[DesuMaiden]

The Haber Process is the use of fossil fuels (like coal and natural gas) to produce artificial fertilizers for growing food. It is one of the most important inventions of the 20th century. Without it, it would have been impossible for the human population to grow to over 7 billion people. Wikipedia even confirms this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

According to Wikipedia,

"The Haber process now produces 500 million short tons (454 million tonnes) of nitrogen fertilizer per year, mostly in the form of anhydrous ammonia, ammonium nitrate, and urea. 3–5% of the world's natural gas production is consumed in the Haber process (~1–2% of the world's annual energy supply).[13][14][15][16] In combination with pesticides, these fertilizers have quadrupled the productivity of agricultural land:

With average crop yields remaining at the 1900 level the crop harvest in the year 2000 would have required nearly four times more land and the cultivated area would have claimed nearly half of all ice-free continents, rather than under 15% of the total land area that is required today.[17]

Due to its dramatic impact on the human ability to grow food, the Haber process served as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to today's 7 billion.[18] Nearly 80% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber-Bosch process.[19] Since nitrogen use efficiency is typically less than 50%,[20] our heavy use of industrial nitrogen fixation is severely disruptive to our biological habitat."

So Michael Ruppert is indeed right about fossil fuels being the only reason there exists over 7 billion people on this planet. It was because of the Haber Process, which is all based on fossil fuels, that enough food was grown for the population to grow to over 7 billion people. Most of the people who are alive right now (at least 3/4 of them) exist on this planet only because of the Haber Process.

So yes, we eat fossil fuels. According to Wikipedia, nearly 80% of the nitrogen found in the human body comes from the Haber Process, which is all based on fossil fuels.

In short, fossil fuels were used to produce artificial fertilizers which dramatically boosted food production around the world. This lead to the population exploding around the world. So Michael Ruppert is right about the fact that most of the people who are alive right now exist only because of fossil fuels. And it is axiomatic if you take the fossil fuels away, you will also take away the artificial fertilizers. And by taking the artificial fertilizers away, you take away most of the food, which takes away most of the human population. It is that simple.

Michael Ruppert is dead right on most things. Michael Ruppert's central premise that most people, who are alive today, exist only because of fossil fuels is correct, and Wikipedia even says so. So nobody can call Michael Ruppert a crackpot. His statements are based on scientific evidence, so he is quite a rational person. Also the people in the peak oil movement, like some of the people on this site, which say that fossil fuels is the only reason most people exist on this planet are quiet correct.

Yet most people are completely unaware of this fact. Most people have no idea the only reason they exist on this planet is because of fossil fuels that made the Haber Process possible.

I think this was one of the most profound discoveries I ever made in my life. I finally realized that the ONLY reason I exist on this planet is because of fossil fuels. So Michael Ruppert's statement that "All of these people exist on this planet only because of oil. That's it. So it is axiomatic if you take the oil away, the population must also go away" is pretty dead accurate.

[Peak_Yeast]

It could be interesting to know the amount of fuels that goes into extraction of the compounds in fertilizers - directly and indirectly. It would give a nice base number to extrapolate from to estimate the usage for example when the sea is empty and we have finished chopping up everything else alive outside the human system.

But it could give an idea of what could be supported ultimately.

Not to hijack your thread - but another big eyeopener is this one:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/22/the- ... kEXVy.dpbs


quote:
In 1950 planktons were sequestering 16.6 billion metric tons of carbon. Today, planktons convert 10 billion metric tons of carbon. If we have lost 40% of the phytoplanktons since 1950, i.e. 40% of the carbon sequestration capability, then 6.6 billion metric tons of carbon should appear in the atmosphere.

Currently we are adding more than 5.5 billion tons of carbon yearly to the atmosphere from fossil fuel and cement production (here). In 1950, we were adding more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon per year. That’s a 4 billion ton increase. Four billion tons a year is the yearly average atmospheric carbon-in-CO2 increase. But if in that same period, 40% of plankton have starved out, they are no longer sequestering 6.6 billion tons of carbon. These figures don’t agree. This is probably because the plankton loss is not quite 40%, but somewhat below 30%. Still, the plankton loss alone can account for the rising atmospheric CO2 levels"

[ChilPhil1986]

I came to this exact realization long (maybe three years) before I ever knew what peak oil was. I read a book called "The Alchemy of Air" by Thomas Hager. It goes into further depth than the Wikipedia article and gives a nice history behind the discovery of the process itself along with the context of that discovery.

