leaning or you know, would call themselves liberals, but did not like the new sort of woke ideology that is arising on the left and wanted to carve out a space for for free speech and for I don't know, just a different a non-local liberalism, let's say. And so persuasion is a sub stack in a community. That's an interesting one. And then the third one that I'll mention is called symposium. And that is done by a friend of mine. Roger Sinskey who it himself has maybe a little bit more would consider himself kind of a more right-leaning or maybe. Just call himself more of an individualist or an independent or a, you know, something else. But I think he maybe appeals more to people who are a little more right-leaning, but he also wanted you know, something that I think a lot of people are, are both maybe both on the right and the left are wanting to break away both from woke ism and from Trumpism and find something that's neither of those things. And so we're seeing this interesting. Where people on the right and left are actually maybe [00:09:00] coming together to try to find a third alternative to where those two sides are going. So symposium is another publication where you know, people are sort of coming together to discuss, what is this idea of liberalism? What does it mean? I think Tristan ski said that he wanted some posting to be the kind of place where Steven Pinker and George will, could come together to discuss what liberalism means. And then, then he like literally had that as a, as a podcast episode. Like those two people. So anyway, recommend, recommend checking it out. And, and Rob is a very good writer. So palladium, persuasion and symposium. Those are the three that I recommend checking out to to explore this kind of idea of. Nice. Yeah. And I think it looks, I mean, I mean, I guess in my head it actually like hooks, like it's sort of like extremely coupled to, to progress. Cause I think a lot of the places where we, there's almost like this tension between ideas of classical liberalism, like property rights and things that we would like see as progress. Right. Cause it's like, okay, you want to build your [00:10:00] Your Hyperloop. Right. But then you need to build that Hyperloop through a lot of people's property. And there's like this fundamental tension there. And then. I look, I don't have a good answer for that, but like just sort of thinking about that, vis-a-vis, it's true. At the same time, I think it's a very good and healthy and important tension. I agree because if you, if you have the, if you, so, you know, I, I tend to think that the enlightenment was sort of. But there were at least two big ideas in the enlightenment, maybe more than two, but you know, one of them was sort of like reason science and the technological progress that hopefully that would lead to. But the other was sort of individualism and and, and, and, and Liberty you know concepts and I think what we saw in the 20th century when you have one of those without the other, it leads to to it to disaster. So in particular I mean the, the, the communists of you know, the Soviet union were were [00:11:00] enamored of some concept of progress that they had. It was a concept of progress. That was ultimately, they, they got the sort of the science and the industry part, but they didn't get the individualism and the Liberty part. And when you do that, what you end up with is a concept of progress. That's actually detached from what it ought to be founded on, which is, I mean, ultimately progress by. To me in progress for individual human lives and their happiness and thriving and flourishing. And when you, when you detach those things, you end up with a, an abstract concept of progress, somehow progress for society that ends up not being progress for any individual. And that, as I think we saw in the Soviet union and other places is a nightmare and it leads to totalitarianism and it leads to, I mean, in the case specifically the case of the Soviet union mass. And not to mention oppression. So one of the big lessons of you know, so going back to what I said, sort of towards the beginning that the 19th century philosophy of progress had, I think a bit of a naive optimism. And part of that, [00:12:00] part of the naivete of that optimism was the hope that that all forms of progress would go together and work sort of going along hand in hand, the technological progress and moral and social progress would, would go together. In fact, towards the end of. The, the 19th century some people were hopeful that the expansion of industry and the growth of trade between nations would lead to a new era of world peace, the end. And the 20th century obviously prove this wrong, right? There's a devastating, dramatic proof though. And I really think it was my hypothesis right now is that it was the world war. That really shattered the optimism of the 19th century that, you know, they really proved that technological progress does not automatically lead to moral progress. And with the dropping of the atomic bomb was just like a horrible exclamation point on this entire lesson, right? The nuclear bomb was obviously a product of modern science, modern technology and modern industry. And it was the most horrific destructive [00:13:00] weapon ever. So so I think with that, people saw that that these things don't automatically go together. And I think the big lesson from from that era and and from history is that technological and moral progress and social progress or an independent thing that we have. You know, in their own right. And technological progress does not create value for humanity unless it is embedded in the, you know, in the context of good moral and social systems. So and I think that's the. You know, that's the lesson of, for instance, you know, the cotton gin and and American slavery. It is the lesson of the of the, the Soviet agricultural experiments that ended on in famine. It's the lesson of the, the Chinese great leap forward and so forth. In all of those cases, what was missing was was Liberty and freedom and human in individual rights. So those are things that we must absolutely protect, even as we move technological and industrial progress forward. Technological progress ultimately is it is [00:14:00] progress for people. And if it's not progress for people and progress for individuals and not just collectives then it is not progress at all the one. I agree with all of that. Except the thing I would poke is I feel like the 1950s might be a counterpoint to the world wars destroying 20th century optimism, or, or is it, do you think that is just sort of like, there's almost like a ha like a delayed effect that I think the 1950s were a holdover. I think that, so I think that these things take a generation to really see. And so this is my fundamental answer at the, at the moment to what happened in 1971, you know, people ask this question or 1970 or 73 or whatever date around. Yeah. I think what actually happened, the right question to ask is what happened in 1945, that took 25 years to sink in. And I think, and I think it's, so my answer is the world wars, and I think it is around this time that [00:15:00] you really start to see. So even in the 1950s, if you read intellectuals and academics who are writing about this stuff, you start to read things like. Well, you know, we can't just unabashedly promote quote-unquote progress anymore, or people are starting to question this idea of progress or, you know, so forth. And I'm not, I haven't yet done enough of the intellectual history to be certain that that's really where it begins. But that's the impression I've gotten anecdotally. And so this is the, the hypothesis that's forming in my mind is that that's about when there was a real turning point now to be clear, there were always skeptics of. From the very beginning of the enlightenment, there was a, an anti enlightenment sort of reactionary, romantic backlash from the beginnings of the industrial revolution, there were people who didn't like what was happening. John chakra. So you know, Mary Shelley, Karl Marx, like, you know, you name it. But I think what was going on was that essentially. The progress you know, the, the progress movement or whatever, they, the people who are actually going forward and making scientific and technological progress, they [00:16:00] were doing that. Like they were winning and they were winning because they were because people could see the inventions coming especially through the end. I mean, you know, imagine somebody born. You know, around 1870 or so. Right. And just think of the things that they would have seen happen in their lifetime. You know, the telephone the the, you know, the expansion of airplane, the automobile and the airplane, right? The electric light bulb and the, and the, the electric motor the first plastics massive. Yeah, indoor plumbing, water, sanitation vaccines, if they live long enough antibiotics. And so there was just oh, the Haber-Bosch process, right. And artificial or synthetic fertilizer. So this just like an enormous amount. Of these amazing inventions that they would have seen happen. And so I basically just think that the, the, the reactionary voices against against technology and against progress, we're just drowned out by all of the cheering for the new inventions. And then my hypothesis is that what happened after world war II is it wasn't so much that, you [00:17:00] know the people who believed in progress suddenly stopped believing in it. But I think what happens in these cases, The people who, who believed in progress their belief was shaken and they lost some of their confidence and they became less vocal and their arguments started feeling a little weaker and having less weight and conversely, the sort of reactionary the, the anti-progress folks were suddenly emboldened. And people were listening to them. And so they could come to the fore and say, see, we told you, so we've been telling you this for generations. We always knew it, that this was going to be what happened. And so there was just a shift in sort of who had the confidence, who was outspoken and whose arguments people were listening to. And I think when you, when you have then a whole generation of people who grew up in this new. Milia, then you get essentially the counterculture of the 1960s and you know, and you get silent spring and you get you know, protests against industry and technology and capitalism and civilization. And, [00:18:00] you know, do you think there, mate, there's just like literally off the cuff, but there might also be some kind of like hedonic treadmill effect where. You know, it's like you see some, like rate of progress and, you know, it's like you, you start to sort of like, that starts to be normalized. And then. It's true. It's true. And it's funny because so well before the world war, so even in the late 18 hundreds and early 19 hundreds, you can find people saying things like essentially like kids these days don't realize how good they have it. You know, people don't even know the history of progress. It's like, I mean, I found. I found it. Let's see. I remember there was so I wrote about this, actually, I hadn't had an essay about this called something like 19th century progress studies, because there was this guy who was even before the transcontinental railroad was built in the U S in the sixties. There was this guy who like in the 1850s or so [00:19:00] was campaigning for it. And he wrote this whole big, long pamphlet that, you know, promoting the idea of a transcontinental railroad and he was trying to raise private money for it. And. One of the things in this long, you know, true to the 19th century, it was like this long wordy document. And one of the parts of this whole thing is he starts going into the, like the whole history of transportation back to like the 17th or 16th century and like the post roads that were established in Britain and you know, how those improve transportation, but even how, even in that era, that like people were speaking out against the post roads as, and we're posing them. No sidebar. Have you seen that comic with like, like the cave men? The caveman? Yes. I know exactly what you're talking about. Yeah. The show notes, but caveman science fiction. Yeah, that one's pretty good. So I'm, I'm blanking on this guy's name now. But he, so he wrote this whole thing and he basically said that. The [00:20:00] story of progress has not even been told and people don't know how far we've come. And if, you know, somebody should really like collect all of this history and tell it in an engaging way so that people knew, you know, how far people knew, how far we've come. And this is in like the 1850s. So this is before the, the, the railroad was built, right? The transcontinental one, this is before the, the light bulb and before the internal combustion engine and before vaccines and, you know, everything. It was pretty, that was pretty remarkable. I also remember there was like an 1895 or 96 anniversary issue of scientific American, where they went over like 50 years of progress. And there was this bit in the beginning that was just like, yeah. You know, people just take progress for granted these days. And there was another thing, a similar thing in the early 19 hundreds, I read where somebody went out to find one of the inventors who'd improved. The the mechanical Reaper I think it was somebody who'd invented an automatic binder for the sheaves of grain and and was saying something like, yeah, people don't even remember, you know, the, the inventors who, you know, who made the modern world. And so [00:21:00] we've got to go find this inventor and like interview him and to record this for posterity. So you're seeing this kind of kids these days type attitude all throughout. So I think that that kind of thing is just natural, is like, I think is sort of always happening. Right. There's this constant complaint. I mean, it's just like, you know, at any pretty much any time in history, you can find people complaining about the decline of morality and you know, the, how the youth are so different and The wet, the ankles, they exposed ankles. Right? Exactly. So I think you have to have some somewhat separate out that sort of thing, which is constant and is always with us with kind of like, but what was, you know, what we're. What was the intellectual class? You know as Deirdre McCloskey likes to call it the clerisy, what were they saying about progress and what was the general zeitgeist? Right. And I think that even though there are some constants, like people always forget the past. Whatever they have for granted. And even though you know, every new invention is always opposed [00:22:00] and fought and feared. There is an overall site Geist that you can see changing from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century. And I think where you can really see. There's a, there's a couple of places you can really see it. So one is in the general attitude of people towards nature. And what is mankind's relationship to nature in the 19th century? People talked unabashedly and unironically about the conquest of nature. They talked about nature almost as an enemy that we had to fight. Yeah. And it sort of made sense you know, nature truly is red in tooth and claw. It does not, it's not a loving, loving mother that has us in her nurturing embrace. You know, the reality is that nature is frankly indifferent to us and you know, we have to make our way in the world in spite of now. Let's say, let's say both because of, and in spite of nature, right? Nature obviously gives us everything that we need for life. It also presents it. It also gives none of that in a [00:23:00] convenience form. Everything that nature gives us is in a highly inconvenient form that, you know, we have to do layers and layers of industrial processing to make into the convenient forms that we consume. David Deutsch also makes a similar point in the beginning of infinity, where he says that, you know, the idea of earth as like a biosphere or a life support, you know, or the ecosystem as a, as a life support system is absurd because a life support system is like deliberately designed for, you know, maximum sort of safety and convenience. Whereas nature is nothing of that. So there was some, you know, so there was some justification to this view, but the way that people just on a, on ironically talked about conquering nature, mastering nature, taming nature improving nature, right? The idea that the manmade, the synthetic, the artificial was just to be expected to be better than nature. Like that is a little mindblowing. Today I was just there was a quote, I was just looking up from I think the plastic is a great example [00:24:00] because plastic was invented and, and, and you know, or arose in this era where people were more favorable to it, but then quickly transitioned into the era where It, it became just one of the hated and demonized inventions. Right. And so in the early days, like in the 1930s I think it was 1936 Texas state had a, some sort of state fair and they had a whole exhibition about plastics and somebody was quote, one woman who was, who, who saw the exhibition, you know, was quoted as saying like, oh, it's just wonderful how everything is synthetic these days, you know, as this is like, nobody would say. Yeah, right. Or there was a documentary about plastic called the fourth kingdom and it was something like, you know, in addition to the, the three kingdoms of what is it like animal vegetable and mineral, you know, man has now added a fourth kingdom whose boundaries are unlimited. Right. And again, just that's just like nobody would ever put it that way. And sometimes, okay. So to come back to the theme of like naive optimism, sometimes this actually led [00:25:00] to problems. So for instance, in this, this still cracks me up in the late 19th century. There were people who believed that we could improve on. Nature is distribution of plant and animal species. The nature was deficient in which species you know, we're aware and that we could improve on this by importing species, into non-natural habitats. And this was not only for like, you can imagine some of this for industrial, like agricultural purposes. Right. But literally some of it was just for aesthetic purposes. Like someone wanted to imitate. Yeah. If I'm recalling this correctly, someone wanted to import into America like all of the species of birds that were mentioned in Shakespeare sun. And this is purely just an aesthetic concern. Like, Hey, what if we had all these great, you know, songbirds in from, from Britain and we have them in America. So it turns out that in importing species, Willy nilly like can create some real problems. And we got by importing a bunch of foreign plants, we got a bunch of invasive pest species. And so this was a real [00:26:00] problem. And ultimately we had to clamp down. Another example of this that is near to my heart currently, because I just became a dad a couple months ago. Thanks. But it turns out that a few decades ago, people thought that for me, that infant formula was like superior to breast milk. And there was this whole generation of kids, apparently that was, that was just like raised on formula. And, you know, today, There's this, I mean, it turns out, oops. We found out like, oh, mother's breast milk has antibodies in it that protect against infection. You know, and it has maybe some, I don't know, growth hormones, and it's like this, we don't even know. It's a really complicated biological formula. That's been honed through, you know, millions or hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Right. However long mammals have been around. Right. And. So yeah, so again, some of that old sort of philosophy of progress was a little naive. You know, but now I think that someday we'll be able to make synthetic, you know whatever infant sustenance that will, [00:27:00] you know, that could be better than than what moms have to put out and given the amount of trouble that some women have with breastfeeding. I think that will be a boon to them. And we'll just be part of the further, a story of technology, liberating women. But we're not there yet, right? So we have to be realistic about sort of like where, where technology is. So this, this sort of relationship to nature is I think part of where you see the the, the, the contrast between