Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Hunger For Natural Gas

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted October 12, 2005.


The era of cheap natural gas, like that of cheap oil, is ending. We have barely begun to assess the drastic, worldwide changes that will ensue.
Hunger For Natural Gas
Hunger For Natural Gas
Advertisement

Two Gulf hurricanes and the approaching winter in the Northern Hemisphere have kept natural gas futures hovering near all-time highs. But with the accelerating depletion of reserves in North America, the intermittent gas crises we've been seeing since 2001 will start coming thicker and faster, finally merging into an era of permanent scarcity.

A chronic gap between supply and demand would mean plenty of hardship in the United States and Europe, which have come to rely on natural gas not only for heat, but increasingly for electricity generation and manufacturing. But the future looks even more grim in the global South, where the maintenance of human life itself has come to depend on the steady and reliable supply of natural gas that's needed to synthesize nitrogen fertilizer for food production.

Turn off the gas, and a lot of American families would have a hard time cooking dinner -- but a lot of families in places like Nepal and Guatemala would have nothing to cook.

Nitrogen and human existence

Crop plants assemble carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen into proteins that are essential both to plant growth and to the diets of humans and other animals. Of those four elements, nitrogen is the one that's too often in short supply. If you see yellowish, stunted crops, whether they're in an Indiana cornfield or an Indonesian rice paddy, it's likely that you can blame it on a lack of nitrogen.

A world of 6.4 billion people, on the way to 9 billion or more, needs more protein than the planet's croplands can generate from biologically provided nitrogen. Our species has become as physically dependent on industrially produced nitrogen fertilizer as it is on soil, sunshine and water. And that means we're hooked on natural gas.

Vaclav Smil, distinguished professor at the University of Manitoba and author of the 2004 book Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch and the Transformation of World Food Production, has demonstrated the global food system's startling degree of dependence on nitrogen fertilization. Using simple math -- the kind you can do in your head if there's no calculator handy -- Smil showed that 40 percent of the protein in human bodies, planet-wide, would not exist without the application of synthetic nitrogen to crops during most of the 20th century.

That means that without the use of industrially produced nitrogen fertilizer, about 2.5 billion people out of today's world population of 6.2 billion simply could never have existed.

If farming depended solely on naturally occurring and recycled nitrogen fertility, the planet's cropped acreage could feed only about 50 percent of the human population at today's improved nutrition levels, according to Smil. But absolute dependence on synthetic nitrogen is geographically lopsided -- it's largely in countries with a high human-cropland ratio that survival hinges on nitrogen fertilizer. This includes India, Indonesia, and China, where four in 10 human beings on Earth reside.

In contrast, those countries lucky enough to have ample cropland and relatively low population density could survive on far less synthetic nitrogen than they currently use.

The nation that ranks as the world's third biggest nitrogen fertilizer consumer could, conceivably, get by without the stuff. If that country, the United States, were to moderate its meat consumption, raise all livestock on pasture and rangeland instead of nitrogen-wasting grains, rely more on legume crops (plants like beans and alfalfa that obtain nitrogen from the air with the help of bacteria), curb waste and cut food exports, it could maintain its food supply without using any synthetic nitrogen at all, according to Smil's calculations.

The momentum of past population growth is expected to add two to four billion people to the world's population by 2050, even with concerted efforts to rein in growth. Almost all of the increase will occur in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. That will double the demand for nitrogen fertilizer in those regions, and by that time, says Smil, 60 percent of their inhabitants will depend existentially (in the literal sense, not the philosophical one) on natural gas-derived nitrogen fertilizer.

Danger: Flammable

Ironically, in that vast volume between the earth's surface and the atmosphere's upper limits, nitrogen is the most abundant element. We're continuously bathed in nitrogen gas, which makes up 78 percent of the air we breathe. But in the air, nitrogen atoms are paired up, each atom linked to another by an extremely tight molecular bond. Those molecules can't be used by living organisms unless that bond is broken, and only a small number of single-celled species have developed a means to do that biologically.

To pry nitrogen atoms apart chemically requires intense energy; it happens, for example, around a bolt of lightning. So it was not until 1909 that humans developed an industrial-scale method, called the Haber-Bosch process after its German inventors, to reassemble nitrogen atoms into another molecule, ammonia, that is usable by crop plants.


Digg!

