Fertilizer from Wind

open letter to Iowa legislators

2011-03-14T12:57:00.001-05:00

Dear Senators:
We appreciate the State's desire for clean energy and wanting to continue being a national leader in this field. We believe that the recent events in Japan prove that nuclear power is not our best option. Rather than just being opponents of nuclear power we wish to offer a real alternative. Our companies Enervation, LLC and S.A.F.E. (Sustainable Ammonia Fertilizer Enterprises) are working with existing proven technologies that have the potential to provide base load gigawatt scale power generation.

We all know how beneficial and successful wind generation has been in Iowa. We also know that we are reaching the limit of the Iowa electrical grid to accept more wind generation. S.A.F.E. offers a solution for creating NH3 (ammonia) from wind energy. This allows NH3 to become a virtual "battery" storing energy that the grid cannot handle. Then with additional technology such as the Bloom Box from Bloom Energy or a similar device being able to convert the energy stored in NH3 back to electricity on demand.

We are confident that a gigawatt scale wind to ammonia to electricity system can be designed, permitted, built and operated at less cost to Iowa rate payers within the time it takes to bring a nuclear plant online. (The system
would most likely consist of multiple smaller facilities, whose combined capacity would be a gigawatt or greater.)

If Iowa rate payers are going to make an investment in power generation we believe they would prefer and be better served by this solution rather than nuclear power. In fact it may be possible to put the entire financial risk of this undertaking with private sector entrepreneurs by simply requiring Mid-American Energy to issue a request for proposals for a firm renewable gigawatt scale power generation and storage system.
We welcome your questions and feedback on our proposal.
Sincerely,
Steve Gruhn
S.A.F.E.
sgruhn@freedomfertilizer.com
(712) 330-3114
Mark Steffen
Enervation, LLC

Wind to NH3 & IGLB is better for Iowa

2011-02-28T08:55:00.002-06:00

If you are a resident of the state of Iowa, I would encourage you to contact your local state representative, and the governor's office, and please send the following message:

I am writing to encourage you to consider a local, home grown alternative to nuclear power that will be a boost to Iowa's economy, instead of boosting a large multinational construction companies bottom line.

Instead of promoting nuclear plants, we should be supporting IGLB (Integrated Generation & Load Balancing) power plants with new wind turbines and natural gas fired peaker plants, and then produce ammonia fertilizer with the excess wind energy.

For the cost of 1 nuclear power plant, we can put in several IGLB plants that will employ more workers, *in* the state, produce cheaper power for the ratepapers, and save Iowa farmers money on fertilizer.

Systemic economic change

2011-01-11T09:48:00.008-06:00

I've been following this line of thought in regards to environmental limits and growth which basically revolves around 'do less, conserve more'. There's some merit to the idea, which I think is summed up by the idea of hard environmental limits. Now, the difficulty becomes in discerning what those limits actually are, vs what we think they are.
This is most obvious currently in discussions about atmospheric CO2 concentration. Will we cook the grandkids or did we head off an ice age (Now, to be honest, I just did a quick search, and I was not able to quickly find a coherent and well-put argument that we headed of an ice age). The point here isn't which 'side' of the debate you are on.. but how do we as a global community come to a consensus on what the acceptable atmospheric CO2 concentration is? Both extremes (human extinction) to (what, me worry?) are rather naive. There's a range in the middle that's realistic, and frankly, I don't have the foggiest idea what is the right CO2 setpoint.
The hard environmental limit that's much more interesting to me is Nitrogen intensity. Higher nitrogen intensity has a side-effect of promoting biomass growth, which in turn ties up more atmospheric carbon. I try very hard to be conscious of the many different sides of these arguments, and the conclusion I come to is that while most other resources and economies require a 'do less, use less' going forward, there are a couple of major exceptions, in which exponential 10% per year economic growth is not only possible, but absolutely necessary for the rest of the world to be able to make systemic economic change a reality. These things are, in order of increasing growth and monetizable return potential (aka, Venture Capitial investor attractiveness):

Direct farm-to-table markets. This is the downtown farmers markets, and all kinds of new ideas which have yet to be developed and deployed. But they will be small-scale, small-business, and local oriented. Bottom-up approaches that come out of social interactions made possible by the global social networking software in bullet 2.
Information/software/computer technology. Every product cycle, we pack more transistors on the same area of silicon, and this makes the resulting computing devices, software, and user applications more effective, capable, and productive using less resources for the same work as the last product cycle. Now mind you, the total work keeps increasing, so the end result is a slight uptick in net electrical power usage.. This is no problem, so long as the electricity is new renewable generation. (see bullet 3)
Wind energy. Even with a 15% discount rate, wind energy has a net Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of better than 6.. and gets better the lower the discount rate is. In other words, if you want long-term energy production, put up a wind turbine. Then your problem is that wind energy is generally not close to the existing loads. So exporting wind energy as bits on a fiber optic line (bullet 2), or as tankers of ammonia (bullet 4), now we've decoupled the location from the point of use, just like oil has allowed huge economic growth for the first half of the 20th century.
Electrically driven NH3 (ammonia) production. I'm putting my time and energy into Freedom Fertilizer because every indication I have is that this is going to be possibly the only growth area in anything that resembles large industry. There will be huge new economies created with what I reference in bullet 1. But NH3 is the only large scale thing I have come across in which the fundamental physics of mass transport and energy availability actually work out. Maybe someday WindFuels will work out, but this requires a point high concentration CO2 source. Ammonia needs air (78% Nitrogen), water (Hydrogen), and wind (energy). And with the available energy, taking 'dirty' water and distilling it is a very minor cost compared to getting the hydrogen out.

Natural Gas Futures

2010-12-21T15:24:00.002-06:00

What is the future of natural gas? According to the every-so-infallible oracle of the markets (sarcasm), December 2023 natural gas futures are trading at $7.6 per MMBTU. This appears to be a 5.5% inflation rate if I did my math right. But who knows, when I started working on this project, I thought $10/MMBTU was pretty darn cheap, and that we'd have broken ground on a 100MW ammonia plant by now. This just goes to show one should never trust market futures any farther than you can throw a ton of the commodity being traded.

But I'm still a little confused.. I called up a farmer the other day and pitched the wind to ammonia idea. He wasn't particularly interested, which I can deal with. But what got me was he said he heard a presentation of a fertilizer dealer talking about how fertilizer is just going to get cheaper. I suppose I can understand how that could happen.. One would expect the big ammonia fertilizer manufacturers should be building new plants in the US to capitalize on the shale gas boom(s), which will cause new capacity, and new competition. But, the only buying that's been going on in the last few months has been fertilizer manufacturers buying each other, not plants.

This reminds me of a story I heard of a 'stranded' large ammonia plant (with local natural gas, but no pipelines) getting sold, and the seller said "Oh sure, there are plenty of natural gas reserves to run the plant for a long time". One (smart) buyer says "Okay, we're not smart guys, will you guarantee the reserves" (smart) seller replies "Oh, no way". Plant gets sold to buyer number 2 who thinks they are smart (but apparently not smart enough to have a petroleum geologist on staff to audit the supposed reserve numbers), and the plant runs out of gas in a couple years, well before the cost of the plant is paid off. Seller (and smart non-buyer) quietly laugh all the way to the bank.

What's the point here? Well, new large NH3 plants likely have the same (long) payback times of 8 to 12 years that our small-scale Nitrefinery wind to Ammonia plant will. So none are getting built because nobody is silly enough to guarantee a 15-20 year gas contract at $4/mmbtu. Sure it's cheap now, what about in 3 years when the production on all the recent shale gas plays slows down, and demand for oil in China and India picks up, causing more natural gas truck conversions?

I'm not really hear to argue peak natural gas or shill about rising prices. If someone can actually produce me a 20 year contract for $4/mmbtu natgas, I'd go line up financing for a wind farm with integrated combustion engine natural gas generation and then stick some Nitrefineries along with it for even more integration benefits.

What I am here for is to attempt to explain this whole system in a straightforward way, and how wind energy to ammonia on a large scale is inevitable.. it's just a matter of will it be today, or 5 years from now, and that mostly depends on finding someone with an appropriately sized checkbook who understands the issues. We've finally managed to put everything together, and now we need to connect the last dot - Who will own unit serial #00001?

"Holistic Engineering" The Gulf Oil Spill vs Ammonia

2010-05-04T10:36:00.003-05:00

As reported by slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2251130/

...
The best responses to unlikely events take a holistic look at the problem, says Harrald. Rare events "raise opportunities to look at whole systems and get the political will and public support to do something about it." In this case, that might mean not only examining the safety of tankers and oil rigs, but also reducing our dependence on oil in favor of renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. But that might be the most unlikely event of all.
...

Cleanup is expected to cost over $12.5 billion.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/new-economy/2010/0503/BP-oil-spill-2010-How-much-will-it-cost

Some versions of my business card say "Holistic Engineer". Seems quite appropriate.. For less than 1/100th the cost of the cleanup, (say $125million), I can start construction on a 150MW electrically driven ammonia plant, and make a renewable, environmentally safe fuel to replace petroleum. If you have a large ammonia spill.. It's not something to laugh at.. it's quite dangerous. But once the ammonia has evaporated, or been recovered, it doesn't hang around in the soil or the groundwater causing cancer. Plants literally eat it up. It's fertilizer.

When's the last time you heard of an ammonia tanker leaking? If that happened in the gulf, you'd likely have the mother of all algae blooms for a few weeks, it it would be quite a bad deal. For a few weeks, or maybe a year. But we are going to be cleaning up oil sludge from this platform for the next 20 years. And we'll be dealing with the carbon dioxide released from burning that oil for
likely the next 50 years.

And what, you ask, of the hypoxia (dead zone) in the gulf of mexico, from fertilizer runoff? Well first, the cause of fertilizer runoff is that farmers get paid to grow corn, and ammonia makes corn grow. So when the market conditions change so that my father's farm gets a higher price for corn grown with less nitrate runnoff, then the nitrate runoff will stop. Or just measure the runoff and set a threshold. Above the threshold you get a tax/expense. Below the threshold you get a credit. Or just consider that we grow about twice as much corn using the same amount of ammonia as we did when we started applying ammonia 50 years ago.

Right now though, frankly, the petroleum is a bigger problem, so I'm focusing on the big problems first, and will work back down through nitrate runoff once we have sustainable fertilizer.

-- Troy Benjegerdes
Holistic Engineer / Chief Technology Officer
Freedom Fertilizer
troy@freedomfertilizer.com

Comments from Troy Benjegerdes Technology Officer at Freedom Fertilizer

2010-04-29T20:57:00.003-05:00

When I came across the potential that wind to ammonia could actually be real, and did the back of the envelope calculations as to how much load we could realistically be controlling, all the discussion about forecasting,dispatch, and everything else is purely an academic discussion.

Ammonia production widely deployed will smooth out the lowest cost down to whatever price point we decide to turn on full rate production. If we deploy the same software we use to control the ammonia plant to municipal utilities to dispatch their diesel (or ammonia) fueled generators, that will then set the peak price point for any node with both ammonia production load, and generation.