The discovery of the Haber-Bosch process was one of the vital underpinnings of World War II. Germany was pretty much going solo in terms of acquiring the oil and the nitrogen it needed to fuel its war machine in the late '30's and early '40's. This process allowed it to manufacture its own nitrogen for all manner of explosives (bullets, mortars, TNT, etc.) in-house. The Allies were still resorting to hordes of slave labor scraping bird excrement off uninhabited rocks in the Pacific, and digging ammonia out of the deserts in South America.

PROS: No need to be diplomatic in order to acquire foreign supplies.
CONS: Once the Allies figured out what and how they were doing it, they became vulnerable to nitrogen supply disruption via bombing.

This major drawback, in addition to the defeat of Stalingrad (which was the last hurdle before the Germans could take the Baku oilfields), was what finally did the Germans in.

Nowadays, in any military confrontation between nation-states sans nukes, oil and nitrogen supply lines are pretty much the first avenues of attack.

In my opinion, while the practices we use today in using these fertilizers are wholly unsustainable, they will be the last things to disappear in the event of declining oil supplies. TPTB know that for the average citizen to lose the ability to drive and transport him/herself quickly is one matter. To lose the ability to feed one's family (or oneself) is the road to complete and utter upheaval.

You can bet the amount of natural gas necessary to keep the ammonia factories humming will be provided for to the last extremity.

[Keith_McClary]

No worries:
Bacteria tracked feeding nitrogen to nutrient-starved plants
April 10, 2015

With rising populations and changing climate conditions, the need for resilient and reliable crops has never been greater. Nitrogen—an essential element for plant growth—is often woefully absent in heavily farmed land. Earth's atmosphere offers an overabundance of nitrogen, but how can it be safely and sustainably transferred into the soil? Nitrogen-eating bacteria may be the answer.

An international team of researchers, including three from the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, has tracked nitrogen as soil bacteria pull it from the air and release it as plant-friendly ammonium. This process—called biological nitrogen fixation, or BNF—was found to substantially promote growth in certain grass crops, offering new strategies for eco-friendly farming.
"Our results show that healthy growth can be achieved by combining certain soil bacteria with grasses, even when plants are grown in extremely nitrogen-deprived soil," said study coauthor Richard Ferrieri, director of Brookhaven Lab's Radiochemistry and Biological Imaging Program. "We plan to apply this method to other crop systems, including bioenergy grasses like sorghum, switchgrass, and miscanthus, and even to food crops like corn and wheat."

[ChilPhil1986]

Not exactly hakuna matata, but it's not the worst idea ever.

I fall in with the permaculture approach to large scale solutions, so while I tend to think we should be moving away from the concept of monoculture crops and toward polycultural harvestable ecosystems in agriculture terms, I can't really strongly disagree with adding to the biodiversity of a plot (such as adding in nitrogen-fixing bacteria).

I guess I would caution that adding nitrogen-fixing bacteria is but one step out of many needed towards a truly sustainable agricultural model.

[sparky]

.
@ ChilPhil1986 , You are mostly right , synthetic fertilizers were a big part of Germany defiance
in his 1937 book "Achtung Panzer " Heinz Guderian ,the godfather of armored warfare , mention his misgiving lifted by the progress of the Fisher Tropsh process to make synthetic fuel and Buna rubber ,without witch a modern armored army could not exist .
a modern armored force being needed , some thought , to obtain the food sources for the German population

a sad side comment , while Haber help to feed millions , he was also the pioneer of gas warfare ,
after the war , one of his lab perfected the processing of prussic acid for fumigation of grains , delousing of clothing and such , the product was widely used in hospital , barracks , jails including made under license in America to disinfect Mexican immigrant clothing and agricultural products
the name of the product was Zyclon B , some of Haber relatives fell victim to it

[ROCKMAN]

Given that about 80% of the life sustaining air we breath is N2 I wonder what the effect would be in a high density ag area that switched to sucking it out of the atmosphere. Globally probably insignificant. But if you were a field laborer in the San Joaquin Valley? Oxygen enriched air? Heck...it might be a better high the Mary Jane. LOL.

[ChilPhil1986]

Given that about 80% of the life sustaining air we breath is N2 I wonder what the effect would be in a high density ag area that switched to sucking it out of the atmosphere. Globally probably insignificant. But if you were a field laborer in the San Joaquin Valley? Oxygen enriched air? Heck...it might be a better high the Mary Jane. LOL.