then and now a related part is people's people's concept of growth and how they regarded growth. So here's another. One of these shocking stories that shows you going like the past is a foreign country in the, in 1890 in the United States. The, the United States census, which has done every 10 years was done for the first time with machines. With that we didn't yet have computers but it was done for the first time with tabulating machines made by the Hollerith tabulating company. And if it, if it ha you know, the, the, the census had grown large and complicated enough that it had, if it hadn't been known these machines, they probably wouldn't have been able to get it done on time. It was becoming a huge clerical challenge. So, okay. Now, [00:28:00] everybody, now this is an era where. The population estimates are not, are just there. Aren't like up to the minute, you know, population estimates just available. You can't just Google what's the population of the U S and get like a current, you know, today's estimate. Right? So people really didn't have a number that was more like the number they had for the population in the U S was like 10 years old. And they were all sort of curious, like wondering, Hey, what's the new population 10 years later. And they were gunning for a figure of at least 75. There was this one, the way one one history of computing put, it was there were many people who felt that the dignity of the Republic could not be sustained on a number of less than 75 million. And so then, then, so then the census comes in. And the real T count is something in the 60 millions, right? It's not even 70 million. And like, people are not just disappointing. People are incensed, they're angry. And they like, they like blame the Hollerith tabulating company for bundling. They're like, it must've been the machines, right. The machines screwed this. [00:29:00] Yeah, that's right. Demand a recount. Right. And, and so they, they they're like, man, this, this Hollerith guy totally bungled the census. Obviously the number is bigger. It's gotta be bigger than that. Right. And it's funny because, so this is 1890, right? So fast forward to 1968 and you have Paul and, and Erlick writing the population bomb, right. Where they're just like overpopulation is the absolute worst problem facing the entire world. And they're even essentially embraced. You know, coercive population control measures, including you know, and and not, but not limited to like forced sterilization essentially in order to in order to control population because they see it as like the worst risk facing the planet. I recommend by the way Charles Mann's book, the wizard and the prophet. For this and, and many other related issues. One of the things that book opened my eyes to was how much the the 1960s environmentalist movement was super focused on on overpopulation as like its biggest risk. And then, you know, today it's shifted to, they've shifted away [00:30:00] from that in part, because population is actually slowing. Ironically, the population growth rates started to slow right around the late 1960s, when that hysteria was happening. You know, but now now the population is actually projected to level off and maybe decline within the century. And so now of course the environmentalist concern has shifted to resource consumption instead because per capita resource consumption is growing. But, yeah. So just like that flip in, how do we regard growth? Right. Is growth a good thing? Something to be proud of as a nation that our population is growing so fast, right? Or is it something to be worried about? And we breathe a sigh of relief when population is actually level. Yeah, I'm getting like a very strong, like thesis, antithesis synthesis vibe of like we've had, we had the thesis, like the sort of like naive but like naive progress is the thesis, the sort of backlash against that is the, the antithesis. [00:31:00] And then like, now we need to come up with like, what is, what is the new city? Yeah, I mean, I'm not a hit Gelien, but I agree. There's something, there's something. Yeah, sir. Like a police back to two routes of progress, the organization something that I've been just sort of like wondering like Fox is like I feel like sort of a lot of the people. In, in like the, the progress movement in the slack, or like, I would say people like us, right? Like people, people from tech and I've, I've sort of talked to people who are either in academia or in government. And they're like really interested. And I was like, wondering if you have like, faults about like, sort of like now that is sort of onto like the next phase of, of this. I have like, sort of like ways to Rodan broad, like almost like broadened the scope brought in the sort of like people, [00:32:00] I don't know what the right word is like under, under the umbrella, under the tent. And sort of like, yeah, or like just sort of how you, how do you think about that? Cause it seems like really useful to have sort of as many sort of worlds involved as possible. Yeah, absolutely. Well, let me talk about that. Maybe both longterm term and short term. So. Fundamentally, I see this as a very, long-term like a generational effort. So in terms of, you know, results from my work do like direct results from my work. I'm sort of looking on the scale of decades on games. And I think that yeah, I would refer you to a, an essay called culture wars are long wars by tenor Greer of his blog scholar stage which really sort of lays out why this is that the ideas at this fundamental level are sort of they, they take effect on a generational level, just like the, just like the philosophy of progress took about a generation to flip [00:33:00] from, I think, 1945 to 1970, it's going to take another generation to re. Established something deep and new as as the nude psychosis. So how does that happen? Well, I think it starts with a lot of deep and hard and difficult thinking. And and writing and like the most absolutely the, the fundamental thing we need is books. We need a lot of books to be written. And so I'm writing one now tentatively titled the story of industrial civilization that I intend to be sort of. To, to lay the foundation for the new philosophy of progress, but there are dozens more books that need to be written. I don't have time in my life to even write them all. So I'm hoping that other people would join me in this. And one of the things I'd like to do with the new organization is to help make that possible. So if anybody wants to write a progress book and needs help in our support doing it, please get in touch like a list of titles that you'd love to see. Yeah, sure. So I think we actually need three categories of of books or more broadly of contents. [00:34:00] So one is more histories of progress. Like the kind that I do where just a retelling of the story of progress, making it more accessible and more clear, because I just think that the story has never adequately been told. So I'm writing about. The, in, in the book that I'm writing virtually every chapter could be expanded into a book of its own. I've got a chapter on materials and manufacturing. I have a chapter on agriculture. I have a chapter on energy. I have one on you know, health and, and medicine. Right. And so just like all of these things does deserve a book of their own. I also think we could use more sort of analysis of maybe some of the failed promises of progress, what went wrong with nuclear power, for instance what what happened. The space travel and space exploration. Right? Why did that take off so dramatically and then sort of collapse and, and have a period of stagnation or similarly for for air travel and like, why is it that we're only now getting back supersonic air travel, for instance. Perhaps even nanotechnology is [00:35:00] in this category, if you believe. Jason was, Hall's take on it. In his book, where is my flying car? You know, he talks about he talks about nanotechnology as sort of like something that we ought to be much farther along on. So I think, you know, some of those kinds of analyses of what went wrong I think a second category. Of books that we really need is taking the the, just the biggest problems in the world and addressing them head on from kind of the, the pro progress standpoint. Right. So what would it mean to address some of the biggest problems in the world? Like climate change global poverty the environment War existential risk from, you know, everything from you know, bio engineered, pandemics to artificial intelligence, like all of these different things. What would it mean to address these problems? If you fundamentally believe in human agency, if you believe in science and technology and you believe that kind of like we can overcome it, it will be difficult. You know, it will, it's, it's not easy. We shouldn't be naive about it, but like we can find solutions. What [00:36:00] are the solutions that move us, the move humanity forward? You know, how do we, how do we address climate change without destroying our standard of living or killing economic growth? Right. So those are, that's like a whole category of books that need to be written. And then the third category I would say is visions of the future. So what is the, what is the kind of future that we could create? What are the exciting things on the horizon that we should be motivated by and should be working for? Again Hall's book where's my flying car is like a great entry in this. But we could use do you use a lot more including you know, I mean, I would love to see one and it made some of the stuff probably already exists. I haven't totally surveyed the field, but we absolutely need a book on longevity. What does it mean for us all to, to, to, to conquer aging and disease? You know, maybe something on how we cure cancer or how we cure all diseases, which is the the, the mission for instance, of the Chan-Zuckerberg foundation or Institute. We should you know, we should totally have this for nanotechnology. I mean, I guess some of this already exists maybe in Drexler's work, but I just think, you know, more positive visions [00:37:00] of the future to inspire people, to inspire the world at large, but especially to inspire the young scientists and engineers and founders who are going to actually go you know, create those things. The plug is a project hieroglyph which was like, if you've seen that. I've heard of that. I haven't read it yet. Why don't you just say what's about, oh, it was a, it's a collection of short science fiction of short, optimistic science fiction stories. That was a collaboration between, I believe Arizona state university and Neal Stephenson. And like the, the opening story that I love is by Neil Stevenson. And it just talks about like, well, what if we built just like a, a mile high tower that we use that like we've launched rockets out. Like, why not? Right? Like, like you could just, it's like, you don't need a space elevator. You seem like a really, really tall tower. And it's like, there's nothing, we wouldn't actually need to invent new technologies per se. Like we wouldn't need to like discover new scientific principles to do this. It would just take a lot of [00:38:00] engineering and a lot of resources. Yeah. Yeah. And there's a similar concept in Hall's book called the space pier, which you can look up. That's also on, on his website. It does require like discovering new things. Right? Cause the space depends on like being able to build things out of them assignments. The, the space tower just like involves a lot of steel like a lot of steel. So, so you've touched a little bit actually on, this is a good segue into, I've been talking about. But then like, beyond that, you know, the same, the basic ideas need to get out in every medium and format. Right. So, you know, I also do a lot on Twitter. We need, we need people who are good at like every social media channel. You know, I'm, I'm much better at Twitter than I am at Instagram or tech talks. So, you know, we need people kind of on those channels as well. We need, you know, we need video, we need podcasts. We need just sort of like every, every format platform me. These ideas need to get out there. And then ultimately you know, they need to get out there through all the institutions of society. Right. We need more journalists who sort of understand the history on the promise of [00:39:00] technology and use that as context for their work. We need more educators, both at the K-12 level and at university who are going to incorporate this into the. And I've already gotten started on that by creating a high school level course in the history of technology, which is currently being taught through a private high school, the academy of thought and industry we need you know, it needs to get out there in documentaries, right? Like there should be I'm really I'm really tempted as a side project. A a docu-drama about the life of Norman Borlaug, which is just an amazing life and a story that, that everybody should know is just, it's just like an underappreciated hero. I think a lot of these sort of stories of great scientists that had mentors could really be turned into really excellent, compelling stories, whether it's documentaries or I sort of fictionalized you know, dramas. The Wright brothers, it would be, you know, another great one. I, I decided after reading David McCullough's history of them and their invention and, and so forth. Right. So there could just be a lot of these. And then I think ultimately it gets into the culture through through fiction as well in all of its [00:40:00] forms. Right. So optimistic Saifai in, you know, novels and TV shows and movies and everything. Yeah. It's just also, I think I'm not. Science fiction, but just like fiction about what it's like to like what it's actually like to, to, to push things forward. Because I think I, like, I don't know. It's like most people don't actually know. Like researchers do along these lines Anton house had a good post blockbuster two, where he was talking about movies that dramatize invention and was looking for recommendations and was sort of reviewing movies by the criteria. Which ones actually show what it's like to go through the process. Right. And the sad thing about a lot of popular, even the popular treatments of this stuff, like Anton reviewed I guess there was a recent movie about Mary Curie. And there's a similar thing about you know Edison and like the current wars starting Benedict Cumberbatch. [00:41:00] And the problem with a lot of these things is they just sort of focus on like human drama, like people getting mad at each other and yelling and like fighting each other and so forth. Right. And they don't focus on like the iterative discovery process and the joy of, of inventing and discovering. So the, one of the totally you know, unexpected, the sleeper hit of Anton's review was this movie, I think it's actually in Hindi called pad man, which is a drama. the real story of. A guy who invented a cheap menstrual pad for women and that could be made you know, using a sort of like very low capital and then, and be made affordable to women in India. And I mean, he was really trespassing on social you know, cultural norms and boundaries to do this and was sort of like ostracized by his own community. But really pursued this process and the, the movie I saw the movie it's, I, I recommend it as well. It really does a good job of dramatize. The process is process of iteration and [00:42:00] invention and discovery and the trial and error and the joy of finding something, you know, that that actually works. So we need, yeah, we need more stuff like that that actually shows you know, shows the process and and the dedication you know, it's funny, one of the. One of my favorite writers in Silicon valley is Eric Reese who coined this term, the lean startup and read a book at the same name. And he's got this. He has this take that you know, whenever you see these stories of like business success, there's kind of like the opening scene, which is like the spark of inspiration, the great idea, you know, and then there's like, there's like the closing scene, which is. Basking in the rewards of success and in between is, is what he calls the montage, right? Because it's typically just a montage of kind of like people working on stuff, you know, and maybe, you know, maybe there's some like setbacks and there's some iteration and stuff, but it's just kind of glossed over. There's this like two minute montage of people iterating and some music is sort of playing over it. Right. And, and Eric's point is like, the montage is where all the [00:43:00] work happens. Right. It's unglamorous, it's a grind. It's like, you know, it's not necessarily fun and, you know, in and of itself, but it is where the actual work is done. And so you know, his point in that, in that context, it was like, we need to open up the, the, you know, the covers of this a little bit. We need to like teach people a little bit more about what it's like in the montage. And I think that's what we need, you know, just sort of like more broadly for science and. Okay. Here's, here's a pitch for a movie. I believe that the, the Pixar movie inside out right where they like go inside the, the little girl's head that, but for the montage. Right? So like the hall with the montage is that a lot of it is like sitting and thinking and like, not necessarily, it's like not necessarily communicated well with other people or just be talking, but like, you could have an entire internal drama. Oh, The of the, the process as a way to like, show what's [00:44:00] going on. Yeah. Good work. I don't know. I'm so sorry. All of that is so all of that is sort of the long-term view. Right? I think how things happen. A bunch of people including me, but not only me need to do a lot of hard thinking and research and writing and and speaking, and then these ideas need to get out to the world through every, in every format, medium platform and channel and, and institution and you know, sort of that's how ideas get into the zeitgeist. And so then I, you know, I said there's also, so the short term, so what's, so in the short term I'm going to work on doing this as much as possible. Like I said, I'm writing a book. I'm hoping that when I hire some more help, I'll be able to get my ideas out in more formats and mediums and channels. I would like to support other people who want to do these things. So again, if. Any vision that you are inspired to pursue along the lines of anything I've been talking about for the last 10 minutes. And, and there's some way that you need help doing it, whether it's money or connections or advice or coaching or [00:45:00] whatever, please get in touch with me at the roots of progress. And you can find my email on, on my website. And and I would love to support these products. And then another thing I'm going to be doing with the new organization and these resources is just continuing to build and strengthen the network, the progress community finding people who are sympathetic to these ideas and meeting them, getting to know them and. Introducing them to each other and getting them and getting them to know that they all getting everybody to sort of look around at everybody else and say, ah, you exist. You're there. You're interested in this great list form of connection. And I hope through that that there will be you know, a people will just understand, Hey, This is more than just me or more than just a small number of people. This is a growing thing. And also that people can start making connections to have, you know, fruitful collaborations, whether it's supporting each other, working together coaching and mentoring each other, investing in each other and so forth. So I plan to hold a a series of events in the beginning probably be private events. For a, you know, people in various niches or sub-communities of [00:46:00] the progress community to sort of get together and talk and meet each other and start to make some plans for how we develop these ideas and get them out there. Isn't that seems like an excellent, an optimistic place to close. I, I really sort of appreciate you, like laying out the, the grand plan. And just all the work you're doing. It's it's I mean, as you know, it's like, it's super exciting. Thanks. Same to you and yeah, it was great to be here and chat again. Thanks for having me back.