All of the other complicated stuff that everyone else is trying to sell is just *NOT* needed. Electrolysis, haber-bosch, and old-fashioned diesel cycle engine technolgy is all that's needed. Oh, plus some open source process control software, and interfaces to MISO.

Small-scale SOM units are a way to prove the concept out, because right now nobody would ever loan money for a 100MW/$100Million dollar ammonia plant, and DOE is too caught up in fancy new stuff of the day and academic discussions to even understand why simple back of the envelope calculations and an electrically driven ammonia pilot plant are necessary.

It's not just simple, it's so stupid simple nobody seems to be able to be dumb enough to actually see it.

Freedom Fertilizer mentioned in Farm Industry News

2010-03-28T15:58:00.001-05:00

USING WIND POWER TO PRODUCE ANHYDROUS AMMONIA

Mar 1, 2010 12:00 PM, By Rhonda Brooks

New technology may reduce U.S. reliance on imported natural gas

UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS are harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity, which may contribute to moderate-priced anhydrous ammonia fertilizer for U.S. farmers.

A pilot project, five years in the making, is finally under way at the University of Minnesota, according to Mike Reese, the renewable energy director at the UM west-central research and outreach center. “The project entails using wind power to drive a water electrolysis system to produce hydrogen and an air separations unit to pull nitrogen from air,” Reese says. “The hydrogen and nitrogen are then combined in an advanced catalytic reactor, also developed at the university, to produce ammonia.” Ultimately, he adds, “we believe that producing anhydrous ammonia from electrical means will be cheaper than using natural gas to produce it.”

The wind-based technology could drastically reduce the dependence the U.S. has on fertilizer made from natural gas imported from China, India and Russia, which combined accounts for about 50% of the natural gas produced worldwide.

In the process, the U.S. may be better able to minimize the wild price swings in anhydrous ammonia fertilizer that farmers have experienced the past two years. In early February of this year, anhydrous ammonia fertilizer costs were running roughly $500/ton. But two years ago, the costs were about $1,300/ton.

According to the UM Web site, “Initial estimates imply that switching to this method of production would utilize over 2 gigawatts of wind power statewide and would keep $300 million within the state of Minnesota.”

Ammonia production may open a market for “stranded wind” energy, which is potential wind energy that is not developed because it is not near an urban or industrial center. Freedom Fertilizer, based in northwest Iowa, is working with stranded wind with the intent of producing cost-effective ammonia. Steve Gruhn, Freedom Fertilizer business owner and developer, says, “This approach will help provide energy and cost independence for Iowa communities who have had no choice recently but to buy expensive imported ammonia produced with natural gas.” However, the current transmission infrastructure is insufficient to move wind power to urban areas and will need to be developed.

Reese says the Minnesota project, funded by the state and the University of Minnesota, will be fully operational by December.

Tropicana: Trying to Make a Greener Orange Juice

2010-03-24T19:49:00.000-05:00

Tropicana: Trying to Make a Greener Orange Juice

By Bryan Walsh Thursday, Mar. 11, 2010

How green is your orange juice? A couple of years ago, PepsiCo, which owns the orange-juice brand Tropicana, tried to size up the carbon footprint of the popular morning tonic. It found that each half-gallon carton of OJ is responsible for 3.75 lb. of CO₂.

What was particularly surprising was where much of that CO₂ was coming from. The single biggest contributor to Tropicana's carbon footprint wasn't the transport of the juice to stores or the energy required to operate a modern citrus farm. Rather, it was the fertilizer used to grow the orange trees. A great deal of natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizer, and a great deal of fertilizer is used on citrus trees — so much that fertilizer accounted for 35%, the largest share, of the carbon footprint of orange juice. "We thought it might be transport or packaging," says Tim Carey, director of sustainability and beverages for PepsiCo. "But the agricultural aspects of the operation are more important than we expected." (See the top 10 green ideas of 2009.)

To make a greener orange juice, PepsiCo needed a greener fertilizer — and that's exactly what the company is experimenting with. Working with a pair of agricultural companies — Yara International and Colorado-based Outlook Resources — PepsiCo will test low-carbon fertilizers at one of its producer farms in Bradenton, Fla. If successful, the greener fertilizers could lower the carbon footprint of PepsiCo's citrus growers by as much as 50% and reduce the total carbon footprint of Tropicana orange juice by up to 20%. Given how much fertilizer is used throughout the U.S. farming system as a whole — more than 13 million tons of nitrogen in 2007 alone — a greener way to help plants grow could put a serious dent in U.S. carbon emissions.

Inorganic nitrogen fertilizer — the sort used by most farms in the U.S. — is made through the Haber-Bosch process, which fixes nitrogen to make ammonia, which is then used to make the nitrates and other chemicals that feed plant growth. It requires a lot of natural gas to help make the ammonia; agriculture eats up as much as 5% of global natural-gas consumption. As a fossil fuel, natural gas has a high carbon content, which means nitrogen fertilizer has it too. (Conventional fertilizer also releases nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has about 300 times the warming power of CO₂.) The need for natural gas also puts a strain on farmers; fertilizer prices are closely linked to natural-gas costs, leaving farmers vulnerable to huge price swings, especially if gas begins to be used more frequently for electricity. "It's something we always have to worry about," says Mac Carraway, who runs SMR Farms in Bradenton, which is hosting PepsiCo's fertilizer trial.

Yara and Outlook Resources are trying to cut carbon by reducing the need for natural gas in their fertilizer. Yara, the world's largest fertilizer company, is experimenting with calcium-based fertilizer that would almost completely eliminate nitrous oxide emissions, cutting its overall greenhouse-gas impact. The company is also working on improving the energy efficiency of its production plants, which further cuts the carbon attributed to its fertilizer. "The fact is, we now have the technology to reduce emissions," says Sandro Pippobello, director of premium offerings at Yara North America. "We think this can work for a variety of crops, especially high-value ones." (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.)

Outlook Resources, by contrast, looks to make fertilizer through more renewable resources, eschewing imported natural gas in favor of organic, locally sourced feedstocks. The local sourcing helps cut the carbon emissions associated with transport, while the use of organic and renewable feedstocks like biofuels cuts carbon emissions further. Outlook also claims that its fertilizer is more efficient, so less of it has to be used — which helps prevent the water pollution associated with fertilizer runoff. "Eighty percent of the fertilizer in the U.S. is imported," says Scott Dyer, the chief of scientific solutions for ERTH Solutions, which is making the fertilizer for Outlook. "Local sourcing is a food-security issue."

PepsiCo will use the two alternative fertilizers for a multiyear pilot study at SMR Farms to see whether the switch could cut Tropicana's carbon footprint without losing crop yield, which would raise overall costs. If the study is successful, PepsiCo might be able to start using greener fertilizers throughout its agricultural supply chain, which could have a major impact on U.S. farming and the corporation itself. And if natural-gas costs rise in the future, which is a serious possibility if utilities come under pressure to switch from cheaper but more polluting coal, it could help cut costs. "There have to be commercial advantages as well," says Carey. "But sustainability is ultimately about being a better company."

Big Breakthrough in Small Scale Ammonia Production

2010-02-02T19:41:00.007-06:00

First I have to apologize to everyone because it has been sometime since I have posted anything to the Freedom Fertilizer blog, but it is for a very good reason. We are very excited because for the last several months we have been working on what we think is a big breakthrough in small-scale ammonia production. Soon after the Ammonia Fuel Network Conference in October Troy Benjegerdes and I began working on a new concept for small scale NH3 production. After reviewing the steps involved we became encouraged with our findings. After running numbers on the energy balance for the process it became apparent that this concept was worth pursuing.

The process is a combination of old and new technology. It came about the way many breakthroughs do by asking the age old question of "what if?”. So what is the "if" that makes this process so different from existing ammonia production? First and foremost is the process produces NH3 at atmospheric pressure. Unlike the current Haber Bosch method that requires high heat and pressure. Second, the process does not require an outside source or indirect production of Hydrogen, again unlike the current process. Third, its only direct inputs are electricity and water. Even though this may sound impossible it is not.

So where are we at? We have consistently produced small amounts of NH3 verifying the process. At this time we are working on documenting and protecting the IP involved, as we want to be able to move forward as quickly as possible. All of the technology involved has been demonstrated in various applications in the past and all of the required pieces to this puzzle are currently available. As far as our research shows these pieces have not been used in this combination or for this use in the past. What we envision is unique. Our next step forward after protecting our IP is securing adequate funding to build a fully operational demonstration model. We currently have a NSF SBIR grant application submitted for doing this and for further development of the process. We are pursuing several other avenues as well.

Our goal is to build, demonstrate and commercialize a fairly simple low capital cost process that when fully developed will efficiently produce an aqueous NH3 solution anywhere there is a source of electrical power and water. The full potential of this new scalable process is game changing. If we can be successful it would make it possible to produce ammonia fertilizer anywhere in the world. It would eliminate geographic issues, transportation costs and fossil fuel inputs. Remote areas of the globe that for whatever reasons have not had access to nitrogen fertilizers could dramatically increase yields by having fertilizer so availible. Industries that need small volumes of ammonia could produce their own onsite. Best of all if the source of power is renewable the ammonia production becomes carbon free and 100% sustainable. GreeNH3 tm would make Biofuels greener, food production a carbon sink and when connected to the grid this type of NH3 production would be a way to balance intermittent renewable energy load. Producing NH3 during off peak hours that could then be used as a source of fuel for peak demand generation. Yes we feel that we have good reason to be excited.

How Green Is My Orange

2010-02-02T19:25:00.003-06:00

These are highlights from a recent article in the New York Times. A link to the full article is above. It is interesting but not surprising to find out that the majority of the carbon foot print of orange juice comes from fossil fuel based fertilizer that is used in the orange groves....... And that fertilizer would be? Ammonia based Nitrogen.....produced the only way the world knows how with fossil fuel and the Haber Bosch process......

Yet another reason to keep our project moving forward.

By Andrew Martin
Published: Thursday, January 22, 2009

BRADENTON, Florida — How much does your morning glass of orange juice contribute to global warming?

PepsiCo, which owns the Tropicana brand, decided to try to answer that question. It figured that as public concern grows about the fate of the planet, companies will find themselves under pressure to perform such calculations. Orange juice seemed like a good case study.

PepsiCo hired experts to do the math, measuring the emissions from such energy-intensive tasks as running a factory and transporting heavy juice cartons. But it turned out that the biggest single source of emissions was simply growing oranges. Citrus groves use a lot of nitrogen fertilizer, which requires natural gas to make and can turn into a potent greenhouse gas when it is spread on fields.

PepsiCo finally came up with a number: the equivalent of 3.75 pounds, or 1.7 kilograms, of carbon dioxide are emitted to the atmosphere for each half-gallon, or 1.9 liter, carton of orange juice. But the company is still debating how to use that information. Should it cite the number in its marketing, and would consumers have a clue what to make of it?