Stan Cox is senior scientist at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas and a member of the Institute's Prairie Writers Circle. The assistance of Prof. Tim Crews of Prescott College is much appreciated.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We need a Republican energy policy created by...... INTELLIGENT DESIGN bwwwwwaaaaaahhhhaaaahhhhaaa
Posted by: sovinformburo on Oct 12, 2005 12:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fiddling with the thermostat while the house is burning down. I suppose the intelligent design brigade will tell us that the next 100 years of natural gas will be spontaneously discovered by a christian fundamentalist prophet in Colorado Springs........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all in god's hands
Posted by: menckenman on Oct 12, 2005 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as the repugs get the superstitious, idiot, faithful homo boobian to the polls to vote for a pack of thieves, pickpockets, con men, charlatans, armeggeddon is right on track. All in the idiots' guide to what passes for intellectual thinking along the hookworm belt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: all in god's hands Posted by: asyaksa
» RE: all in god's hands Posted by: hbw
» RE: all in god's hands Posted by: sidewinder
» RE: all in god's hands Posted by: panguy
Supposedly RELIANCE on Natural Gas for Nitrogen
Posted by: itchyvet on Oct 12, 2005 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taken at FACE value, this article does nothing but sensationalise the whole issue.
Anyone who is involved in the agricultural business,(specificaly Western Australia) knows darn well, that the BEST way to restore NITROGEN into our fertiliser starved soils is by planting LUPINS on rotation, using the plants OWN ability to restore NITROGEN into the soil, and then utilising the remains of the plant for stock feed.
This practice has been going on as long as I can remember, and I'm 55 years of age.
Secondly, the claim of depleting natural Gas, I'd have to say is extremely suspect and scare mongering.
In our state we have one of the biggest NATURAL GAS PRODUCING FIELDS in the Southern Hemisphere, and contrary to claims in the above article, new discoveries are being made all the time, the developers of these discoveries claim there is enough natural gas in these fields to cover OUR needs for the next 600 years.
Of course, they could be lying simply to attract the investors.
However, if that were the case, then there'd be no need to continually expand the plant to produce more and more liquified gas.
As well as utilise this gas for our own use, our Government practically gives the stuff away, that's how cheaply we sell it to Japan,China,Asia and inroads are being currently examined to sell it to the North American Continent as well.
Provided the citizens there can live with a off loading plant and storage facility near their coastline.
So despite the DOOM AND GLOOM in the above article, it's a bit premature at this stage and incorrect anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Believe you're right Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Longevity of NG Posted by: Mozybyte
» Bovine thoughts Posted by: hhartman
» A few questions Posted by: tabaumann
Limits to Growth
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Oct 12, 2005 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1972, a book was published called "The Limits to Growth", a report to the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. It warned of shortages of natural resources if the world's consumption patterns and population growth continued at the same high rates as in 1972.

Since then, world leaders have been preoccupied with expanding their economies through continued growth without much regard for the environment or the danger of exhausting key resources.

The underlying problem is a mentality of continued economic growth which will ultimately lead to disaster. The most important economic measurement for evaluating the performance of a national economy is the Gross Domestic Product or GDP. A growing GDP can mean either increased productivity or expanding production capabilities. The ramification of evaluating economies based on the GDP is that we will consume more resources and cause more damage to the environment although the latter can be mitigated through environmentally-friendly policies.

The fact that everyone around the world wants to consume more is a product of a marketing industry and of cultural aberrations such as glamorous celebrities living extravagant lifestyles. The challenge is not just to seek alternatives to how we produce today and to depend on technology to rescue us in the future but to modify our basic values and priorities. We must replace the need to measure ourselves in material terms with more meaningful and satisfying pursuits otherwise Eastern Island will have become the canary in the coal mine whom we ignored.

David Model: "Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face" - just released.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Limits to Growth Posted by: worksg
» RE: Limits to Growth Posted by: monkeywrench
Grow your Energy
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Oct 12, 2005 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like the horse and buggy,oil has outlived it's usefulness.
Thanks to the 'Natural Resources Conservation Act of 1933'
Americans have been forcefed the koolaide of oil. The fact is
ALL OF OUR FUEL CAN BE RAISED ON THE FARM. We can make diesel,methane(from manure) ethanol(from any plant)
as well as lubricants,paper,clothes and food. We can grow our way out of this war. We can grow to cleaner fuels and a better environment. We can grow a better Planet. We just have to dump the followers of oil. Out of office,off the marketplace,out of our lives, We need to pass
'The Oil Conservation Act of 2005' halting all oil production,oil drilling,oil refining.To be held as an emergency resource.in the ground only to be used in the case of World dire emergency. Oil and it's cousin the Chemical industry are responsible for the premature deaths of millions of people since thier inception by their pollution as well as hundreds of millions of non-human species. ALL FOR MONEY. Have'nt we paid enough?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grow your Energy Posted by: bbadwolf
» RE: Grow your Energy Posted by: jeffrey7
» "We" need only wait Posted by: LeonDion
HEMP IS ONE ANSWER!! WHY IS IT STILL ILLEGAL!!
Posted by: stoney13 on Oct 12, 2005 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we not legalise hemp? Why do we not have all of the American farmers out there on the hemp band wagon?