Can you really power a plane with enough batteries to fly across the world? How many batteries does a ship need to circumnavigate the globe? Is there an efficient way to stop relying on diesel and dirty jet fuel? How can we turn big CO2 emitters like ships and planes into CO2 negative systems? Can aviation and transport ever be carbon neutral? How can we make fertilizer without using so much energy? The Haber Bosch process helped feed the planet, but how can we replace it to save the planet?   References: Travis A. Schmauss, Scott A. Barnett. Viability of Vehicles Utilizing On-Board CO2 Capture. ACS Energy Letters, 2021; 3180 DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.1c01426 Chade Lv, Lixiang Zhong, Hengjie Liu, Zhiwei Fang, Chunshuang Yan, Mengxin Chen, Yi Kong, Carmen Lee, Daobin Liu, Shuzhou Li, Jiawei Liu, Li Song, Gang Chen, Qingyu Yan, Guihua Yu. Selective electrocatalytic synthesis of urea with nitrate and carbon dioxide. Nature Sustainability, 2021; DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00741-3

Note: This episode contains a description of a poison gas attack in World War I and a discussion of the injuries caused by different gases. I do not dwell on the details, but even the bare facts can be disturbing. There is also a discussion of suicide. Take care of yourself, and thank you. The title of this episode is taken from a famous poem by writer and soldier Wilfred A. Owen. His 1918 poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" quotes another poet, the Roman lyricist Horace, and his line "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." This translates as "It is sweet and fitting [appropriate, proper] to die for one's country." Fritz Haber was born in 1868 to Jewish parents in the town of Breslau, Germany. He received his Ph.D. in chemistry and earned a reputation as a hardworking and painstaking researcher. In 1919, he was both accused of war crimes and awarded a Nobel Prize. Ancient farmers understood the role of nitrogen in the soil, although they couldn't have told you what nitrogen was or how it worked. They knew, however, that land lost its productivity when it was farmed extensively. Farmers could renew their soil to some degree by adding dung and compost to the land. They also knew crop rotation was important. Medieval farmers, such as those seen in this image, generally used a three-field system. One field was used for grains, one for peas or lentils, and one left fallow. In the 19th century, scientists learned about the role of nitrogen in living things and discovered how certain bacteria are able to "fix" nitrogen and make it available to plants. The bacteria, known as "diazotrophs," are found in nodules such as you see above in the roots of plants such as peas and lentils. Crop rotation and manure were the best farmers could do until the discovery of the incredible effectiveness of South American guano in the mid-1900s. The above image depicts one of the islands off the coast of Peru where birds had deposited guano for millions of years. You can see the guano formed massive peaks. Miners hacked away at the guano so it could be exported to Europe and North America. Germany, like most modern nations, became heavily dependent on these imports, both for fertilizer and to make explosives. Clara Immerwahr Haber married Haber in 1901. She was the first woman to receive a Ph.D. from her university in Germany, a remarkable achievement for a woman in her era. Haber, however, expected only to keep house. Haber began work on ammonia synthesis in 1904. It was a matter of slow, painstaking work tinkering with temperature, pressure and the right catalyst. Above is a reconstruction of Haber's final table-top process. I compared the setup to the 1970s board game "Mousetrap." Haber's setup looks simpler than the Rube Goldberg contraption in the game, but his device was far more dangerous and likely to explode and send red-hot shrapnel flying everywhere. Carl Bosch, a brilliant engineer with the German chemical giant BASF, took over the ammonia synthesis project from Haber. He refined the process and expanded it to an industrial scale. His work was significant, which is why the process is known today as Haber-Bosch. The announcement of the invention of the ammonia process brought Haber international acclaim. His income soared, he became famous in Germany and soonhe was appointed the founding director of the new Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry. The institute is seen here shortly after its construction in 1911; it was a government-founded research organization and think tank, intended to keep Germany at the forefront of scientific research. When the Great War began, Haber immediately volunteered for service. He is seen here, at the front; he is the one pointing. He dedicated himself to using chemistry to win the war. One of his first contributions was to convince BASF to convert their ammonia factory to make the starting materials for explosives. This was a critical step for Germany, one that doesn't receive as much attention as it deserves. Without the BASF factories, Germany would have run out of explosives early in the war. Haber also worked on an experimental program to develop chemical weapons. He eventually convinced the German High Command to test a system that would release the highly toxic chlorine gas across No Man's Land to the Allied troops on the other side. Here you can see the gas flowing across the line toward the Allies at the first attack at Ypres on April 22, 1915. The gas killed or severely injured those who inhaled it in large quantities--and terrified those who saw it in action. This attack opened a four-mile wide hole in the Allied lines, injured 15,000 Allied soldiers and killed 5000. The attack was immediately condemned by everyone except Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm, delighted by the attack, awarded Haber the Iron Cross. Allied condemnation didn't stop Britain and France from quickly developing their own gas weapons. Both sides regularly tried to poison their enemies with an increasingly deadly arsenal of gases. Simultaneously, gas masks were developed and refined. Animals such as horses and mules were widely used to haul supplies during the war, and masks were created for the beasts as well--although they never proved particularly effective. A chilling and unforgettable description of a gas attack is found in the poem "Dulce et Decorum Est" by poet and soldier Wilfred Owen, seen here. You can read the text of the poem here (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46560/dulce-et-decorum-est) and see actor Christopher Eccleston recite it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB4cdRgIcB8&t=45s). After the war ended, Fritz Haber fled to Germany to avoid arrest and prosecution for war crimes. After a few months hiding out in Switzerland, he was relieved to learn he wasn't in any danger and returned home. He arrived home just in time to learn he had been awarded the 1918 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for the synthesis of ammonia. The official certificate can be seen above. I found a video of several Nobel laureates and their wives posing for a photo (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1918/haber/documentary/) at the ceremony in the summer of 1920. Haber is at the far left; his wife Charlotte sits in front of him in white. You can see the entire video here on the Nobel Prize site. I hoped it would give me some glimpse into Haber's character--perhaps you will see more than I see?