Making orange juice is relatively straightforward: the oranges are picked by hand, trucked to the plant, squeezed, pasteurized and packed into cartons and shipped by train to distribution points around the country. Early on, company officials roughed out the carbon footprint of Tropicana juice. But when the Carbon Trust came back with its own calculations, that initial estimate was off by more than 20 percent.

Growing the oranges accounted for a larger share — about a third — than PepsiCo had expected, almost entirely because of the production and application of fertilizer.

Ammonia Fuel Networks Keynote Speaker

2009-10-15T21:47:00.005-05:00

Matthew R Simmons of Simmons International speaks out about Oil. The true state of the existing supplies, The promise of Wind, The scam of Shale Gas, and NH3 as the answer.

Comments on Freedom Fertilizer from Interview with Chris Stiener

2009-09-04T12:06:00.002-05:00

Beyond prices at peak oil: $20 per gallon

By Lisa Sibley

Published 2009-08-14 11:17

What will the world look like as the price of gasoline climbs, $2 at a time, from $4 to $20 a gallon?

Christopher Steiner, a staff writer at Forbes magazine, takes a look at how the future of energy is going to change, with his new book, “$20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better,” which came out last month.

The book is expected to make the New York Times non-fiction hardcover extended bestseller list, to be published Aug. 16.

But cleantech experts may or may not agree with some of his contrarian speculations and conclusions, namely that hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and natural gas don’t hold all the answers (see What you don't know about energy can kill you [1]).

Steiner concludes that nuclear power is the elegant and ultimate “Holstein” cow to making the biggest impact on a low carbon energy future. Some don't consider nuclear to be green energy, although he says, perhaps it should be (see Nuclear power is particularly green energy: get used to it [2]).

His book paints a startling, yet exciting picture of the future, interviewing top experts in energy, urban planning, farming and transportation sectors. His predictions include newfangled competitors to the all-electric car emerging, the crashing fall of sushi and the skies emptying of gas-guzzling airlines.

He shared with the Cleantech Group an in-depth look at how rising gas prices will inevitably transform civilization, and consequently, the cleantech sector’s future:

Forbes writer and civil engineer Christopher Steiner roamed the U.S.
on a quest to answer the question: How will people's lives change in a future
with higher gas prices?

What sparked the idea to write this book?

I’ve always been interested in human behavior as it relates to gas prices. I remember when gas prices reached $2 per gallon so many years ago. I thought people would run screaming from their SUVs toward smaller cars and a nascent Toyota [3] model called the Prius (see Toyota plans to take on Honda with low-cost hybrid for 2011 [4]).

Americans, however, largely shrugged at $2 gas. They did the same for $3 gasoline. We kept driving more miles every year, and we kept buying large cars—especially SUVs. Then came $4 gas and 2008: Americans drove 100 billion less miles in 2008 compared with 2007, and SUV sales crashed. Four-dollar gas was clearly a tipping point for how Americans chose their vehicles and how they drove them. So I asked myself: What other tipping points are out there past $4? At what price of gas do most of the airlines cave in? At what price of gas do we eat more local food? At what price do high-speed trains connect much of America?

What's been the most controversial part of the book so far with readers?

There exists part of the population who feels that I’m out there advocating for higher gas prices right now. They feel I’m attacking their way of life. But that’s not the case at all. The book’s premise assumes that, as we go forward, the demand for oil around the world will continue to increase while the supply will actually ebb, albeit slowly.

At that point, you have a scenario straight out of Economics 101: rising demand and shrinking supply = higher prices. So, assuming the price of oil will continue on a steady ascension in the future, I tried to forecast the changes that come with different prices of gasoline.

Your book indicates solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower by themselves aren't going to be enough to meet our energy needs. What kind of influence to you envision this having on the cleantech sector?

There exist giant opportunities for these kinds of energy generators. We should push on with wind power, for instance, until it approaches 10 percent of capacity—wind’s intermittent nature doesn’t become a threat to the overall grid until that point (see Wind market could hit record high in U.S. [5]). Anything—be it solar, geothermal or wind—that can shut down a few more coal plants is good thing. That said, we’ll need more than renewables to usurp coal completely. That gap, in my opinion, should be filled by nuclear power.

Why isn't nuclear energy attracting attention and funding from investors, or what will it take for nuclear energy to be better supported?

It’s expensive. Very. We haven’t built a nuclear plant in this country from scratch in 30 years; that’s part of the problem. The startup costs are such that even for Exelon [6], a giant electric utility, putting out $12 billion for one plant is cost-prohibitive (see Exelon gets nuclear retrofit [7]). Investors such as Vinod Khosla and Kleiner Perkins can bring a lot of capital to the table, to be sure, but they don’t have the muscle to dump $10 billion or $12 billion into just one power plant. They’re looking for giant home runs, where they might earn 100 times or more on their initial invesment. Nuclear, which is a more mature technology, doesn’t hold that kind of grand slam potential (see Nuclear's biggest problem? Not enough scientists [8]).

The government has to help out here with guaranteed loans, grants, or matching funds. The good news is that once there are people experienced with building next-generation nuclear plants in the United States, the costs of building these facilities will come down. They’ll never be cheap, but they don’t have to carry the costs they currently do.

Your book suggests a ring of farms around U.S. towns will become a source of food for those towns as the price of gas goes up. Is it practical or likely to think that local farming can actually sustain the U.S. population?

Certainly some things, such as soy, corn and wheat, will continue to be grown far away from population centers. Those kinds of commodities aren’t immediately perishable, and they travel well by rail. Local farms, however, will play an increasingly bigger role in supplying fresh produce, meat and fruit. In Chicago, instead of buying an apple from New Zealand or Washington State, you may get an apple from Southwest Michigan or Southeast Wisconsin.

What country or countries should the United States be emulating to become more energy efficient and decrease dependence on fossil fuels?

If you look at what Europe has done since the 1970s and the first oil embargo, they’ve managed to get their per capita energy consumption to a level nearly half of our own while maintaining a high standard of living. We would do well to institute some of the changes Europe made several decades ago, such as widespread electric high-speed trains, smaller cars, higher energy taxes and better zoning laws.

Your book indicates Wal-Mart [2] is changing its business model, to an extent, by opening smaller locations suitable for walkable communities and incorporating sustainable practices (see Wal-Mart & Microsoft's new cleantech deals [3]). What other kinds of companies do you think will take a similar route or are already changing the way they do business?

UPS has set a great example of how to prepare for the future. Here’s a company that’s as tethered to gasoline as can be. They know it. But they’re also preparing for a future when oil costs more. UPS allowed me to don the brown uniform for a day and work on one of their trucks in Manhattan.

The truck is 100 percent electric, and they use it every day to do a normal route in the Soho neighborhood. The truck looks exactly like a normal diesel UPS truck but at night it gets hooked up to a giant 220-volt cord. And, of course, the truck costs about twice as much as a normal UPS mobile (see EV startup set to churn out trucks on U.S. assembly line [4]).

What UPS is doing here is getting familiar with technologies that it will use in the future. UPS uses two of these electric trucks in Manhattan and has several dozen more scattered across Europe. It's using hybrid trucks in Michigan and have developed a truck called a hydraulic hybrid with the EPA. UPS is honing its use of things like electric trucks now, so that when the price of gasoline reaches a certain point—say $7 per gallon—it will be well prepared to make large changes to its fleet that will make sense fiscally. And the changes will be relatively smooth because of the work UPS is doing now.

If everything from the airline industry and resorts to sushi restaurants and SUV dealerships suffer from the increase in gas prices, where will the jobs go?

Green technologies are hot now, and they’ll continue to be hot in the future. We may even see a kind of gold rush at some point that evokes those blurry days of 1999, when everybody was getting in with an Internet startup and on a path to sure riches. Let’s just hope the market remembers its “irrational exuberance” back then and reacts with a bit more restraint during the next boom, although that may be too much to ask.

Beyond that, fields such as civil engineering, urban planning and construction will be the ones boasting job growth. We will need to adjust how we live and that means, to a certain extent, living more densely. Infrastructure begets density. One without the other is miserable. But look at the island of Manhattan: There you have an astounding 70,000 people per square mile. But those people have high quality lives and Manhattan remains superbly functional all because of one reason—the amazing infrastructure than underpins New York. In the future, our other cities will behave more like that and we’ll need people who know how to create that kind of infrastructure.

What was your favorite cleantech-related company/person you interviewed?

That’s a tough call, but I think I most enjoyed Steve Gruhn of Freedom Fertilizer. Steve wants to create ammonia by splitting water molecules using the energy created by wind turbines in Northwest Iowa. America imports up to 80 percent of its fertilizer, almost all of which is made with natural gas, just another fossil fuel. Steve has a vision that would get our crops off foreign feedstocks and be more sustainable to boot. It’s a grand vision. But it’s also going to be very hard to pull off. I’ll be watching his nascent company closely.

Do you think Palo Alto, Calif.-based Better Place [5] will "rule them all" in the end?

Way too hard to say. Better Place has an interesting model, but it’s an expensive model that requires a giant horde of people signing on and, most likely, some kind of government help. Battery swapping for cars, which, in theory, negates the range drawbacks of pure electric
vehicles, is a wonderful idea. But we’ve never seen this type of thing done successfully, and it remains to be determined if Better Place can economically manage, upkeep and swap all of those batteries (see Better Place to charge up Australia [6]).

That being said, Shai Agassi and Better Place are free to mold their model to perhaps better fit what people really want. I do think that nothing would aid Better Place more than an increase in gas prices (outside of straight-up government sponsorship).

What's the time period you envision gas prices going up from $4, in $2 increments, and finally reaching $20 per gallon?

Predicting anything past $8 is extremely tough due to the wildcard effects of government, demand destruction and a coterie of other factors, but we could see $6 within the next 2-3 years and $8 within the next 4-6 years.

Are you currently working on any other book ideas?

I don’t have something directly in the works now, although I‘m pursuing a couple of things. If anybody has any ideas, let me know. I can be reached through my blog (The Steiner Post [7]).

Fundamentals of why Sustainable NH3 from Wind

2009-09-01T12:49:00.005-05:00

a) Natural gas consumption in the US will continue to rise

b) North American Natural gas production has peaked. Any new reserves found will have significantly higher production costs.
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak-natural-gas/529

c) Wind power capital costs per MW will continue to decrease (bigger turbines, lower production costs, larger wind farms)

d) The midwest power grid is, or will be within the next couple years, transmission constrained during high wind power production periods, forcing grid power prices much lower (and occasionally negative) during those times.

e) Any new transmission to address is at least 5 years out, and questionable if it will ever be politically feasible
http://tdworld.com/overhead_transmission/wind-energy-eastern-interconnection-090501/

(also, transmission is around 20% of a wind farm cost. This is significantly in our favor as we would provide a guaranteed local load, with zero transmission losses, or costs, with local use of ammonia, further providing cost advantages) http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-1471e.pdf

f) Electrolyzer capital cost will continue to decline

g) carbon-free sustainable ammonia is worth $1500-$2000 per ton, with an unknown market size

Conclusions:

Because of a & b, natural gas prices will only continue to rise
Because of c, d, e, & f, our costs for wind-derived hydrogen Iowa, Minnesota, and the Dakotas will continue to decline rapidly

* additional note: Natural gas usage will go UP as wind power deployment goes up, because only natural gas power plants are capable of responding fast enough to provide back up to wind power.