I seriously doubt that nitrogen-fixing bacteria would alter the partial pressure balance of nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 in any drastically negative way ESPECIALLY if the uninformed farmer just comes along next season, overturns the soil and kills the microbes through air exposure anyway.

With global lightning strikes on the increase due to increase of violent weather due to sources that MUST NOT be named by the Florida legislature, I would say nitrogen is already being fixed at a higher than normal rate compared to most of geologic history. Once lightning breaks apart the molecular N2, the fixed products rain down on the soil as nature's own fertilization process.

More to your point though, hyperoxia doesn't make anyone high. Only maybe if a person were tired to begin with. It's the lack of oxygen that does the trick (huffing spray cans with Freon, auto-erotic asphyxiation, etc.).

Breathing too much elevated oxygen pressure for extended periods apparently just does bad things, according to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

[Surf]

The Haber process is not NOT dependent on oil, coal, or natural gas. The first plants built were frequently located next to hydroelectric facilities. The electricity was used to extract nitrogen from the air, and hydrogen from water. Heat and pressure (both supplied by electricity) along with the catalyst would produce ammonia.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1283899/posts

One of the reasons Germany invaded Norway was because ammonia and heavy water were being produced by a factory at a hydro facility. Germany needed the heavy water for nuclear research and ammonia was used to make explosives. The only reason why fossil fuels dominate ammonia production today is because it have been cheep for a very long time. Many hydro ammonia plants were shut down for this reason but even today there are a few ammonia facilities that still use electricity from hydro facilities. We could easily switch back to using electricity when the price of oil or natural gas gets too high. In some places in the world oil and natural gas are already to high fro ammonia production. Wind and solar electricity can also be used.

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/p ... uring.html

[ROCKMAN]

"We could easily switch back to using electricity when the price of oil or natural gas gets too high.". So hydroelectricty, of which there is no excess today because 100% of the capacity is being delivered to consumers, would be redirected to fertilizer production. And the folks currently using that e- would accept the degradation of their lifestyle? Or would new fossil fuel or nuke plants be constructed to satisfy their needs? Or maybe a law would be passed to require all fert. plants be powered by wind or solar?

Bottom line: all the available energy in the world is currently being consumed for the most. Redirecting any off it to any other process will require expanding the current power generating infrastructure. Which brings us back full circle to the basic problem: the requirement of a huge amount of capex to create any viable form of transition.

[Subjectivist]

"We could easily switch back to using electricity when the price of oil or natural gas gets too high.". So hydroelectricty, of which there is no excess today because 100% of the capacity is being delivered to consumers, would be redirected to fertilizer production. And the folks currently using that e- would accept the degradation of their lifestyle? Or would new fossil fuel or nuke plants be constructed to satisfy their needs? Or maybe a law would be passed to require all fert. plants be powered by wind or solar?

Bottom line: all the available energy in the world is currently being consumed for the most. Redirecting any off it to any other process will require expanding the current power generating infrastructure. Which brings us back full circle to the basic problem: the requirement of a huge amount of capex to create any viable form of transition.

Most of the early Haber Ammonia plants in America were coal fired and coal was roasted to produce the Hydrogen needed for the process as well. When Natural Gas got cheap most of them switched over to using Methane for energy, heat and to produce the hydrogen. Unless the price of Natural Gas goes insanely high they will continue to make Ammonia from it.

[ChilPhil1986]

While the Haber process has been very effective in feeding the world's population it is not the only way, and certainly not the best way. Haber is also the foundation for the so-called "green revolution" that is now butting heads with climate change and drought. Organic agriculture while less EFFICIENT is still quite suitable for FEEDING PEOPLE. Perhaps not in the fashion they are accustommed to.

It will cost more to feed people organically but that is just fine. There will be lots of excess tractor/transport fuel around when the consumer economy crashes. Here is something to truly worry about: PEAK PHOSPHORUS.