For the article of the week this week, we discuss how and why the world's population has exploded in the last 100 years. In the year 1800, there was 1.6 billion people on Earth and just 200 years later there's 7.6 billion people on Earth.  The main contributor to this is how easily humans have access to nitrogen now. Nitrogen is the great limiting factor on growth of all plant life on Earth, and humans have hijacked the nitrogen cycle via the Haber-Bosch process. This allows humans to "fix" nitrogen from the air. Before this, we had to rely on nitrogen fixing bacteria and legumes like soy to fix nitrogen in the air and place it in the soil in its usable form. Now that humans have the capacity to make all the nitrogen we need, we can make more food and that allowed our population to explode. It is estimated that two thirds of annual global food production uses nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process and that this supports nearly half the world's population. To learn more about the Haber-Bosch process and how that caused our population to explode, listen to this week's podcast. Website: https://tntwellnessandnutrition.com Email: tntwellnessandnutrition@gmail.com Itunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/tnt-w…d1428217037?mt=2 Google Play Music: https://play.google.com/music/listen#/ps/Ibnzgb5hwnwd2aymtaixp6lvee4 SoundCloud: @user-422365757-83307870 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=445098&refid=stpr Social Media Links Twitter:twitter.com/tnt_wellness Facebook:www.facebook.com/tntwellnessandnutrition/ Instagram:www.instagram.com/tntwellnessandnutrition/ YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXb2pCmzu6JxW27bunmFytQ?view_as=subscriber

hikmah dari reaksihaber bosch --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pojok-gedungkayu/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/pojok-gedungkayu/support

In which we discuss the effect of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on feeding the world, and the synthesis of ammonia from nitrogen in the air and hydrogen generated from methane, first by the Haber-Bosch process and then by electrochemical processes with our guest, Dr. Michael Stoukides from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Electrodes, catalysts, yields, rates, and the potential for energy storage are discussed for the electrochemical synthesis of ammonia. Host Felicia Etzkorn of Virginia Tech, co-host Jamie Ferguson of Emory & Henry College, with music by Wendy Godley of The Kind. Kyriakou V, Garagounis I, Vasileiou E, Vourros A, Stoukides M (2016) Progress in the Electrochemical Synthesis of Ammonia. Catalysis Today 286. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304537323_Progress_in_the_Electrochemical_Synthesis_of_Ammonia Kyriakou V, Garagounis I, Vourros A, Vasileiou E, Stoukides M (2019) An Electrochemical Haber-Bosch Process. Joule 4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337041764_An_Electrochemical_Haber-Bosch_Process