Nitrogen Responce in Biomass

2009-08-19T20:39:00.003-05:00

Everyone is talking about how we must produce more biomass for more bio fuels. Here in the heart of the corn belt we know that the tool of choice for higher yields no matter what the crop or the cropping method is fertility and nitrogen is the key fertility element. Without N yields quickly diminish and in the todays world of industrial agriculture only top yields will pay the bills. But in todays world almost all nitrogen begins with fossil fuel and most all synthetic nitrogen fertilizer begins with NH3. Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) the H3 (3 atoms of hydrogen) all derived from fossil fuel. In this country the fossil fuel of choice is CH4 (methane) natural gas. In some parts of the world it is coal. But no matter what the source of fossil fuel the end result is still the same, CO2 . For every ton of NH3 that is produced the C (carbon) in CH4 has to go somewhere and it does. 1.8 tons of CO2 for every ton of NH3 produced with CH4. This really doesn't help the the idea of biomass producing green bio fuels. But it doesn't have to be that way...... at all. Freedom Fertilizer Carbon free NH3 for truly green biomass and bio fuels. And here is another thought, it doesn't have to come from corn either.

Pictured above is 4 acres of sweet sorghum planted last year at Manly, Iowa by fellow SAFE/Freedom Fertilizer participant Troy Benjegerdes. Troy states "It's taller than the corn, and was planted on ground that was fertilized at my dad's overly aggressive 200lb/acre rate. Initially, I had hoped to try this without any N, but it looks like it made a huge difference. I took 6 samples where it did well, and I got green biomass yields of between 50 and 100 tons
per acre. *IF* this could be harvested and processed effectively, it would amount to at least 600 , if not 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre. (Corn at 200 bushels per acre yields 600 gallons/acre).

I think perennial polycultures (the land institute), and no-till have their place, probably as productive buffer strips around intensive row-crops. But if the choice is intensive nitrogen application to make zero-carbon biofuels vs cutting down more amazon rainforest.. Well, pass me the green ammonia tank.

Validating N Rates for Corn on Farm Fields in Southern Minnesota

Cleantech Stocks vs. Oil / Bullish Case for Natural Gas

2009-08-19T20:21:00.012-05:00

From time to time I like to post opinions from others that reinforce our ideals and help to keep us heading in the right direction. Again the guys from Energy and Capital I think are on the money. Not once but twice with this double header opinion. If they are even close to correct it certainly helps to substantiate our case for sustainable ammonia fertilizer. That yes our timing is good and yes we are on the right track.

By Nick Hodge
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

Cleantech investing isn't about finding the next big field or formation. It doesn't rely on finding the next property with enough oil to satiate global demand for — let's face it — a few months or, best case scenario, a year or two.

In a world that consumes 60,000 barrels of oil per minute, large finds these days are the equivalent of adding a few drops of ketchup to the bottle that's been upside down in the fridge for weeks.

At that rate, the 10.5 billion barrels of estimated recoverable oil in ANWR would last a whopping 121 days. And remember, that's expensive oil — not the cheap stuff that squirts out of the ground. The latter hardly exists anymore.

Any bet on oil is really a referendum on when demand will once again outpace supply. It's a good bet, don't get me wrong. . . but it's only a good bet because oil is scarce. Betting that oil will rise is betting that there's not enough, because the price wouldn't go up if there were.

So make your money while you can.

Just know that the very reason the price of oil will rise is the declining economic availability of a finite resource. A day will come when there's nothing left to wager on.

That being said, investing in cleantech isn't reliant upon a fading resource. That's the whole beauty of it — the resources it needs are naturally available, abundant, and renewable. What cleantech investors are betting on is improvements in the technology used to harness that energy.

When great improvements are made, it's like finding the next Cantarell in the oil business.

Harnessing Clean Profits

Even a few years ago, cleantech investing was still about ideas: Who had the best idea for a solar panel? Who was planning to build the biggest wind turbine?

This was before the cleantech industry was scaled, before profitability was reached. Now, solar and wind are global businesses with major manufacturing bases on five continents.

It's no longer about the best idea; it's about lowest cost, highest margin, sales volume, and future contracts.

This is no longer a risky or marginal energy business. This is a growing international industry with global competition and government support. It's the fastest growing energy sector by far.

Which reminds me, when's the last time you heard a government or special interest group hammer home the idea of increasing oil dependence? All the attention is on limiting oil consumption while greatly increasing clean energy production.

As a multi-billion dollar global industry, there is serious money to be made investing in clean energy stocks. And the strategy is a bit more precise than wagering on the next company to secure a land lease.

That's where Green Chip and, in particular, the Alternative Energy Speculator, come in. Our years of experience in this industry have allowed us to become familiar with all of its nuances, putting us on the forefront of green investing.

In fact, The Speculator has closed 34 winning cleantech positions this year — more than one per week — not just in solar and wind, but in water and smart grid, as well.

The hardest part about investing in cleantech is deciding to actually invest in cleantech. We do the rest. Our thousands-strong community of successful green investors can attest to that.

But it's one thing to say it's easy. . . just like it's easy to state the "estimated" oil in a new find.

It's another thing to prove it and show it.

Here's what I mean. . .

It's Easy Being Green

It's not easy to know that there's a general oversupply of solar panels on the market right now. It's not easy to know that average selling prices (ASPs), for modules and solar cells have been slipping as a result, putting pressure on earnings margins for suppliers.

It's not easy to be familiar with stimulus packages in multiple countries that will push hundreds of billions of dollars into the green capital markets. It's not easy to interpret how that money will affect capital expenditures for new solar and wind plants.

And it's certainly not easy to keep track of contracts and pricing mechanisms for dozens of companies.

But it's easy to open your e-mail, buy a stock, and then sell it for a profit. Readers of the Alternative Energy Speculator have faced that daunting task 34 times this year.

It's the perfect combination of solid investment advice and a booming market. And it's much easier to take gains from a sector that international governments and banks are eager to see succeed, rather than from an industry facing mounting political roadblocks and adversity, not to mention resource scarcity.

Just take a look at the numbers. The chart below compares the year-to-date performance of the U.S. Oil Fund ETF (NYSE: USO), which tracks the price of oil, and the Oil Services HOLDRs ETF (NYSE: OIH), which holds a variety of stalwart oil service companies, against a solar company, a smart grid company, and a wind company:

Oil has done marginally well for the year and the services ETF has done a bit better, up about 45% — respectable gains for any investor.

But notice the three stocks from three different cleantech sectors. They're each up well over 150%. . . and they're not isolated examples.

This is due to several factors: the loosening of credit markets and the willingness of banks to lend to cleantech projects; billions of stimulus dollars aimed at project development; tax advantages in several countries; high returns for project investors; and above all else, the fact that clean energy began at less than 1% of the energy mix.

When your share of global energy production is that small, even modest advancement means big percentage growth. Going to just 2% meant a doubling of its use. And the use of clean energy will double several times over in the next decade or two.

The use of oil is not going to double. Not even close.

So by all means, profit from oil's decay. It would be foolish not to.

But it's also foolish not to invest in clean energy and stuff your pockets from both sides. The growth rates are much faster and the returns much higher. Not to mention, all you have to do is open your e-mail and buy winning stocks.

The Bullish Case for Natural Gas

By Keith Kohl | Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

It's been nearly three weeks since I last talked about natural gas.

And lately there really hasn't been much reason to get excited. Prices have been stagnant at best, right? After all, it was just over a year ago when prices were well over $10 per Mcf. A few weeks ago, prices finally rebound over $4 per Mcf.

As you're probably aware, the move didn't last long.

Today, prices are barely holding above $3/Mcf ($3.16/Mcf the last time I checked). But if there's one thing we've been trying to show Energy and Capital readers, it's that this is a golden opportunity to get back into natural gas.

Believe me, if natural gas under $4 is a steal, I can't express how dirt-cheap it is under $3 per Mcf.

But before I get into my long-term bullish sentiment, let's take a quick look at why prices have declined. To start with, the demand picture has been ugly during this recession.

In their latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, the EIA estimated that natural gas consumption will fall 2.6% this year and remain flat throughout 2010. Of course, the drop is due to the lackluster industrial demand, which makes any future economic recovery even more important to the long-term case.

The supply side of the equation isn't much better right now. The EIA reported that working gas storage increased to 3,152 Bcf. That's 530 Bcf above the five-year average of 2,635 Bcf. The five-year storage is nearly 20% higher than a year ago. Furthermore, our working gas storage is expected to top 3,800 Bcf by the time we reach the end of the injection season in October.

In response to the demand drop and cheap prices, companies have drastically scaled back their drilling activity. According to Baker Hughes, there are approximately 688 rigs drilling for natural gas in the U.S. That's a steep drop of 56% from a year ago.

However, when it comes to natural gas, it's not the short-term that I'm excited about.

The Bullish Case for Natural Gas

Let's take a quick look at where our natural gas comes from. . .

According to the EIA, the United States imported approximately 4 Tcf of natural gas in 2008. As expected, nearly all of our imports (approximately 90%), were shipped from Canadian pipelines.

I don't expect Canada to keep up those numbers for very long.

You see, aside from aside from a few emerging shale deposits, Canadian production isn't looking too good. Practically all of Canadian natural gas is produced from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Production in the WSCB, however, peaked back in 2001 at approximately 16 Bcf per day.

Canadian drillers have been struggling to keep up ever since. The only way producers could keep up with the decline rates was by increasing their rig activity. With prices this cheap, it's nearly impossible to keep pace. Several weeks ago, my colleague, Chris Nelder, pointed out the 11% year-over-year Canadian production decline.

Last week, First-Energy Capital Corp analyst Martin King reiterated the bad news: "At a projected average of 14.7 Bcf per day in 2009, this would be the lowest average natural gas production rate seen in Western Canada since 1995."

Throw the blame wherever you'd like, dear reader; whether it's the decreased demand, warm weather, or even the storage glut, the short-term price outlook for natural gas isn't pretty. However, the dearth of North American drilling from those factors will help prices recover over the long run. Couple the lack of drilling with a demand recovery, and any glut in supply will quickly dissipate.

Depending on an economic recovery, natural gas prices could easily top $6 per Mcf by the end of 2009. That's certainly not too far of a stretch, considering January 2010 contracts of natural gas are trading around $5.47/Mcf.

I have yet to meet a reader of mine that's bearish on natural gas over the long term. For us, that means that now is the time to get your hands dirty.

Three Ways to Play a Natural Gas Rebound

One of the easiest ways to play a rebound in natural gas prices is through the United States Natural Gas Fund (NYSE: UNG), which tries to replicate the performance of natural gas by investing in the front-month natural gas NYMEX contract.

With UNG trading at a near 52-week low, any upturn in natural gas prices could give investors a pleasant surprise.