WAKE UP PEOPLE!! WE CAN MAKE EVERYTHING THAT IS NOW BEING MADE FROM PETROCHEMICALS FROM HEMP!!!

Are we so scared of somebody catching a buzz, that we are willing to slide down a slippery slope into nothingness for it!!

GET REAL!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberal humor sucks more than you think
Posted by: asyaksa on Oct 12, 2005 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or is that Liberals just suck? How many of you actually think you are funny? After five years all you can do is show how minor you really are as you berate Republicans and W for how stupid you think they are. Truth is you have nothing serious to offer that anyone cares about. Who the fuck is laughing? Republicans? W? No! They won, and you idiots make about as much sense as styrofoam Big Mac containers. Liberal. Ha!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Conservative greed sucks Posted by: Michiganman
A few nits
Posted by: worksg on Oct 12, 2005 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with pretty much all that Mr. Cox said, but being an engineer would like to note a few technical nits. I do believe that as fossil fuels run out food will become too expensive for all 6.4 billion of us to afford to eat, and this will happen in our lifetimes.

It is possible to fix nitrogen using other energy sources besides natural gas. There was a briefly used commercial process based on electric arcs, for example. Coal, of which the world reserves are somewhat greater, could also be used although at a considerable enviornmental cost.

Nitrogen fertilizer is far from the only energy used in modern factory agriculture. Farm equipment, pesticides, food processing, refrigeration and especially transporting the food thousands of miles by truck consume huge quantities of energy as well.

The Alberta tar sands could be processed without natural gas using another heat source, such as the oil product itself. Unfortunately, this would consume so much of the oil that the process would be unattractive. It is only cheap natural gas that made it appear that tar sands were worth processing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A few nits Posted by: bbadwolf
Alternatives
Posted by: hbw on Oct 12, 2005 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right about hemp. Right about lupines. Right about soybeans. Right about ethanol, though you need to make sure you grow enough grain to feed everybody.

We need all of it. We need a comprehensive policy that treats the earth more gently. And we can treat the earth more gently while feeding all 6.2 billion human passengers and our animal friends. As hinted in the article, the market is the problem.

Of course, it's not just production, but distribution as well. Capitalism fails at distribution: We are growing enough food for everybody, and throwing too much of it away because we cannot get it to those in need. Communism as practiced in the Soviet Union failed at it, too, because the Soviets needed to cultivate its export markets.

If I can go to Whole Foods and by organic plums from Chile in December, why can't ADM grow enough grain to feed those dying in Niger--and get it to them? or better yet, grow it in their neighborhood without having to ship it 10,000 kilometers? Because it just isn't profitable. And that is why people die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New technologies...almost too late
Posted by: Michiganman on Oct 12, 2005 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe the folks here who say, oh it'll be OK we will just develop new technologies to replace gas and oil. That's pretty niave when you consider that huge corporations will suck every last bit of blood and money out of us before they would even consider new technologies or ways of doing things. The author makes a good point, how many people will starve before we are forced to change our ways. I applaud the folks who are advocating a natural solution. I believe it is possible. I also agree hemp could very well be the savior of mankind(oil, cloth, medicine, paper,food) if we could just throw off the stigma attached to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"We're Doomed?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Oct 12, 2005 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ARMIES to fight over natural gas in Russia?!

Let's see...Russia, the previous bad ol' Soviet Union, has several thousand nuclear missiles aimed at the U.S., and the U.S. has several thousand more aimed at them...oh, but we both retargeted those missiles...oh, wait again...they can be retargeted back in about an hour...and India, Pakistan, China and North and South Korea in central/east Asia have them too... And we'll be fighting over FOOD?

It took less than that to bring us within minutes of total nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missle Crisis. Maybe the reduction in Earth's human population won't be so slow after all.

In addition, much if not all of this was predicted by people and groups like Paul Erlich and the Club of Rome ("The Limits to Growth") over THIRTY YEARS AGO!! Nobody listened. President Carter saw the problem 20 years ago and tried to get us off our addiction to foreign oil (which would have stressed conservation measures as well as finding new energy sources). People laughed at him. Well –– who the hell is laughing NOW?!