Over 20 years in the making, Redhill Scientific’s patented process creates nitrate fertilizer on-site and on-demand with a simple combination of air, water, and electricity, replicating the natural nitrate creation process found in thunderstorms. Their non-thermal plasma nitrogen fixation system uses zero fossil fuels, releases zero carbon, is more fully utilized by plants, and reduces the chance of evaporation or nitrogen run-off. Growers can directly apply the fertilizer to plants via spray or irrigation. But that’s not all, Noel Munson, CEO of Redhill Scientific, tells us how their thin-film plasma reactor can change not only our planet, but Mars as well. TRANSCRIPT: Intro: 0:01 Inventors and their inventions. Welcome to Radio Cade the podcast from the Cade Museum for Creativity and Invention in Gainesville, Florida, the museum is named after James Robert Cade, who invented Gatorade in 1965. My name is Richard Miles. We’ll introduce you to inventors and the things that motivate them, we’ll learn about their personal stories, how their inventions work and how their ideas get from the laboratory to the marketplace. James Di Virgilio: 0:38 Welcome to Radio Cade. I’m your host James Di Virgilio. Today we’re going to talk about a triple bottom line innovation an innovation where the potential for societal environmental and profitability becomes a reality. It’s something that’s wide ranging. It’s something that’s complicated, but it’s something that’s very, very powerful. My guest today, Noel Munson . The CEO of Redhill Scientific is going to walk us through what he’s creating and how it’s been created. Noel, welcome to the program. Noel Munson: 1:05 Hi James. Thank you for having me. James Di Virgilio: 1:07 So we’ve spent a lot of time in the pre-show just to get me to sort of understand what this application is, where it’s going, but let’s start at the 30,000 foot view. Tell us what you have created and why it’s needed. Noel Munson: 1:19 We have created a very small, very robust, very cheap to manufacture plasma reactor. And the core of the technology was developed over several decades at Florida State University with a mix of National Science Foundation and institutional money. And since we have licensed seven patents from FSU, we have added our own private equity into commercializing that technology. James Di Virgilio: 1:51 Now, this technology involves plasma plasma reactor, right? When I think of a reactor, I’m thinking of something I’ve seen in a nuclear film, or I’ve been to Chernobyl. So I’ve seen something there, but walk us through what this reactor is like and why it’s such a great innovation. Noel Munson: 2:04 Sure. Thanks for asking. These reactors are single pieces. They are very small, approximately three millimeters in size, a millimeter not centimeter, and they are very similar to a fluorescent light bulb. When you see a fluorescent tube bulb in your office, you are looking at a plasma reaction. It’s called a cold plasma reaction where you are exciting electrons off of a molecule. And then in the case of that light bulb, they are then fluorescent gas. In the case of our plasma reactors, we are introducing water into the reaction inside the chamber, and we are creating chemical reactions with that water. Most specifically, we are creating large amounts of hydroxyl and the hydroxyl, which is O H the hydroxyl, if are then also feeding the air into the reactor will create nitrate, which can be used as fertilizer, as well as nitrite and peroxide, plain old hydrogen peroxide. So we can use the discharge from the reactor to do a number of things. We can create nitrogen fertilizer for use on crops. We can create a sanitizing sprayer that can be used in essentially any format to perform highly effective. Sanitation needs such as disinfecting surfaces or someday even wounds. However, your only ingredients are tap water and electricity. And then the third thing we can do with those reactors is we can break down organic contaminants in the US alone. There are over 2 million EPA noted cleanup sites that are not being addressed. It’s $120 billion market. And basically nothing works very well. It’s very expensive, very time consuming. Your typical gas station cleanup is going to be about five years and cost half a million dollars. Our value proposition there is that we can take benzine or kerosine or phenols or dyes or even Phols and PFS so-called forever chemicals. And we can bring a machine on site and run it on demand to mineralize those contaminants right there at the site to a point where you can take your gasoline contaminated water and put it down the sewer because there’s no more gasoline in it. James Di Virgilio: 4:35 So right now, if I’m a commercial farmer and I have a huge commercial operation, and I need to fertilize all of my crops, how am I doing it? Noel Munson: 4:45 If your a big farmer like corn, wheat, or rice, you are buying solid nitrogen fertilizers created using something called a Haber-Bosch process, which was developed in World War I to make explosives. And you are taking these solid or liquid or gas nitrogen ammonia sources out to your field and you are spreading them on your crops. So that is a recurring expense that commercial farmers have. They’re also going to lose most of that fertilizer because ammonia is volatile at atmospheric temperature and pressure. So it’s a best guess, is the plant going to be able to absorb this fertilizer before it either runs off and pollutes the water in your rivers and in your ocean, or it evaporates back into the atmosphere. What we’re doing is creating teaspoons of nitrogen in a form that the plant can directly use as nitrate and spraying that through a process called fertigation onto the plants. So our losses are expected to be only a few percentage points rather than 60 to 90% of the fertilizer. The fertilizer we use in the United States is largely made overseas, approximately 85% of it. It’s a $50 billion market globally, and it releases approximately 1.7 trillion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. So in terms of single measures at scale, that could put a dent in global warming without wrecking our economies. We believe we have one of the enabling solutions for that. Additionally, our solution does have aspects as we look forward to colonies in space or going to Mars, because instead of shipping your fertilizer all the way from earth, you’ll be able to create it directly from the Martian atmosphere in your colony while you’re up there. James Di Virgilio: 6:45 That’s truly amazing. In fact, we’re doing a large podcast series on space, and I’ve had a chance to talk about some of those problems, but now you’re creating an environment where back to my large-scale farm, if you mentioned two thirds or more of complete waste from an outsourced, the set of nitrogen, I bring in to wind up fertilizing my plants. And now you were telling me that I could actually produce this on my own farm there locally. I can reduce the runoff. You mentioned almost by a hundred percent, almost a full magnitude back down to where you mentioned, it’s a fraction. And then I’m also going to wind up doing something that’s much better for the environment as a whole. It sounds almost too good to be true, right? Noel Munson: 7:24 I have devoted four years of my life as an entrepreneur bringing this to market. So I certainly believe in it. What you’re describing though, is with factory produced fertilizers, we for the past hundred years have what people call death based agriculture. We are using hydrogen that came from a diatom that died millions of years ago and made crude oil or natural gas to create ammonia. And then we’re dumping that ammonia on the fields. The UN estimates that just to keep up with rising affluence, we need to double our food production by 2050, which means that our nitrogen use and the consequential pollution and atmospheric releases of CO2 are also going to double. If not more, just because of the rest of the world is getting a little wealthier and is buying food rather than growing food. Now life-based agriculture of which this technology would fall under. We are borrowing the atmospheric nitrogen that you’re breathing right now, and we’re borrowing water and we are feeding it in teaspoons to the plants at a level that they can absorb. It does create some differences in farming, for instance, a grower who is practicing drip irrigation and they’re pertinent in their fertilizer, into their drip irrigation. Like you would see in a greenhouse or with row crops is perfectly set up to accept one of our machines at the top of their irrigation system, a farmer who is growing say corn or wheat or rice and broadcasting, huge amounts of fertilizer on in that field. The first generation of our technology is not concentrated enough to really address that far. James Di Virgilio: 9:15 But in the future, in theory, it would be correct. Like we’re talking potential wide-scale disruption of the fertilizer industry, as we know it. Noel Munson: 9:24 Yeah . So in terms of unit economics, right now, if you’re paying say 5 cents, a kilowatt hour for electricity, the pound of nitrogen that we create in one of our machines is going to run you somewhere between $3.50 And $10 a pound, but you can buy your Rhea for 30 cents a pound. And then once you’ve applied that to the field, your actual cost is somewhere around 70 cents to a dollar per pound. So you’re talking an order of magnitude in efficiency. Now that efficiency difference is in large part because Haber Bosch is a mature hundred year old technology that has been optimized for production. There is nothing in our chemical reaction, preventing us from achieving those sorts of efficiencies. It is more of a technology maturization process where we move from early adopters to your mainstream growers, to your poor, not sustenance farmers, but your growers who have some level of mechanization, even if it’s just a tractor and the ability to buy fertilizer. So for that kind of grower, it is not inconceivable to think of a small machine about the size of a cooler with a solar panel and provides nitrogen fertilizer to their crops, their rice, their potatoes, whatever it is they’re growing. Farming is still the most common profession on earth. There are approximately half a billion farms of which about 350 million of those are at some level of mechanization and potential customers for our fertilizer. James Di Virgilio: 11:10 So if we imagine a world in the not so distant future, now I’ve had a chance to travel in my time around the world, quite a bit. I’m picturing a farmer in who’s in the middle of nowhere and has access to even very little electricity. But if they can get ahold of this device, they could essentially fertilize their farm in a way that obviously is much more environmentally friendly and is right there on demand in their hands. So what would be the objection if we had a contrarion on the show right now that said, Hey, this is great. Noel, but this is the reason why this won’t work. What would they say? Is there any objection to this sort of technology? Noel Munson: 11:45 They would say that current nitrogen fertilizer is ubiquitous in terms of its availability and dirt cheap, and they’d be right. But what they would be doing is discounting the environmental pollution. The unrecovered costs of creating that fertilizer, which is burning fossil fuels. And so there are ways to do that sustainably. There’s something called sustainable Haber-Bosch where you use electrolysis to get your hydrogen source. There is so-called blue ammonia, which still uses petroleum to gain the hydrogen. And then they, at that point, run it through the Haber-Bosch process. And our process is equal to those processes already in terms of the unit cost . But what we don’t have yet is any sort of scale. We’re a new company. And that brings me to what is Redhills model? Well, we’re intended to be primarily a commercial research facility, but in order to gain traction, we have some self manufacturing capability through equity partners who have joined us and we’ve been able to bolt on their manufacturing. So we will be validating these claims with our own product lines, but in order to achieve world changing scales, we need manufacturing license agreements through larger companies. If somebody wants to spray paint, one of our machines, green and yellow, that’s just fine. with me. James Di Virgilio: 13:17 So you’re in this scenario where you’ve proven your concept. You have prototypes that work, and now obviously you have to get these out to manufacturers and then you have to overcome the hurdle that anything that lumps into environmentally friendly tends to fight the hurdle of what you mentioned. Oh, well, that would be great, but it’s going to actually wind up costing me more than what I’m doing now, despite the downsides to the environment, which maybe I don’t see right away. Noel Munson: 13:41 Correct . And this isn’t my first rodeo in that field. My last company was an institution scale, solar power development firm up in Virginia, which is these days, the go-to firm , if you want solar panels on your school. But we learned early on with the solar business and this lesson applies to Redhill as well, that we never sold a solar panel because of the environment, not one, there was always somebody in the decision chain who said, why? Particularly if you’re a church or a school, why would we spend our very valuable dollars to pay more for electricity than we’re spending right now? Right? Same argument would go for fertilizer . So we at this end had started from a point of, let’s not make the most efficient process, let’s make an equivalent or better process. And then the environment happens to be something we get to sleep well about at night. James Di Virgilio: 14:39 Well, that’s very wise. I think that you’re connecting a large dot there that is sometimes missed and also is really a reality that decision makers face when implementing something. I think that’s a very wise observation. Now I know that you’ve done a lot things in your careers. You mentioned you’ve started other companies you’ve invested your time and other things let’s talk for a second. Just about being an innovator when you were growing up, did you imagine your future as being an innovator and a creator or what did you see for yourself? Noel Munson: 15:05 I wanted to be and still want to be an astronaut. James Di Virgilio: 15:08 I like that still want to be. I like that because that dream is not over. Noel Munson: 15:12 and I am lucky enough to be touching what I consider a technology on the critical path for colonizing the rest of the solar system. And that is you got to feed your colonists. You got to keep them healthy and you got to clean up. No city exists without sanitation. And we have a technology that can be scaled to any size to address those three things. Now, Elon Musk is worrying about the transportation side of the house, but he’s not worried about what they’re going to eat and how they’re going to live and what their quality of life is going to be. That’s going to be up to other innovators of which we’re hoping to be one. James Di Virgilio: 15:53 So it’s possible that we’ll see you on one of the first expeditions to colonize Mars kind of spearheading your innovation there on the planet potentially. Noel Munson: 16:00 I would be a happy man. If I can be a farmer on Mars or even a janitor , James Di Virgilio: 16:05 That is amazing. I love it. Let’s finish up today’s episode with some words of wisdom. You’ve already mentioned several on the show. Of course we could spend, I think, an hour or more getting more from you. So I hate to only be able to take one, but for all of our listeners out there who are also innovators and entrepreneurs, or maybe aspire to be, or don’t aspire to be yet, what is some advice you would give them, given all of your experiences? What’s maybe the most important one or two words of wisdom on how to solve problems as effectively as you have. Noel Munson: 16:30 I’m going give you two. And the first is whether you’re working for someone else or you’re working for yourself, latch on to a vision and a dream that gets you out of bed. Something where if you’re not whistling to yourself on the way to work, you’re doing the wrong thing. And I’ve had good jobs. I’ve had great jobs and I’ve had terrible jobs. I’ve had employers who were quite happy to get rid of me, but I’ve had some good successes as well. And I’ve never been happier than when I’m working for myself. With that comes a huge amount of risk. You have to be willing to put your roof and the roof that’s over your children and your spouse on the line to chase these dreams, which is a very long-winded way of saying if it was easy, someone else would have done it already and there’d be no money in it. So find something new. And which leads me to my second point. And I’m going to give a shout out to the commercialization offices, not just at Florida State, but they’re at UF and around the country and around the globe. If you’re an entrepreneur and you think you have what it takes to take an idea to market, to create a business model where it doesn’t say, and then a miracle happens equals profit, go talk to those guys. They have big stacks of intellectual property. They will readily tell you that patents of course expire. And so their biggest challenge is finding an entrepreneur with the skills, the access to funding and the wherewithal to take one of those patents and do something with it. They will be your biggest advocates and friends. James Di Virgilio: 18:08 Oh, those are great pieces of advice. Noel, and I would be remissed if I didn’t mention a congratulations for finishing second for the Cade Prize, the Cade Prize rewards inventors, just like you and entrepreneurs who demonstrate a creative approach to addressing problems. And obviously you have been doing that. Thanks again for such a wonderful conversation and teaching us about a very, very interesting innovation that you’ve created. Noel Munson: 18:28 It’s been my pleasure to be here. Thank you very much for having me. Outro: 18:30 Radio Cade is produced by the Cade Museum for Creativity and Invention located in Gainesville, Florida. This podcast episodes host was James Di Virgilio and Ellie Thom coordinates inventor interviews, podcasts are recorded at hardwood, soundstage, and edited and mixed by Bob McPeak. The radio Cade theme song was produced and performed by Tracy Collins and features violinists, Jacob Lawson.