By now, anyone who has put so much as a dime in natural gas has at least heard of the latest shale plays. Take Canada's production woes, mentioned earlier. One of the bright spots on future Canadian gas production is located in the Horn River Basin. The Horn River Shale Formation in British Columbia is one of the more recent shale plays to make headlines — with potentially 250 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the ground, between 10% and 20% would be recoverable.

However, the producers aren't the ones that have my attention. Rather, it's the infrastructure that I'm focusing in on. In order to get the Horn River gas to market, pipelines are needed to transport the natural gas. Several pipeline projects are in the works, including the Pacific Trail Pipelines Limited Partnership. Once completed, the $1.2-billion pipeline will transport Horn River shale gas to an LNG terminal near Kitimat, B.C.

And then we have the individual U.S. shale players.

Even with the 56% decline in drilling from 2008 levels, many of these companies have managed to see production rise. Of course, when it comes to drilling, it's all about location. Although producing natural gas from these new shale plays isn't without its own difficulties (extracting the shale gas requires drilling deep into the ground and effectively fracturing the shale), the potential for bullish investors is certainly there.

Ammonia from wind likely to happen in 2010

2009-08-03T11:55:00.001-05:00

Originally published in the July 24, 2009, print edition. By Dick Hagen
The Land Staff Writer

At a recent West Central Research & Outreach Center event, WCROC engineer Cory Marquart said their wind-to-hydrogen-to-ammonia project involving their 1.65 mw turbine is being negotiated with a design-build firm in the Twin Cities. Once this agreement is signed, this project officially launches and will likely be closely watched by farmers and agricultural energy investors.

“We’re hoping to start construction this fall,” Marquart said, so ammonia from wind could be happening by next summer’s field day. There are still a few unknowns about this way to put wind power to work, but Marquart said upwards of 1 ton anhydrous ammonia per 24 hour period is doable.

Actual capacity of this turbine would be about 1 1/2 ton per day if wind energy was a constant, but at the Morris location winds are mostly in the 35 to 40 percent efficiency category. Marquart said at this stage it’s not a matter of inventing new technologies but rather putting old technology to work in a different manner.

Most interesting to farmers, of course, is at what price might ammonia from wind cost. That is strictly a matter of the price of natural gas since natural gas is the primary source of anhydrous ammonia today. “So if natural gas is costing you $1,400 to $1,500 per million BTUs then anhydrous ammonia will also likely be costing $1,400 to $1,500 per ton. If natural gas is $7 per ton, ammonia usually costs around $700 to $800 per ton,” Marquart said.

The potential real value of ammonia from wind farms is that it would provide a stabilizing factor in the nitrogen fertilizer market. Also if fertilizer ammonia becomes excessively higher priced, then ammonia from wind becomes even more feasible. He said a ballpark figure for ammonia costs from wind would be in the $1,000 per ton range but that is purely an estimate at this time.

“Farmers like to know what their input costs are ahead of each production year so they can better plan their budgets. So if ammonia from wind becomes a supply factor in the real market, producers would value that opportunity,” Marquart said.

He sees ammonia production facilities being hitched to mega-wind farms of 20, 30 or more wind turbines, justifying storage capacity for several hundred tons of anhydrous ammonia. He also foresees marketing diversity of such wind farms. If the ammonia market is strong, dedicate the wind energy to that product. And when there are seasonal heavy demands for electricity, “then sell electricity instead. Or when fuel cells become a bigger player use that market opportunity for hydrogen production also.”

Marquart suggested that the business plan of community wind projects needs to be diversified in its marketing structure simply because constantly changing energy demands will dictate different forms of energy from any given wind farm. “We already have fuel cells that can run directly on ammonia so if/when fuel cells become economically feasible for the automotive industry the entire structure of our nation’s wind industry might change considerably.”

Even though there have been manufacturing slowdowns within the big wind turbine industry, he doesn’t see this as a lessening of interest in big wind projects. “I think this is a temporary blip because of the struggling world economy. Several big wind farms were in the works prior to the economy going sour. Many of those equity investors needed the passive income tax credits so money for wind was no particular problem. Now these same investors aren’t needing those tax credits and consequently lots of ‘big money’ has disappeared,” he said. He added that once the economy turns around and tax credits become useful to big investors, then big projects would again surface.

There has been much press coverage on vertical axis turbines, a new family of smaller and considerably shorter wind units, but Marquart said he has yet to see a unit that has wind efficiency comparable with the big turbines dominating the high country of western and southwestern Minnesota. Granted, their imprint is smaller, but he questions the efficiency of the vertical axial wind unit as a major electricity producer.

He does, however, see growing interest in the smaller (40 kw and less) units for on-farm power and/or net metering back into the local utility any unused electrical power. “There’s still a large upfront investment for these units venturing from $40,000 to $75,000 depending upon size, but even with today’s relatively modest rural utility rates you’re looking at a 10- to 12-year payback. I think this is an industry just waiting to ramp up,” Marquart said.

He said interest in wind turbines certainly hasn’t slackened. Frequent phone calls and visitors stopping at the WCROC, regardless of intent; invariably people ask about the Morris turbine and the wind-to-ammonia project. He predicts the future of wind energy will basically go two directions: 1) wind for electricity, and 2) wind for hydrogen/fertilizer. “There’s not one ‘silver bullet.’ Instead we’re calling it ‘silver buckshot’ which simply means there could be lots of different uses for wind power down the road.”

There likely will be more big wind in the Morris area. The University of Minnesota, Morris, campus intends to become carbon neutral, the first institution in the nation to achieve that status. Though not yet officially announced, folks at the WCROC are predicting two new turbines, likely 2 mw or larger, and likely adjacent to the existing 1.65 mw turbine that dominates the landscape within a 10- to 15-mile radius of Morris.

A report by the American Wind Energy Association shows Minnesota ranks first in the nation in the percentage of energy it gets from wind power. Minnesota got 7.48 percent of its electricity from wind last year, up from 4.6 percent in 2007.

However, Minnesota is losing ground in the race to wind energy capacity. Texas is tops with 7,118 megawatts. Texas added almost 2,700 megawatts of wind energy capacity last year, more than any other state. Iowa was second, California third. Minnesota ranked fourth, with 1,754 megawatts including 456 megawatts of new wind energy capacity last year.

Freedom Fertilizer Featured in Just Released Book $20 a Gallon By: Christopher Steiner

2009-07-25T18:51:00.012-05:00

Senior Editor for Forbes magazine and author Christopher Steiner has just released (7/01/09) a new book entitled $20 per Gallon. The book, a first of its kind on the subject of the increasing cost of gasoline goes beyond “peak oil” and the idea that we are coming to the end of the fossil fuel age. The book has been receiving a lot of press with Christoper being interviewed on Fox News, The Today Show with write ups in Time Magazine and of course Forbes Magazine as well. The book is based on the concept that as the world’s oil supplies continues to tighten and oil prices rise it not only will create world changing issues it will also create profound opportunity, changing our lives for the better.

Steiner’s book investigates in depth how far embedded fossil fuel is in our daily lives. One area of which is agriculture, especially fertilizer. As the price of oil increases it will create problems for our world’s farmers and food supply. Farmers will have to deal with the ever continuing price increases of fossil fuel and fossil fuel based nitrogen fertilizers. Through a series of interviews I had with Christopher Steiner last summer he makes sizable mention of these issues, devoting an entire chapter to the subject. Much of the chapter is about Freedom Fertilizer and the concept of sustainable ammonia production. Christopher told me during this interview process that writing the book had been very scary and at the same time very rewarding as he pieced together what our future world may look like. One of the scariest areas he was finding was how the world would feed itself. Christopher said that until he ran across Freedom Fertilizer that he was seeing only a brick wall. After our interviews he said that he sees Freedom Fertilizer as having the potential of being one of the profound life changing opportunities.

Below is an interview with Christopher Steiner that happened this past week on the NBC Today Show

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ammonia Awareness

2009-04-22T21:34:00.001-05:00

One thing that I have come to realize is that most people just do not "get it". It takes someone who has worked with or had a need for NH3 that even begins to understand the big picture. The reason that ammonia has not had much consideration is because so few people are involved in the industry. Of those that do have an understanding even fewer have ever considered the global and long term issues surrounding NH3 and fewer yet comprehend its use as energy storage an alternative fuel.

Ammonia production and use is plainly misunderstood. Why? Because the industry is so mature. 100 years ago it was an issue. 100 years ago we did not know the method of manufacturing process of creating nitrogen fertilizers from air and fossil fuel. But 100 years ago the world was much more agriculturally based and it was at a brink. Wars were being waged over the few remaining natural sources of ammonia fertilizer and predictions were being made that the world would no longer be able to feed itself. Ammonia synthesis changed all of that.

Today ammonia fertilizer is one of those out of site, out of mind, it works so don't mess with kind of things. But it remains a critical part of everyday life. It is something that everyone on this planet cannot live with out. If we could strip all of the issues a side, other than water, the price and availability of NH3 is the biggest single item that determines the basic quality of life around the world. Truth be told we really could live without gasoline and I admit it would not be to comfortable but we absolutely can not live without ammonia fertilizer. If we had to rely on only natural bio ammonia crop yields would be cut in half and so would the worlds population. Not a pretty thought.

Now we have not lost the recipe to ammonia synthesis and we will probably be able to produce ammonia from fossil fuel for quite sometime but at what price? With these higher prices it will not be the portion of the world that can afford the increased costs associated with fossil fuel NH3 that will suffer. To many people it will be a just a switch at the grocery store, a cut back in something not as important as food and we will call it inflation. But to people in India, China or Africa who cannot afford the increase it is something totally different. We wealthy nations did not steal the food from their plate we took the fertilizer from their field. Not being able to afford the increased cost of fertilizer may just well be the next worldwide humanitarian issue. And how many people get it? About the same number who understand ammonia as fuel or energy storage.... very few. This problem already is happening. There will be more crop yields cut because of the cost and availability of ammonia fertilizer. As it has been said many times: Well-fed people are a peaceful people. Hunger is what wars are made of.

The big stir about bio fuels taking food from people’s plates it is not the issue. To me it may not be the best long-term solution but it is better than the alternative of imported fuels. The field corn going into ethanol production doesn't feed people, only livestock. The distiller’s grain byproduct does not go to waste and in most cases is a better livestock feed coming out of an ethanol plant than the field corn going in. The real underlying issue here? Petroleum based fertilizers. Increased demand for bio fuel is demanding more production and more production is demanding more fertilization and more fertilization means more imported petroleum based ammonia fertilizer. A world of tightening fossil fuel supplies is a world of tightening fertilizer supply and so on and so on the consequences of which all mean the same thing.