Oh, and just what are we going to do when the permafrost peat bogs in the northern latitudes, melting because of global warming, release even more greenhouse gasses and accelerate Earth's development toward becoming another Venus? We'll do what we always do in this capitalistic "best of all worlds": deny, and "let the market decide" – while our beautiful Earth goes to hell, and industrialists and other legitimized thieves skip away with their profits. I hope they can eat money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "We're Doomed?" Posted by: Logic's Edge
peak-aboo
Posted by: maclean on Oct 12, 2005 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think all of the commentary below is quite interesting. Two apparent truths have come forward: that there is no apparent immediate shortage of ng (or oil -though we seem to be feeling the pinch), and that eventually all the feasibly available ng that the earth has to provide, will eventually be gone. The first of these facts tends to encourage denial and deferral. Both are irresponsible – no matter how far off the shortage is. The second of the two facts is the bitter pill. But the sooner we swallow the sooner we can prepare to adjust, and the less jarring the adjustment will be. People have faith in alternative sources, but these things don’t happen while we sit on our hands. What will happen is the much talked-about peak of production of these resources. A point at which there will not be enough of a daily supply for every one whom is accustomed to, or dependent upon using the stuff. Will it be the Asian rice paddies or the suburban furnace that gets priority? (the beach drive in the convertible or the third world tractor?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perpetual Machine is here
Posted by: Mozybyte on Apr 23, 2006 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NO MATTER HOW SMALL YOU MAKE A POINT, IT WILL ALLWAYS HAVE SMALLER POINTS IN IT.
There are only TWO primary colours. (Red and Blue)
Every Action carries a Memory, Not Equal Only by virtue of its Time.
The Universe is Positive, by way of a Negative Imposition.
(That’s how gravity comes about [no particle])
Zero, PLUS (minus [C]) = Everything
(Zero, PLUS a little less = [in the first action] the Universe/Everything [a particle, No Bang]), (Next particle, in the core of the first as all others that follow), (Can you see God Evolving yet [no contradiction, Evolution in Creation])
Science today, as most people, works from the basis that “you can’t get something from nothing”.
That is a Nonsensical Concept, and the basis of the prevailing ignorance on the Planet. If One is to preclude the existence of something from the start, one is in the essence believing in Miracles. The “Big Bang” theory is a bit like that, Fantasy born of that ignorance.
The truth is that Zero always comes first, before the Existence of anything, and as thus, on the visible evidence:
Everything come out of Nothing, or There is Nothing Still.
Because of our limited perspectives of reality we have to come to the conclusion that the first is correct.
For as I see it I Am here and so is everything else I be with.
Everything Come Out of Nothing, Before “The ONE” there was ZERO.
Who can argue with Mathematics?
The Universe is a Cell, an Intelligent Particle, Intelligence itself, all that there is to us GOD. I believe that there is no more, this Cell will not Split, it will Evolve Forever, Perpetually Expanding, beyond reproach, beyond reach.
The Scientific process that would allow God to Embody himself as a Man within is Image will always be unattainable to any being. That Man would not be his son, but God Himself, in appearance. And Yet also just a Man, by his Choice as to be with them as one of them, For God has no peers, and no other opportunity to share the joy of others, their feelings, their pain, the understanding of their gifts in their simplicity, as complex to them.
God has been on Earth many times… as the WogL of Creation in Australia (GodWanda), as Krishna, as Siddhartha, as Jesus and countless other times with many different approaches and facades.
It is a preposterous concept to presume that Darwinian Evolution is science and Irreducible Complexity is not. Chaos exists within Order (Free will), Evolution exists within the process of Creation, God/The Universe is Evolving.
It is a fact only too simple to prove in Physics, not only in Biology. The argument should better concentrate on what God is, that is the Hardest Quest, facing Mankind… I have no Doubt on the existence of God, neither did Einstein.
There is Intelligent Design in all Life, Religion calls it the Miracle of Life. I say it is no Miracle, it is just that it is a Design beyond the understanding of Science today.
The miracle would be for us to be here, if there was no God.
God is Everything but for Zero which is nothing at all and Yet is more Powerful than All. Zero is the Mother of God in its True Greater Form.
Zero Surrounds and Permeates the Universe, the Dark Energy through and within everything, Nothing can escape it.
Zero would have no influence without God, Zero is the Womb within which God Resides, as an unborn child, Inter Dependent of Each other.
Zero is the Eye of the Needle, through which all life must pass.
Life is Eternal but it can be expired at the Will of God, reprocessed into another, a new, a rebirth... in the passing through Zero, into any dimension as it fits in the Order of God. There are many dimensions, with many levels within two Primary Sides.
The Red side and the Blue side... God is both sides, they both are Light and they both are Darkness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]