Farmers and many others are well aware that legumes such as soybeans are able to provide some of their own nitrogen through an association with symbiotic bacteria. Corn production requires the application of nitrogen fertilizers, which are costly in several ways. Listen to UC-Davis professor Dr. Allen Bennet describe his team's discovery of corn that is able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, and the future implications of his research. You can learn more about Dr. Bennett's research at https://bennettlab.ucdavis.edu/. The Atlantic also published an interesting article regarding the discovery : https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/amaizeballs/567140/. If you are interested in reading the scientific publication, it is available at https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2006352. For further reading about the Haber-Bosch process, check out The Alchemy of Air, by Thomas Hager,

Haber-Bosch hat tatsächlich nichts mit Bohrmaschinen zu tun, so viel können wir schon einmal verraten. Die Herren Haber und Bosch haben Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts aber ein Verfahren entwickelt, das molekularen Stickstoff in Ammoniak umwandeln kann. Dieses Verfahren macht also eigentlich genau das gleiche, wie Knöllchenbakterien und andere Mikroorganismen im Boden auch. Das ganze ist zwar für die Steigerung der Nahrungsmittelproduktion sehr gut, birgt auch Probleme. Dazu gehören extrem hoher Energieverbrauch, Überdüngung und schließlich auch erhöhte Lachgasemissionen. Christa Schleper, Professorin für Mikrobiologie an der Universität Wien, weiß mehr darüber. Zeit, dass wir sie dazu befragen!

We talk about Fritz Haber, the man responsible for the Haber-Bosch process which helps feed billions and responsible for inventing the gas used in gas chambers during the Holocaust as well as the gas attacks in the trenches. We also cover the weapons of mass destruction, including the Manhatten Project and nuclear weapons. We also discuss biological warfare, radiological warfare, and chemical warfare. Hope you enjoy! Also, bonus, video of the Tsar Bomba, the largest atomic weapon ever detonated, being detonated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1fM1OSpvaw. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thelocksmithpodcast/support

Fritz Haber was a German chemist who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1918 for his invention of the Haber–Bosch process, a method used in industry to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen gas and hydrogen gas. This invention is of importance for the large-scale synthesis of fertilizers and explosives.

One of my favorite jokes in Herge’s Tintin comics is a bit in Prisoners of the Sun (1949), where the Thompson twins ask Captain Haddock what’s in a pile of sacks on the dock labeled … https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/04/14/liminality-well-theres-a-free-sample/ Prisoners of the SunHaber-Bosch processthe threadmy book projectmanufactured normalcyclodsRobert PeakeAnd the people stayed homeIt’s a beautiful thing

Welcome to Extra Interested, this is a mini series that accompanies our main episodes where we can talk more about a specific point that we didn't get the chance to discuss in our main episodes. In this episode, Beth expands upon ep. 3 (the Haber-Bosch process and Virginia Woolf), talking about the amazing woman, Dr Clara Immerwahr. She married Fritz Haber but not before becoming the first woman in Germany to obtain a doctorate in chemistry.  [warning, this episode contains references to suicide.]  to find out more, check out these websites:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825402/  https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/immerwahr-clara  you can also find us on Instagram (interested.podcast) and Facebook (@interested.podcasts) or you can email us at interested.podcasts@gmail.com

What is Earth's carrying capacity? Why is it important?Many ask how we will feed 10 billion people. Mathematician way of asking is if we can feed so many and if so how. Maybe we can't.First, don't want to know. While it depends on many assumptions that aren't hard or measurable numbers, like standard of living, distribution of resources, and technology, we can say it's maximum misery per person.How do we narrow it down? Could ask resources per person and how much resources Earth can provide. Limits to Growth projects how much planet would sustain from a systems perspective including history and how we live our values.I prefer a historical perspective I learned from Alan Weisman based on the Haber-Bosch process, which enabled artificial fertilizer. Before artificial fertilizer, limitations on fixing nitrogen to grow food suggest Earth could sustain about 2 billion, enough to create Einstein and Mozart. Want people like Jesus, Buddha, Laozi, and Aristotle? We needed only a few hundred million to create them.If we're over the planet's carrying capacity, especially by factor of 3 or 4, strategy isn't to ask how to feed 10 billion but if we can lower the population before processes like famine, disease, loss of critical resources, war, and so on do it for us.I couldn't answer except in ways where the cure was worse than the disease, but the history of Thailand's Mechai Viravaidya's leading a nation-scale cultural shift from 7 babies per woman to 1.5, voluntarily, peacefully, leading to abundance, prosperity, and stability changed everything for me.Mechai's success makes lowering the population plausible and fun. The limitations of growing food without artificial fertilizer make it necessary to avoid famine and other natural disasters. These two factors clarify our priority, it seems to me.Mechai Viravaidya's TEDx talkMy episode 279: Role model and global leader Mechai Viravaidya See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

To start, Beth talks about the huge impact of the Haber-Bosch process. (Sorry for mispronunciations) (N2) +3(H2) —> 2(NH3) An equation most people study at school without being taught about it's dramatic history intertwined with both life and death. This deceptively simple equation may be the reason you're alive. After this Lizzie explores the life of one of the most amazing writers of all time, Virginia Woolf. Through three of her many amazing writings, Lizzie demonstrates Virginia Woolf's incredible foresight, revolutionary writing style, and ideas that are so modern that it is easy to forget they were written by a woman who was born 138 years ago. If you would like to get in contact, you can email us at: interested.podcasts@gmail.com  or find us on Instagram and at facebook  @interested.podcasts  links to sources: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/fritz-habers-experiments-in-life-and-death-114161301/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/haber-bosch-process https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbon

Nitrogen is essential for crop growth.  That reality has led to intensive crop fertilization using nitrogen fixed through the Haber-Bosch process, which has energy costs in production and transport.  At the same time there are [...]