These consequences are why we are confident that we are on the right path. The underlying issues that most people are totally unaware of are our incentive to find the ways to efficiently produce sustainable ammonia fertilizer so that around the world fertilizers are not a luxury to those that can only afford it. Our goals are to produce ammonia fertilizers locally from local energy sources. Close to the fields, the people and livestock. That’s Freedom Fertilizer

Iowa Corn Board Grant Recieved

2009-04-05T21:06:00.003-05:00

News Release

Sustainable Ammonia Fertilizer Enterprises, LLC Announces Grant Award

April 6, 2009, Spirit Lake, IA

On March 20, 2009, Sustainable Ammonia Fertilizer Enterprises, Llc. (S.A.F.E.) and its farmer steering committee were notified that it is the recipient of a matching grant awarded by the Iowa Corn Promotion Board. “S.A.F.E. and Iowa Corn is pleased to announce the awarding of this grant and we are honored to accept it. It will allow us to further our research into the production of Nitrogen fertilizer made from a renewable energy source, that being wind” said Steve Gruhn of Spirit Lake, IA S.A.F.E.’s founder. “We are gaining significant momentum and our timing for this venture could not be better” he continued.

“Iowa Corn is proud to offer grants to get businesses that can help the corn industry, off the ground,” said Jerry Main, Chairman of the Iowa Corn Industrial Usage and U.S. Production Committee. “We have had many successful ventures that started with the help of a grant from Iowa Corn.”

Mark Rosenbury of Des Moines, IA, S.A.F.E. Llc. President added: “We are pleased to be associated with the Iowa Corn Promotion Board and their innovative initiatives to promote the growing and diverse uses for corn in Iowa, the United States and globally.”

“This grant will allow us to continue our research to identify the best production methods and technologies available for renewable and sustainable ammonia,” said Don Vanderbrook, S.A.F.E. Llc. Program Director.

S.A.F.E., LLC, headquartered in Spirit Lake, IA, is engaged in the development of renewable based anhydrous ammonia fertilizer production technology to support the increased demand for bio fuels and conventional use crops. S.A.F.E. Llc. has recently been awarded grants from the Iowa Farm Bureau and the U.S.D.A. Value Added program as well. These grants are being utilized to further S.A.F.E.’s investigation and planning for the goal of producing Sustainable Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer from electrical energy created by the areas bountiful wind resources.

---Freedom Fertilizer - Spirit lake, Iowa --- The Center of Green Energy Production

2009-02-11T19:32:00.004-06:00

A new proposed transmission grid puts Spirit Lake, Iowa and Freedom Fertilizers Home at the center of the proposal. If you are unfamiliar with our location we are located in NW Iowa on the Iowa/Minnesota State line. Basically at the Center of the map just south of the proposed 4way power grid junction at Lakefield, MN. Add in the numerous biofuel plants, wind farms, ammonia storage and ammonia pipelines we have with in a 60 mile radius.

We are Green Ground Zero

Michigan Company Proposes Network Of Electric Transmission Lines Across The Region

(Sioux Falls, S.D.)-- A Michigan company is working on plans for a network of transmission lines across the midwest that could carry electricity from wind turbines to millions of homes.

The project by ITC Holdings Corporation would cost in the neighborhood of 12 billion dollars and include an electric grid in the dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinoin and Indiana.

It would have the capacity to carry electricity to 3.6 million homes to Chicago and points east.

One of the lines in the grid would connect a substation near Lakefield, Minnesota with one near Sac City. The line would primarily follow Highway 71 through northwest Iowa.

Officials say it would take 10 or years to build the network of transmission lines.

A reply to the U of M Study - Ethanol; no better than gasoline

2009-02-04T21:54:00.002-06:00

And The Answer Is???............. Sustainable NH3 Fertilizer

So we want and need greener biofuels???? How do we do it? There is one simple answer... and its in the wind all around us. I bet you did not know that the largest share of fossil fuel used in growing an acre of corn is not for tractors and combines, its for the nitrogen fertilizer. More carbon based petroleum goes into the production of the 150 plus lbs of N fertilizer that is needed to maintain todays corn yields than all of the fuel that it takes to till,plant,harvest and deliver that acre to market. And to make matters worse, currently we are importing more NH3 ammonia into this country than oil on a percentage base. Over 70% of the nitrogen fertilizer used in this country is imported and it is coming from the same areas of turmoil around the world as oil. This is not just an issue about green biofuel or even energy independence. This is really about food security. So lets not debate all the bad about ethanol. The truth is we have invested billions of dollars into an American product that creates American jobs and keeps American dollars in the American economy. And just maybe we should find way to make these green fuels greener. Isn't that what American innovation is all about. So rather than look at todays doom and gloom,more closing and more layoffs. We need to forget about Wall Streets blind leading the blind. And we should believe and support the new biofuel industry we already have and figure out how to make it better with innovation. Isn't that the American way and that is what will cure this economy. So what is our one simple answer?.... Sustainable nitrogen fertilizer produced from the Upper Midwest's bountiful wind resources.An innovative answer to make biofuels greener, America energy independent and the future of American Agriculture 100% sustainable

www.freedomfertilizer.com

Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address Saturday, January 24th, 2009

2009-01-24T13:52:00.004-06:00

President Obamas first weekly address calls for unprecedented action to increase jobs and create green energy. What he is calling for puts our Freedom Fertilizer project squarely in the bullseye for what this administration wants to do to strengthen the economy, create jobs and jump start green energy. Mr Obamas goals strengthens our conviction that we are on the right path and underscores our need for diligence to get the Freedom Fertilizer story told.

Here is an overview of his comments.

We begin this year and this Administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action. Just this week, we saw more people file for unemployment than at any time in the last twenty-six years, and experts agree that if nothing is done, the unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four. And we could lose a generation of potential, as more young Americans are forced to forgo college dreams or the chance to train for the jobs of the future.

In short, if we do not act boldly and swiftly, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.

That is why I have proposed an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan to immediately jumpstart job creation as well as long-term economic growth. I am pleased to say that both parties in Congress are already hard at work on this plan, and I hope to sign it into law in less than a month.

It’s a plan that will save or create three to four million jobs over the next few years, and one that recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment - the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there’s so much work to be done. That’s why this is not just a short-term program to boost employment. It’s one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education; health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century.

Today I’d like to talk specifically about the progress we expect to make in each of these areas.

To accelerate the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and biofuels over the next three years. We’ll begin to build a new electricity grid that lay down more than 3,000 miles of transmission lines to convey this new energy from coast to coast.

We’ll save taxpayers $2 billion a year by making 75% of federal buildings more energy efficient, and save the average working family $350 on their energy bills by weatherizing 2.5 million homes.

MAJOR GOALS:
•
Doubles renewable energy generating capacity over three years. It took 30 years to reach current levels of renewable energy production. This plan will double that level over the next three years – enough to power 6 million American homes.
•
Undertakes the largest weatherization program in history, modernizing 75% of federal buildings and two million homes.
•
Computerizes every American’s health record in five years, reducing medical errors and saving billions of dollars in health care costs.
•
Launches the most ambitious school modernization program on record, sufficient to upgrade 10,000 schools and improve learning environments for approximately 5 million children.
•
Enacts the largest investment increase in our nation’s roads, bridges and mass transit systems since the creation of the national highway system in the 1950s.

Spurring a Clean Energy Economy
•
Doubling renewable energy generating capacity over three years. It took 30 years for our nation to reach its current level of renewable generating capacity – the recovery and reinvestment plan will double that level over the next three years. That increase in capacity is enough to power 6 million American homes.
•
Jump-starting the transformation to a bigger, better, smarter grid. The upfront investments and reforms in modernizing our nation’s electricity grid will result in more than 3,000 miles of new or modernized transmission lines and 40 million “Smart Meters” in American homes.
•
Weatherizing at least two million homes to save low-income families on average $350 per year and modernizing more than 75% of federal building space, saving taxpayers $2 billion per year in lower federal energy bills. Today, the federal government is the world’s largest consumer of energy. The recovery and reinvestment plan will make an historic investment in upgrading the federal building stock that will save taxpayer dollars and help catalyze a green building industry.
•
Launching a Clean Energy Finance Initiative to leverage $100 billion in private sector clean energy investments over three years. The finance authority will provide loan guarantees and other financial support to help ease credit constraints for renewable energy investors and catalyze new private sector investment over the next three years.

The Alchemy of Air: By Author Thomas Hager

2009-01-02T15:19:00.000-06:00

A Jewish Genius, A Doomed Tycoon, and the Scientific Discovery That Fed the World but Fueled the Rise of Hitler

A recently published book that documents the history and importants of NH3

Fixed nitrogen (which is immediately usable to plants) is essential in agriculture. Its rarity, as science writer Hager (The Demon Under the Microscope) shows, dramatically shaped the world and its politics. But by 1905, as Hager details, German chemist Fritz Haber discovered a process for transforming abundant air-borne nitrogen into ammonia, and Carl Bosch's ingenious engineering scaled Haber's benchtop chemistry into industrial processes to make fertilizer. But Hager's story is not only one of triumph, of how Haber and Bosch invented a way to turn air into bread, earning a Nobel Prize and saving millions from starvation. This is also a story of irony and tragedy. First, life-saving nitrogen is also the main ingredient in explosives, and Hager cogently summarizes the Haber-Bosch process's critical role in both world wars. In addition, Hager illustrates Haber's extreme German patriotism and desperate wish to assimilate; shattered by the rise of Hitler, he became an outcast, abandoned even by his onetime colleague Bosch. It's unfortunate that Hager ends his fine book with only a brief look at the deleterious role of nitrogen on the environment.

A National Renewable Ammonia Architecture

2009-01-02T14:50:00.003-06:00

A National Renewable Ammonia Architecture

This paper describes the current manufacture and uses of ammonia as well as describing a path forward to a fully renewable future for this vital fertilizer ingredient. The primary author and editor is Neal Rauhauser, with assistance in its development rendered by Dave Bradley, Orignal founders of Freedom Fertilizer along with input from Bryan Lutter, and Larry Bruce.

Ammonia Production Methods Today

It can be argued that ammonia is perhaps the most critical manmade substance to the existence of human society. Without continuing agricultural growth, the world's expanding population faces famine and the concomitant breakdown of civil society. The expansion of population and modern society is based on fertilizer driven agriculture...and modern nitrogen fertilizer is ammonia. Traditional agricultural strategies of slash and burn, fallow fields and crop rotation were gradually replaced in the 19th century by fertilizer from the mining of nitrates and harvesting of guano deposits. At the dawn of the 20th century, the end was in sight for Chilean nitrate deposits and there was growing concern that a worldwide famine would ensue. The discovery of ammonia synthesis by Fritz Haber and subsequent commercialization by Carl Bosch in 1910 freed the human race of the need to worry about a source of nitrogen fertilizer for a century.

The Haber Bosch process requires only pure nitrogen, pure hydrogen, and a high pressure reactor with a catalyst in order to produce ammonia. The nitrogen is free for the taking from the air but hydrogen, no matter what method we use to obtain it, involves the use of energy. The primary sources for the hydrogen used in ammonia manufacture today are natural gas and coal. There are an increasing number of petroleum coke projects in development, and a handful of remaining hydroelectric facilities built forty to sixty years ago.

Natural gas is the cleanest high volume production method used today, generating only about two tons of carbon dioxide for every ton of ammonia produced. Natural gas resources are being depleted just as oil has been The year 2007 saw the closure of the Agrium facility in Kenai, Alaska due to natural gas depletion, the impending conversion of Rentech's East Dubuque facility to coal from natural gas, and the Farmland Chemicals plant from Lawrence, Kansas resuming operation after being dismantled and reconstructed in its new location in natural gas rich Oman.