Off-topic: I refuse to accept that organic is an inherently less efficient method for growing food than conventional means. If people could change their diets off these silly neo-lithic diets to foods that could more readily be grown in a multilayered context, we could actually design agriculture that makes sense. Here's one example: Chestnut trees next to apple trees next to hazelnut bushes or a no-till rotational crop, next to vegetable patches. All should be packed in close, with tall pasture grass interspersed throughout for any grazing animals. There needs to be overlap, but not enough overlap for dangerous amounts of sun deprivation to occur during a day-long stretch. There also needs to be just enough holes in the canopy for adequate pasture. Any leftovers from the harvests go to the farm animals. Leave the leftovers on the ground when they occur and let the farm animals have at it. Vegetable patches still get fenced in, of course. (Forgive any ignorance on the handling of farm animals, I still have much to read and learn on that topic.) So you have a multilayered canopy with a crop on every layer. I'm actually looking to start one of these to see if the idea's even worth a damn, and the chestnut trees I sprouted last year are going up to the family property tomorrow. Nursery them for a year while I start sprouting the next layer, and then I replant to their predetermined locations and see if the deer completely destroy them. The best laid plans of mice and men.....good thing it's just a hobby at the moment.

On-topic: You're probably right that nitrogen isn't really a concern. We know how to fix nitrogen artificially by a number of means, as surf described. There's such a plethora in the atmosphere that any thought of peak nitrogen should just automatically get relegated to discussions about peak oil, since, currently, the rapid distribution of ammonia is, like most other things underpinning our economies, dependent upon oil. This makes any discussion of peak nitrogen in the human food production process kind of silly compared to other matters.

I don't know much about peak phosphorous, but I'll look for another thread about that and see what I can learn. It's a soil nutrient conservation issue, obviously, and while my hypothetical plot outlined above might solve the erosion issue, there's still the massive imbalance caused by us just flushing those noots down the toilet. Rural composting toilets might be simple enough, but urban solutions would be a B@*%H.

[ChilPhil1986]

Given your statement, I'm not sure permaculture will ever be more than a fashion to you, pstarr. It's really hard to do independent variable tests on the merits of biodiversity.
I will check out the phosphorous stuff tho. Gnight.

[Strummer]

Here's one example: Chestnut trees next to apple trees next to hazelnut bushes or a no-till rotational crop, next to vegetable patches. All should be packed in close, with tall pasture grass interspersed throughout for any grazing animals.

Great example. Now tell me, can it be implemented in all of the climates, soil types and geographic locations as the current agriculture, at the same scale, feeding the same amount of people? No, it can't. Most of these "examples" are extremely location-specific.

[davep]

Here's one example: Chestnut trees next to apple trees next to hazelnut bushes or a no-till rotational crop, next to vegetable patches. All should be packed in close, with tall pasture grass interspersed throughout for any grazing animals.

Great example. Now tell me, can it be implemented in all of the climates, soil types and geographic locations as the current agriculture, at the same scale, feeding the same amount of people? No, it can't. Most of these "examples" are extremely location-specific.

Her referred to it as "one example". Of course any such scheme needs to be suitable for the various local conditions. Just because there's no one size fits all combo does not invalidate the principle.

[KaiserJeep]

Certainly Haber-Bosch produces fertilizers on a scale hard to duplicate by other processes.

Petrochemicals are also used for pesticides and herbicides that support crop monocultures.

Not to mention, the energy to till and mechanically plant, weed, and harvest those same monocultures.

Or the fuels and petrochemicals to process, package, and transport the crops in our food production and distribution networks.

The bottom line is one of scale. We have explored this topic before and the conclusion we reached was that without the fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fuels used for both mechanical agriculture and food transport, we would have to scale up the number of US farmers from the current figure of approximately one million to something between 60 and 70 million - using Permaculture to replace mechanized farming and petrochemicals. We would then be pursuing a mixture of pure Permaculture and intensive monocultures of grains like wheat and corn, where Permaculture simply loses the economic contest due to yields where mechanized farming is between 10X and 100X more productive. The figures might change slightly if we used some combination of Permaculture and other agrarian farming methods - and are only estimates to begin with, probably on the same order as the real figures, but not on the "close order" of the real figures.

If we further assume that the remaining high-priced fuels are more or less dedicated to food processing, packaging. and transport (based on the natural human behaviors that say we would prioritize food and water above other purchases) - and that we pretty much utilize all of our unemployed people in the new food production and distribution activities - then we still need to recruit, train, and transition about 50 million people from mostly urban dwellers to those whose job basically consists of managing human and animal manures, and handling raw foods.

Now the argument devolves to: Do you believe that we will succeed in transitioning those 50 million people, or will those same hardcore urban unemployed and underemployed and "entitlement" collecting people starve in place while waiting for the "government" to feed them and otherwise take care of them?