Vi snakker om Hans Rosling, positive nyheter og tre personer som har gjort det mulig å brødfø en voksende verdensbefolkning. Innslag av Magnus Lomax Bjerke. Lenker: https://humanprogress.org/ How not to be ignorant about the world | Hans and Ola Rosling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg

Dominique Bourg est philosophe, enseignant, et spécialiste des questions environnementales. Il a été président de la Fondation Nicolas Hulot, a fait partie de la commission Coppens qui a préparé la charte française de l'environnement et écrit près de 30 livres. Il a récemment décidé de s'engager en politique pour promouvoir ses idées de transition sociétale et écologique.Très médiatisé, Dominique est un des portes drapeaux en France de la cause écologique et propose dans cet épisode de nous éclairer sur le diagnostic actuel, sur notre rapport au monde, sur la difficulté de changer et sur la manière dont la philosophie peut nous aider à penser les temps qui viennent.De quoi parle-t-on ? 1" - Le contexte actuel« 2018 est l’année à partir de laquelle on peut commencer à sentir que le climat est en train de changer » Le point sur les dérèglements climatiques actuels. 5 "- Quelle grille de lecture du monde?« Ma question essentielle, c’est celle du sens. » La paradigme de la modernité: le dualisme homme-nature.« On a pensé le progrès comme un arrachement à la nature » Les 3 révolutions qui ont redéfinies notre rapport à la nature : le darwinisme, l’éthologie, la biologie végétale.Notre rapport à la nature est en train à nouveau d’évoluer au niveau sociétal : « c’est un mouvement qui emporte l’humanité de manière très puissante. » Ce qui est encore entre nos mains ou non.« Le climat d'aujourd’hui, ce sont nos émission d’il y a 20 ans. » « Tout va se décider dans la décennie 2020. » 15 - Le techno-solutionnisme ?« On ne va pas arrêter un incendie en Californie avec une application iPhone » « Si on avait dit a Malthus que nous pourrions nourrir 7 milliards de personnes il en aurait perdu son latin. » La conséquence de notre progrès humain c’est la destruction de notre environnement.Les dangers de la geoingénierie.21 - L’économie circulaire ?« L’économie circulaire n’est en aucun cas une solution. »« Parler d’économie circulaire dans une économie en croissance, c’est absurde. » 24 - L’écologie intégrale« Les problèmes sont à la fois écologiques et sociaux » « Etre riche c’est pouvoir s’accaparer plus de ressources naturelles que d’autres. » « Tout monde doit réduire son flux de consommation d’énergie. » « Plus je suis riche, plus je me donne un pouvoir de détruire la nature. » 29 - Le système peut-il se reformer ?La philosophie du contratPourquoi la démocratie est-elle représentative ?« Le problème du moderne c’est de produire, d’échanger et de consommer. » Il n’y a plus de temps pour s’occuper de la démocratie qui devient donc représentative. Le but de la démocratie représentative est de laisser du temps libre aux individus pour leur activité économique. « Les états ne peuvent pas prendre en compte ce qui rentre en contradiction avec la croissance » « On est dans un monde informationnel qui est du délire total » Accepter de diminuer sa puissance d’agir ?40 - Comment se réformer dans un monde ouvert ?Gouverner par objectifs et libérer les initiatives de la société pour agir.Préparer la résilience en vue d’une diminution des ressources à venir.« Les effondrements sont déjà là. » Le danger de la montée des régimes autoritaires.« Il n’y a pas de résilience sans resserrement des revenus » « Le monde néo-libéral, c’est l’absolue non résilience » « Ce qui est compliqué avec ces histoires d’écologie, c’est qu’on est tous obligés de devenir intelligents » « On est chacun capable de lutter pour ne pas être envahi par la haine » Ce qui désespère et ce qui donne espoir. Les personnes et références citéesDernier rapport du GIECÉthologieSylvothérapieProcéder Haber-Bosch de synthèse de l'azote.MalthusFairfield OsbornTyler Volk, l'hypothèse GaiaEncyclique "Laudato Si" du papeBenjamin constant: De la liberté des anciens comparée à celle des ModernesSoil capital Lucas ChancelGreta ThunbergPour m’aider à rendre ce travail plus visible vous pouvez aussi laisser un avis et une note sur iTunes ou Apple podcast. Ecoutez le podcast sur vos applis préférées, découvrez plus de contenus sur Sismique.fr ou la page Facebook de Sismique (@SismiquePodcast)Apple PodcastsOvercastDeezerSpotifyYoutube Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out.

Thanks to my grandmother for inspiring this story, and to my mother for helping make it. If you like our videos, please consider supporting MinuteEarth on Patreon! - Alex Bird poop was the gateway fertilizer that turned humanity onto the imported-chemical-based farming system of modern agriculture. Thanks to our Patreon patrons https://www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth and our YouTube members. ___________________________________________ To learn more, start your googling with these keywords: Guano: seabird (or bat) poop. From the indigenous Peruvian word “wanu”, meaning “manure that’s good for fertilizer" Manure: animal poop used as fertilizer (typically cow or pig poop) Fertilizer: a chemical-containing substance added to soil to provide nutrients to plants Nitrate mining: digging up the naturally occurring solid form of the element nitrogen (sodium nitrate) Phosphate mining: digging up the naturally occurring solid form of the element phosphorus Haber-Bosch process: the major industrial method to take nitrogen gas out of the air and convert it to ammonia ___________________________________________ If you liked this week’s video, you might also like: Our fertilizer is killing us. Here's a fix: https://grist.org/article/billionaires-and-bacteria-are-racing-to-save-us-from-death-by-fertilizer/ Why bird poop is white: https://www.audubon.org/news/what-makes-bird-poop-white In 1856 US Congress enabled US citizens to take over unclaimed islands with guano on them: http://americanhistory.si.edu/norie-atlas/guano-islands-act Guano is in demand again today: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/world/americas/30peru.html _________________________________________ Subscribe to MinuteEarth on YouTube: http://goo.gl/EpIDGd Support us on Patreon: https://goo.gl/ZVgLQZ And visit our website: https://www.minuteearth.com/ Say hello on Facebook: http://goo.gl/FpAvo6 And Twitter: http://goo.gl/Y1aWVC And download our videos on itunes: https://goo.gl/sfwS6n ___________________________________________ Credits (and Twitter handles): Script Writer, Video Director, and Narrator: Alex Reich (@alexhreich) Video Illustrator: Jesse Agar (@JesseAgarYT) With Contributions From: Henry Reich, Ever Salazar, Peter Reich, David Goldenberg Music by: Nathaniel Schroeder: http://www.soundcloud.com/drschroeder Image Credits: Farquhar, W.H. 1884. The Annals of Sandy Spring, Vol. I, Pg. xxix-xxx. Baltimore: Cushings & Bailey. http://bit.ly/2QOWGKr ___________________________________________ References: Canby, T.Y. 2002. The Annals of Sandy Spring, Vol. VI. Introduction: Pg. 26-27. Sandy Spring Museum. Cushman, G.T. 2013. Guano and the opening of the Pacific World: A global ecological history. Cambridge University Press. Cushman, G.T., personal communication, October 2018. Farquhar, W.H. 1884. The Annals of Sandy Spring, Vol. I, Pg. xxix-xxx. Baltimore: Cushings & Bailey. http://bit.ly/2QOWGKr Lorimor, J., Powers, W., Sutton, A. 2004. Manure Characteristics. MWPS-18, Section 1. Second Edition. Table 6. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. http://msue.anr.msu.edu/uploads/files/ManureCharacteristicsMWPS-18_1.pdf Robinson, M.B. April 26, 2007. In Once-Rural Montgomery, a Rich History. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042501342.html S. Sands & Son. 1875. The American Farmer: Devoted to Agriculture, Horticulture and Rural Life. Vol. 4, Issue 12, pg. 417-418. Baltimore. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=ul1TAAAAYAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA417 Stabler, H.O. 1950. The Annals of Sandy Spring, Vol. V, Pg. 43. American Publishing Company. Szpak, P., et al. 2012. Stable isotope biogeochemistry of seabird guano fertilization: results from growth chamber studies with Maize (Zea mays). PloS one, 7(3), e33741. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033741 Thanks also to the Sandy Spring Museum.

*Content warning: this episode mentions suicide in relation to a historical figure* This week, Hallie and Chris talk about the most important agricultural process you've never heard of: the Haber-Bosch process. We learn about the process that feeds the world and the two men who made it happen, as well as a lady named Hedwig Hamburger. The post 3: Haber-Bosch appeared first on One to Grow On.

Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts suchten Wissenschaftler nach einem chemischen Verfahren, um Düngemittel herzustellen. Mit dieser Technik ließ sich aber nicht nur Dünger, sondern auch Sprengstoff industriell erzeugen - mit verheerenden Folgen.