Natural gas supplies are certain to decline in the long term...and in the short term the price will be unpredictable. Coal is plentiful, petroleum coke is also readily available, but the carbon in these fuels is used in a gasification process to strip hydrogen from water which will result in a tremendous expansion of CO2 emissions. Coal based production emits about four tons of carbon dioxide per ton of ammonia and petroleum coke produces a bit more than that. All planned new production both domestically and globally seems to be coal gasification based. Carbon dioxide figures are uncertain as plant efficiency can have significant (25% or more) influence on overall output, but they are a good first approximation for estimates of national or global scope.

Global Ammonia Production Emissions

Global ammonia production is about 69% natural gas and 29% coal. One petroleum coke system is in operation today and three legacy hydroelectric facilities nearing end of life contribute about 1.5% of the total global production of 131 million tons.

The 90 million tons of ammonia produced annually with natural gas release 180 million tons of carbon dioxide. The 38 million tons of ammonia produced with coal released an estimated 152 million tons of carbon dioxide. The total 332 million tons of emissions are 7.3 % of the estimated 4,500 million tons of worldwide emissions of CO2.

Given that natural gas supplies are fragmented and depleting quickly it is reasonable to assume that existing natural gas based ammonia plants could be converted to coal gasification in an emergency. Should this happen ammonia related carbon dioxide emissions would climb to 524 million tons which would equal 11.6% of the 4,500 million tons humans already add to the atmosphere.

Ammonia In Domestic Agriculture

Fully half of all human protein comes from man made ammonia. Plants require nitrogen to produce protein and ammonia is the only viable source for large scale nitrogen applications. The United States uses about 18.5 million tons of ammonia annually from the global production of 131 million tons. 90% of this is used in agriculture. Over the last forty four years of statistics corn has averaged nearly 44% of the total, wheat almost 14%, and the remaining 42% of agricultural use is spread among all other crops.

American farmers planted 86 million acres of corn and 65 million acres of wheat in 2008.Corn fertilization averaged 170 pounds of ammonia per acre and wheat received 72 pounds per acre. Yields averaged 154 bushels per acre for corn and 36 bushels per acre for wheat.

Fertilization rates are given in ammonia equivalents. Depending on the crop, producer preference and availability, ammonia can be applied in various compounds. Actual usage by volume of nitrogen was anhydrous ammonia (59%), urea (27%), a mixture of urea and ammonium nitrate known as UAN (9%), and the remainder were various specialty forms of fixed nitrogen such as ammonium phosphate compounds.

Properly fertilized wheat will yield fifty to sixty bushels an acre while alternating fallow cultivation methods will struggle to produce just a little more than half that amount. Protein content is also a concern – hard red spring wheat will have up to 17% protein when fertilized and as little as 9% if not. Many farmers didn't fertilize in the fall of 2008 due to the difference between grain price and ammonia price which may mean a 50% reduction in total yield and a a 40% reduction in protein in what is harvested. If this has happened to farmers in all of the large wheat exporting nations, and we believe it has, it's a recipe for collapsing governments all over the developing world.

The corn crop is raised primarily for its starch content and protein is not closely tracked. A sudden reduction in ammonia based fertilizer input here will have the same yield effect as is seen with wheat – a sudden plunge to about half of the current average.

Domestic Ammonia Production Facilities

These 29 locations are ammonia plants either operating or, in the case of the recently idled Agrium Kenai facility, in good enough condition to be returned to service. Many of these plants are not purely ammonia production but instead operate in conjunction with follow on fertilizer manufacturing or are involved in the production of derivative industrial products such as nitric acid. All capacity figures are in thousands of tons of ammonia per year.

Owner	Location	Capacity
Agrium	Borger-TX	490
Agrium	Kenai-AK	280
Agrium	Kennewick-WA	545
CF Industries	Donaldsonville-LA	2040
Coffeyville Resources	Coffeyville-KS	375
Dakota Gasification	Beulah-ND	363
Dyno Nobel	Cheyenne-WY	174
Dyno Nobel	St. Helens-OR	101
Green Valley	Creston-IA	32
Honeywell International	Hopewell-VA	530
Koch Nitrogen	Beatrice-NE	265
Koch Nitrogen	Dodge City-KS	280
Koch Nitrogen	Enid-OK	930
Koch Nitrogen	Fort Dodge-IA	350
Koch Nitrogen	Sterlington-LA	1110
LSB Industries	Cherokee-AL	159
LSB Industries	Pryor-OK	300
Mosaic Company	Donaldsonville-LA	508
PCS Nitrogen	Augusta-GA	688
PCS Nitrogen	Geismar-LA	483
PCS Nitrogen	Lima-OH	542
PCS Nitrogen	Memphis-TN	371
Rentech Energy	East Dubuque-IA	278
Terra Industries	Beaumont-TX	231
Terra Industries	Donaldsonville-LA	360
Terra Industries	Port Neal-IA	336
Terra Industries	Verdigris-OK	953
Terra Industries	Woodward-OK	399
Terra Industries	Yazoo City-MS	454
Total		13945

U.S. Ammonia Facilities Excluding Alaska

This is a link to the Google Earth file that was used to produce the map image you see. Clicking individual site markers will lead to the given company's web page associated with the site, should I have been able to locate one. Koch and Terra are particularly forthcoming regarding what their plants actually produce.

Domestic Ammonia Economics

Domestic ammonia production was 10.7 million tons in 2007 and the USGS states that plants were running at 84% capacity, I list the Agrium Kennewick facility which is easily locatable both via Google Earth and web searches but it did not make the USGS plant list for that year. Capacity and production figures are not exact and I attribute this to overall market instability – plants were on and off based on commodity prices.

2007 imported ammonia totaled 7.9 million tons. Major suppliers were Trinidad (55%), Russia (21%), and Canada (12%). The price at port is stated to be $339/ton indicating a transfer of $2.7 billion overseas. 2008 prices were dramatically higher and wealth transfer was perhaps double this amount.

Trinidad, supplier of over half of our total imports, had reserves of 30.7 trillion cubic feet (~17 Tcf proven, 7.8 Tcf probable, 5.9 Tcf possible) of natural gas in 2004 and usage was just under a trillion cubic feet a year. Many additional industrial plants meant to use the inexpensive gas and labor in this Caribbean country were planned to come online between 2008 and 2010. A 2004 IMF study indicates that Trinidad would exhaust its reserves within ten years of these plants becoming active. The global economic recession should slow domestic industrial consumption but liquid natural gas exports will ensure an ongoing drawdown of reserves. Russian exports are subject to rising geopolitical tensions. TOD contributor Jon Freise has published a report indicating that Canadian natural gas is on a path to negative EROI within the next six years.

The three largest ammonia import sources are all under different stresses and will all fail within at most a decade, cutting the United States off from 88% of current imports. This alone will amount to a reduction in ammonia supplies in the continental United States of about 36%. Domestic natural gas fueled manufacturers face similar issues.

National Ammonia Independence

The United States can and must achieve national ammonia independence by a mix of refurbishing existing plants and construction of new renewable production facilities.

Existing facilities could produce about 14 million tons of ammonia annually and would require 2.5 million tons of hydrogen to do this. This hydrogen, current produced from a mix of natural gas and coal gasification could be replaced with electrolytically produced hydrogen.

Using current electrolyzers 6,300 two megawatt units would be required and assuming 8,760 hours of operation annually 12,500 megawatts of continuous power would be needed to fully replace hydrogen derived from fossil fuels. A scheme to buffer renewably produced hydrogen output would enhance the flexibility of such a configuration but at this time the best buffer seems to be just getting on with the process of making ammonia. Even so, the Louisiana ammonia plants may have access to nearby salt domes which would allow the creation of solution mined caverns capable of storing large volumes of hydrogen, a configuration that would naturally complement the large amount of wind resources available on the Texas plains.

Imports total 7.9 million tons. Based on business planning done by Third Mode Energy we calculate that this volume of production could be covered by 7,900 megawatts of continuous power and a $25 billion investment in Haber Bosch style plants. Assuming $0.04/kwh electricity resulting in an annual cost of $2.8 billion the physical plant costs could be recouped in ten to fifteen years given the ammonia pricing we saw in 2008. Hydroelectric or nuclear are the only clean power sources steady enough to drive this process today. We believe there is a simple route to a system that would work with a hybrid wind and base load power source but this likely uneconomical; why would anyone build a wind driven plant to run 85% of the time and only achieve 40% of capacity when the same equipment could be installed near a hydroelectric facility and produce 100% of the time?

Immediate construction of renewable ammonia facilities based on the very well known Haber Bosch process should begin at once but funds must be directed to promising new synthesis methods as well. Solid state ammonia synthesis (SSAS) promises capital costs that are half of the Haber Bosch systems, power costs that are perhaps 25% less, and the ability to build plants a tiny fraction of the size of a Haber Bosch plant, making it suitable for use with power sources as small and as variable as a single utility scale wind turbine.

Renewable Electric Sources

Ammonia can be produced by a completely carbon free process that releases no greenhouse gases. What is needed is renewably generated electricity at a relatively low cost, air and water.

Hydroelectric power for ammonia.

The United States Department of the Interior maintains a national inventory of dams – a database of over 8,800 locations in the United States with information regarding their purpose. This map and associated Google Earth file show 352 locations with either an impoundment in excess of eight square miles or a run of river installation. There is a negative correlation between good cropland and the elevation changes needed for good hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power in the $0.02/kwh to $0.04/kwh range will yield ammonia in the $350 to $500/ton range.

Run Of River Or Impoundments Greater Than 5,120 Acres

Wind power for ammonia.

There is excellent correlation between national wind resources and the wheat growing states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Kansas. The corn growing states of Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and Minnesota have good wind resources in their own right and usable rail links to the wind rich Dakotas. Assuming the wind intermittency problem can be remedied, either by the mastery of the solid state ammonia synthesis process or the creation of a grid footprint large enough to ensure continuous production, a wind energy based ammonia production industry can be envisioned. 7,900 2.5 megawatt turbines each with a 40% capacity factor would produce the electricity needed to cover the anticipated import deficit.

National Wind Energy Map

Solar power for ammonia.

Solar PV costs are too high for ammonia production based on current technology, but solar ammonia has potential.. A clever concentrated solar storage process using ammonia is in the pilot phase at the Australian National University but at this time there is no commercially deployable ammonia synthesis solution tuned for the sunny, relatively windless American southwest. A concentrated effort to develop such a thing would permit ammonia manufacture in that region, creating a domestic bilateral energy/food circuit in place of a similar trade arrangement with less friendly parts of the world.

National Solar Energy Map

Conclusions

This is a late draft of this white paper and it has been written in an attempt to provide a rigorous reference of manageable size for those working on renewable ammonia outreach and lobbying. I'm offering it here in hopes it'll get a thorough going over by the community before I have to start showing it to decision makers.