Truthfully, that last item seems the most questionable. The most basic survival mechanism would still appear to be to leave the cities and live near the places where food is produced. Urban dwellers are pretty much doomed, aside from the "one percenters" and those that serve them in service industries.

Now an observation: I really believe the most likely future is one where the present "entitled" class (by which I mean those that collect entitlements) is more endangered than those who still produce something of worth that society values and have incomes from which they pay taxes - rather than simply collect (unearned) "benefits" that some say they are entitled to.

This next is pure speculation (based on my 60+ years of observing human behaviors in crises such as hurricanes Katrina and Sandy): Those 50+ million new farmers largely will NOT come from the large numbers of existing urban "entitlement collectors". The inner cities will dissolve into bone-chilling violence and the majority portion of the 50 million new farmers we need after the oil peak will come from the rural populations, both those who live there by choice and those who (like me among others) are deliberately pursuing a strategy of living adjacent to where the food is produced.

American politics will once again tilt to the Right as a result, just as happened in the years following the Great Depression. In Historical retrospect from a century in the future, the policies of the Democratic party will have killed more people in the 21st Century than did the Nazis in the 20th Century.

Worldwide warfare restrained the Nazis in the 20th Century. Worldwide famine in urban areas will constrain populations in the 21st century.

Famine is only one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. There are three more. When the dust settles in the 22nd century, there may or there may not be humans on the surface of Earth. I personally believe that this depends upon whether the Islamic Nuclear Bomb becomes a reality. But the Nazi horrors will have been forgotten by those who experience the new horrors of the great human die-off.

Eh, a week after Easter I am feeling Apocalyptic.

[Pops]

Off-topic: I refuse to accept that organic is an inherently less efficient method for growing food than conventional means. If people could change their diets off these silly neo-lithic diets to foods that could more readily be grown in a multilayered context, we could actually design agriculture that makes sense. Here's one example: Chestnut trees next to apple trees next to hazelnut bushes or a no-till rotational crop, next to vegetable patches.

Phil, that organic or permaculture is less efficient is self-evident, otherwise there would be no need for you to refuse to believe it. If it were more efficient don't you think farmers would have caught on by now? Or do you have better insight into farm economics?

The reason monocultures are more efficient and diversified farms are extinct is the exact same reason the local cobbler is extinct; mass production is simply more efficient. And what method caused the extinction? The whim and requirement of the consumer for the cheapest product possible.

I assume in your job you are in some way a specialist, what if I told you you should give up your cush income and become a handyman for the good of the world, would you?

That is the same argument made here time after time, if only stupid farmers would do what I say we'd all be saved.

[ChilPhil1986]

Because the green revolution ruined farming, pops. It took the most basic element of western civilization, something even the most disadvantaged among us could do safely (like me, who's deaf enough to not integrate easily in society) and forced it to industrialize and took it out of the 'peasant class' hands. When I say 'force' I mean the government in the 60's basically turned to the farmer class and said "Get big or get out" and started granting cheap loans for infrastructure geared toward monoculture crops. It's still that way with Monsanto being in the Supreme Court's pocket. For the peasant class that stuck around, they now have an entire generation of farm infrastructure debt to pay. Why would they risk a new approach when their budgets are tight as it is?

In addition, corn subsidies manipulate the markets such that a nutritionally anemic product absolutely dominates the farming landscape. I argue that the prevalent persistence of monoculture is more a product of government interference with the free market than any inherent efficiency advantage.

If you want to know what sources I have to have convinced me so, here they are.

"The One-Straw Revolution" by Mansanobu Fukuoka. He's a rice-planter, so I'm not exactly wild about the nutritional value of his main crop. I love his refinements of the no-till method, however.

"Restoration Agriculture" by Mark Shepard. A Wisconsin large-scale permaculturist. This guy is my home boy. If I can replicate half of what he's doing, I'll be set.

"Water For Every Farm" by P.A. Yeomans. This really applies everywhere, but especially in places experiencing extreme drought. The dialect is wonky, but it's agreat system for the on-site storage and usage of water, and the replenishment of water-tables.

"Permaculture" by Sepp Holzer. Haven't read it yet, but I will.

And no, full disclosure, Ì'm a college dropout who works a warehouse job. Like I said tho, I'm enough of a loner to read a lot of books. Jack of trades, master and professional of none.

Nothing I do will likely be of immense monetary benefit to me. It takes a long time to grow trees and the plot I'm starting will likely be of more benefit to the people who come next. Assuming they don't chop and burn it down. Gotta run.