Building water infrastructure in Addis Ababa, filtering Flint’s taps to keep kids healthy, and tackling traditional paradigms of where to put your pee. In this episode, Shawn Shafner (The Puru) sits down with Nancy Love--professor, pioneer, engineer and expert who literally wrote the book on Biological Wastewater Treatment. Often the lone woman in a male-dominated field, Nancy recounts how a little girl on the family golf course became one of the most sought-after professors at the University of Michigan, and hypothesizes why women might do a better job of solving humanity's problems. Plus, we’ll tour a centralized Wastewater Treatment Plant, appreciate the promise of decentralized sanitation systems, and learn why the National Science Foundation has given her a lot of money to study how urine could fertilize our amber waves of grain. So grab a drink, and an empty cup, and prepare to connect with all the waters around, under and in you.    Also mentioned in this podcast: Urine diversion summit, water, sanitation, technology, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, civil engineer, wastewater, stormwater, groundwater, University of Michigan, open defecation, pit latrine, fecal sludge, source separation, infrastructure, septic system, Vermont, Mathew Lippincott, recycling, golf, Silent Spring, Rachel Carson, gender equality, Milorganite, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, biosolids, Nitrogen, phosphorous, carbon, Virginia Tech, Chesapeake Bay, grit, Clean Water Act, aeration, bacteria, sustainable resource recovery, microbial fuel cell, bioelectrolysis, Sashti Balasundaram, WE Radiate, Kim Nace, Abe Noe-Hays, fertilizer, struvite, Haber-Bosch

Saving lives with thin air - by taking nitrogen from the air to make fertiliser

Saving lives with thin air - by taking nitrogen from the air to make fertiliser, the Haber-Bosch Process has been called the greatest invention of the 20th Century – and without it almost half the world’s population would not be alive today. Tim Harford tells the story of two German chemists, Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, figured out a way to use nitrogen from the air to make ammonia, which makes fertiliser. It was like alchemy; 'Brot aus Luft', as Germans put it, 'Bread from air'. Haber and Bosch both received a Nobel prize for their invention. But Haber’s place in history is controversial – he is also considered the 'father of chemical warfare' for his years of work developing and weaponising chlorine and other poisonous gases during World War One. Producer: Ben Crighton Editors: Richard Knight and Richard Vadon (Photo: A farmer sprays fertiliser. Credit: Remy Gabalda/Getty Images)

Most renewable energy sources suffer from intermittency and have to be coupled with sophisticated energy conversion and storage technologies. An elegant solution is offered by photoelectrochemical water splitting, where solar energy is directly converted into chemical energy by splitting water into oxygen and the energy carrier hydrogen. Photoelectrochemical water splitting requires two photoelectrodes which are immersed in an aqueous electrolyte. These photoelectrodes are semiconductors with valence and conduction bands straddling the redox potential of water. Upon illumination, electrons and holes are produced, separated and transferred to the electrolyte, leading to the evolution of oxygen at the photoanode and the evolution of hydrogen at the photocathode. The resulting hydrogen can be stored, transported and then either burnt in fuel cells to regain electrical energy or used for industrial applications like the Haber-Bosch process. The photoelectrodes are often nanostructured to increase the surface area, at which the reaction takes place. This strategy has been realized with several morphologies such as nanotubes, inverse opals, etc. and has often lead to performance increases of several hundred percent. Therefore, detailed knowledge of the morphology is important and can be obtained by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). TEM is a powerful technique that allows imaging samples with a resolution down to the sub-Ångstrom scale. In addition, TEM can be combined with spectroscopic methods such as electron energyloss spectroscopy (EELS) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) to quantify the chemical composition. In this thesis, three different materials systems were studied by TEM: noble metal nanoparticles on TiO2 for hydrogen evolution with the sacrificial agent MeOH, Fe2O3/WO3 dual absorber photoanodes and photocathodes out of the novel material FeCrAl oxide. Titania is one of the most researched photoanode materials. However, it only absorbs UV light. Au and Au/Ag core-shell nanoparticles were deposited by the project partners Michael Karnahl and Sandra Peglow of the LIKAT and the INP Greifswald, respectively, on anatase thin films by photodeposition and radio frequency magnetron sputtering. These noble metal nanoparticles absorb visible light by surface plasmon resonance and also act as co-catalysts for electrons excited in the titania and injected into them. Cross-section were prepared for a detailed TEM investigation of the microstructure. The distribution of the nanoparticles varied greatly with the synthesis method, as photodeposited particles grew in and on top of the titania, whereas the plasma-deposited nanoparticles only grew on top. Different growth and coarsening mechanisms could be identified and correlated to the synthesis conditions by careful particle size distribution determination. In addition to defect-free nanoparticles, several defects such as five-fold twinning, grain boundaries and stacking faults were found. The TEM analysis was complemented by optical absorption and photocatalysis measurements, and the synthesis as well as the properties could be correlated to microstructural features. Due to its narrow band gap, hematite is a popular photoanode material. However, it also has several disadvantages, which were addressed by several studies. Tin-doping increased the transfer efficiency and therefore the photocurrent, with the tin being enriched at the surface of the hematite nanoparticles and hinting at a structure-function relationship. Deposition of a Co3O4 co-catalyst and the introduction of a conductive scaffold all further increased the photocurrent. Another performance-increasing approach, combining multiple photocatalytically active materials, was tested with Fe2O3/WO3 dual absorbers prepared by Ilina Kondofersky of the group of Prof. Thomas Bein. WO3 was systematically applied as a scaffold and/or as a surface treatment. The arrangement of the different materials and the interfaces between them was studied in detail by TEM. Both the host-guest approach and the surface treatment strongly increased the performance compared to the pure materials and several beneficial interactions could be identified. For example, WO3 strongly scatters visible light, resulting in increased absorption by Fe2O3 and higher current densities. We also determined a cathodic shift in the onset potential to 0.8 V and, compared to pure Fe2O3, increased transfer rates of up to 88 %, and can therefore conclude that the Fe2O3/WO3 dual absorbers are a very promising system. In spite of all the different performance-enhancing strategies developed so far, it is becoming apparent that all currently available materials, regardless of how heavily they are improved, will not reach sufficient performances. This has led to the search for novel materials and in this thesis, meso- and macroporous photocathodes with the overall stoichiometry Fe0.84Cr1.0Al0.16O3 were investigated in close cooperation with Ilina Kondofersky. Using TEM cross-sections, a phase separation into Fe- and Cr-rich phases was observed for both morphologies and could be correlated to the precursor stabilities. In comparison to the mesoporous layer, the macroporous photocathode had a significantly increased charge collection efficiency and therefore performance, proving the benefits of tuning the morphology. In all studies, performance-increasing strategies were successfully applied and we found the performance to depend heavily on the morphologies. By combining the results of all techniques, insight into the complex interplay between synthesis conditions, morphology and properties could be achieved and the gained knowledge is expected to benefit future work.

Ammoniak. Muss man erst mal erfinden, um dann rauszubekommen, für was man dieses NH3 überhaupt brauchen kann. Als Dünger. Oder als Kampfstoff. Oder beides? Ein chemischer Krimi - Autor: Hellmuth Nordwig

Nitrogen is a crucial ingredient in fertilisers. And thanks to a pair of clever Germans, the Haber-Bosch process of fixing nitrogen from the air ensures that the planet's burgeoning population can still feed itself. But does it also threaten the planet with an environmental disaster more calamitous than climate change? And could the solution be provided by genetic engineers? (Picture: Legume root nodules; Credit: Ninjatacoshell/Wikicommons)

Today, 3.5 billion people are alive because of a single chemical process. The Haber-Bosch process takes nitrogen from the air and makes ammonia, from which synthetic fertilizers allow farmers to feed our massive population. Ammonia is a source of highly reactive nitrogen, suitable not just for fertilizer, but also as an ingredient in bomb making and thousands of other applications. We make around 100 million tonnes of ammonia annually - and spread most of it on our fields. But this is a very inefficient way to use what amounts to 1-2% of the planet's energy needs. Only around 20% of fertilizer made ends up in our food. Professor Andrea Sella explores some of the alternative ways we might make fertilizer. Vegetables such as peas and beans, allow certain cells in their roots to become infected by a specific type of bacteria. In return, these bacteria provide them with their own fertilizer. Could we infect the plants we want to grow for food – such as cereals – in a similar way to cut down the climatic and environmental impact of Haber-Bosch?

3.5 billion people are alive today because of a single chemical process. The Haber-Bosch process takes Nitrogen from the air and makes ammonia, from which synthetic fertilizers allow farmers to feed our massive population. Ammonia is a source of highly reactive nitrogen, suitable not just for fertilizer but also as an ingredient in bomb making and thousands of other applications. Now we make around 100 million tonnes of ammonia annually, and spread most of it on our fields. But this is a very inefficient way to use what amounts to 1-2% of the planet's energy needs. Only around 20% of fertilizer made ends up in our food. Prof. Andrea Sella explores some of the alternative ways we might make fertilizer. Legumes, such as peas and beans, allow certain cells in their roots to become infected by a specific type of bacteria. In return, these bacteria provide them with their own fertilizer. Could we infect the plants we want to grow for food - such as cereals - in a similar way to cut down the climatic and environmental impact of Haber-Bosch?

We Dig Plants is all about fertilizer this week: the good, the bad and the ugly. Carmen & Alice discuss the history of fertilizer and highlight the differences between organic and synthetic fertilizers. Tune in to hear about the The Haber-Bosch process, learn where a drip line is and why roses should be fed regularly. This episode was sponsored by Acme Smoked Fish. For more information visit www.acmesmokedfish.com.