Happy New Year

2008-12-28T13:49:00.003-06:00

As 2008 draws to a close I have to say that with all of the doom an gloom that has come about, personally this past year has been great and eye opening. I have been given an opportunity to meet and talk to so many great people who have vision and ideas that can help, if not solve so much of what has made 2008 a bench mark in what is wrong. The economy, environment, energy, industry, managment, government. Yea things seem to be in quite mess. But NH3 - Freedom Fertilizer - SAFE has presented a opportunity that in time will tell what was right about 2008
Have a Merry Christmas and a great 2009.

Steve Gruhn

Below is some information that I think is what is going to be what is right about 2009 and Sustainable Ammonia

Barack Obama

John Holdren as the new White House science advisor.

John Holdren is a Harvard University physicist who has focused much of his career on the causes and consequences of climate change.

Bottom line: He's an energy and climate specialist.

Beyond John Holdren, Obama's also tapped...

Steven Chu for Energy Secretary.
Chu is the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and is a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new and renewable energy sources.

Carol Browner for Climate Czar.
Browner is a former EPA administrator, and works with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright on environmental protection, climate change, and energy conservation.

Lisa Jackson for the head of the EPA.
Jackson is a Princeton-educated engineer who has spent more than 20 years working on environmental regulation, and has been exceedingly vocal about protecting our air, water, and natural resources.

Tom Vilsack Secretary of Agriculture
As we all know an Iowan in this position is priceless for our project

A major transition is happening right before our very eyes. And even if you're among the crowd that thinks climate change is bunk - or that renewable energy isn't everything it's cracked up to be - one thing is certain...

The shift in energy is happening, and it's going to be seismic!

In fact, not only is this transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy infrastructure going to happen...

It's also going to catapult renewable energy to the moon.

Letter to Iowa's Congressional Delegation

2008-12-18T19:33:00.005-06:00

Freedom Fertilizer
Sustainable Ammonia Fertilizer & Fuel for the Future
3006 Hwy 71 - Spirit Lake, IA 51360
Green Ground Zero
www.freedomfertilizer.com
712-330-3114

Dear Iowa Congressional Representatives,

Here is something I hope you will find very exciting from back home. Some of you we have already been in contact with. But now in light of recent appointments in the House of Representatives and by President Elect Obama we have a perfect storm brewing for our Upper Midwest region. I hope that you will take just a little time to look at what we are doing and what we see on the horizon. A Green Revolution and we are at the center ….A new Green Ground Zero. An opportunity to reverse so much of the damage done to our country and our economy since 9/11.... As you all know our Midwest area is quickly evolving into a huge green energy producer and NW Iowa is at the center of this activity. With a new administration and promises of massive public works projects to revitalize our nation and remove it from its addiction to oil the Upper Midwest stands far above the rest of the nation to be able to capitalize on this new growth. Our Upper Midwest, This Green Ground Zero holds the promise of being the next Silicon Valley of development, research, job growth and investment all tied to this green revolution. But only with leadership and vision.

You are the leadership. Freedom Fertilizer can be part of this vision and economic growth. I am very proud to say that we are the first private group in the country to receive federal grant money for the further development of renewable Anhydrous Ammonia for fertilizer and fuel. This concept stands to revolutionize production agriculture by once again making it 100% sustainable and renewable by freeing it from imported carbon based fertilizers and fuel. Freedom Fertilizers ideas and concepts may seem futuristic but are well thought out and quite achievable. We have come a long way and have a very good group of people from around the country working with us and on our behalf. I am hoping that you all can help by assisting us in getting additional recognition in Washington D.C. at this critical crossroad in time.

Below I have attached a letter that I have sent to President Elect Obama's advisors along with a general overview of our project and what our total vision is.

If you have any further questions or interest in what we are doing please contact me and I would be happy to supply you with more information and keep you in the loop.

Sincerely and Happy Holidays,
Steve Gruhn, President
Freedom Fertilizer
3006 Hwy 71
Spirit Lake, IA 51360
Green Ground Zero
712-330-3114

Open Letter to President Elect Obama Energy and Environmental Advisers

2008-12-15T12:20:00.004-06:00

Recently I assembled a list of President Elect Obama Energy and Environmental Advisers. Over the last several weeks I have sent several emails to them about Freedom Fertilizer. Below is the latest.

Dear President Elect Obama Energy and Environmental Advisers,
Here in the Upper Midwest we are working on a very simple solution to two of the largest problems facing the nation, food and energy. What do these two items have in common other than the issues surrounding Ethanol? This item is NH3….

Anhydrous Ammonia. Without it we have no nitrogen fertilizer. Without nitrogen fertilizers we have no green plant production, no food, no fiber……no biofuels.

Nitrogen is the catalyst of all plant growth. Today we import more NH3 on a percentage basis than oil. It is made from fossil fuel and much of it is coming from the same countries that control the worlds oil !!!.l…….. This issue is not just about food production, it is about food security.

But we have a plan…. Sustainable NH3 produced from renewable energy such as wind power. The good news is that it is cost effective, it is a great energy carrier and a means of energy storage as well……NH3…H3 three times the energy density as pure hydrogen. Easily stored, existing infustructure, a trained work force and easily adapted to existing
diesel technology. We are convinced that this is the answer that we as a nation
are looking for.

I sent you all an email several weeks ago about our project. Since that time we are moving forward with a USDA grant to further the development of this over looked concept. This past week we made personal contact in both Iowa Senators offices. I hope that you will take the time to familiarize yourselves with what we are working on. The answers that we as a country are trying to find for energy, food, climate change, and job growth maybe very simple and right under our noses…….. Literally, lets wakeup to
ammonia.

Sincerely,
Steve Gruhn, President
Freedom Fertilizer
3006 Hwy 71
Spirit Lake, IA 51360
Green Ground Zero

We must take back our future!

2008-10-21T20:24:00.004-05:00

Please see my comments in red.
Steve Gruhn
Freedom Fertilizer

Russia, Iran and Qatar discuss forming gas cartel

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 1 min ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Russia, Iran and Qatar made the first serious moves Tuesday toward forming an OPEC-style cartel on natural gas, raising concerns that Moscow could boost its influence over energy markets spanning from Europe to South Asia.

Such an alliance would have little direct impact on the United States, which imports virtually no natural gas from Russia or the other nations. What about the direct impact effect on the 70% of our imported Ammonia supply that is made from natural gas and has ties to these suppliers!!!!

But Washington and Western allies worry that closer strategic ties between Russia and Iran could hinder efforts to isolate Tehran over its nuclear ambitions. In addition, the United States opposes a proposed Iranian gas pipeline to Pakistan and India, key allies.

In Europe — which counts on Russia for nearly half of its natural gas imports — any cartel controlled by Moscow poses a threat to supply and pricing. In this country it would threaten our food supply and its pricing!!!

Russia, which most recently came into confrontation with the West over its five-day war with Georgia in August, has been accused of using its hold on energy supplies to bully its neighbors, particularly Ukraine.

Moscow cut natural gas exports to the former Soviet republic over a price dispute during the dead of winter in 2006 — a cutoff that caused disruptions to European nations further down the pipeline.

The 27-nation European Union expressed strong opposition to any natural gas cartel Tuesday, with an EU spokesman, Ferran Tarradellas Espuny, saying: "The European Commission feels that energy supplies have to be sold in a free market."

Together Russia, Qatar and Iran account for nearly a third of world natural gas exports — the vast majority supplied by Russia — according to U.S. government statistics. The three hold some 60 percent of world gas reserves, according to Russia's state-controlled energy company Gazprom.

The United States — the world's largest consumer of oil and gas — produces most of its natural gas needs at home, importing only from Canada and Mexico. This is true but what about Ammonia. Over 70% of our Ammonia is imported. It is made from natural gas and this gas does not come from Mexico or Canada . It comes from these future cartel nations. Ammonia is made from natural gas there and then shipped here.

Russia is also a major oil producer, though not an OPEC member. For its part, Iran, in its standoff with world powers over its nuclear program, has threatened to choke off oil shipments through the Persian Gulf if it is attacked.

A gas cartel could extend both countries' reach in energy and politics, particularly if oil prices bounce back to the highs seen earlier this year, prompting renewed interest in cleaner-burning natural gas and other alternative fuels.

Tuesday's gathering in Tehran appeared to be the most significant step toward the formation of such a group since Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, first raised the idea in January 2007.

"Big decisions were made," said Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari. His Qatari counterpart, Abdulla Bin Hamad al-Attiya, said at least two more meetings were needed to finalize an accord, according to the Iranian Oil Ministry's Web site. No timeframe was given.

Calling the grouping the "big gas troika," the chief executive of Russia's state-controlled energy company Gazprom, Alexei Miller, said it would meet three or four times a year.

"We are consolidating the largest gas reserves in the world, the general strategic interests and — what is very important — the high potential for cooperation on three-party projects," Miller said.

Already, Russia has built Iran's first nuclear reactor, which Iranian officials say could begin operating later this year. The West fears Iran's nuclear program could lead to development of atomic weapons; Iran insists it is only for peaceful energy production.

Experts say a natural gas cartel would not have the same influence on prices as OPEC has on oil since natural gas is not subject to the same severe fluctuations. Any price increase at all will affect food pricing and availability.

"There's always some worry when these guys get together that they'll try to replicate OPEC, but they know that's not doable," said Robert Ebel, senior adviser to the Energy and National Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "They can try to get more control over gas, but it's not OPEC." But can and will they control Ammonia????

That's because gas, unlike oil, is traded on much longer-term contracts, of as much as 25 years.

"Gas is a regional commodity and oil is an international commodity," Ebel said. "If you want to buy a tanker of crude, you can buy one at today's prices. When you want to build a natural gas pipeline, you have to have two things: enough gas to justify building a pipeline that will operate for 25 years, and ... customers that will agree to buy that gas at a range of prices for 25 years."

Ammonia is an international commodity that is made from natural gas. Ammonia (NH3) is not subject to these long term contracts.

Still, a natural gas cartel could wield some influence on world prices, particularly in Europe and Asia, said James Cordier, president of Tampa, Fla.-based trading firms Liberty Trading Group and OptionSellers.com. Or Ammonia prices here in the USA

"To try to maneuver the supply ... makes perfect sense," he said. "Just because it doesn't have the clout of oil, it's still in their best interest to deliver natural gas where it needs to go and manage supply in order to help manage the price."

Liquefied natural gas — a rapidly growing segment of the market — could be traded as a commodity similar to oil at some point in the future, and the move by Russia, Iran and Qatar appears to anticipate that, said Konstantin Batunin, an analyst with Moscow's Alfa Bank.

Gazprom, the Russian state energy company, is looking to make the U.S. one of its prime markets for liquefied natural gas, and sent senior executives to Alaska last week to discuss energy projects.

So where does this lead us?? Down the same path as oil. We must take control now. How? by pursuing local renewable ammonia production. It is just to important not to. In today's world of modern production agriculture, fertilizer is just as critical as fuel. Especially with a growing hungry world. At Freedom Fertilizer we think fertilizer is just to important and renewable production is the answer.

Ammonia Fuel Network Conference Presentation

2008-10-03T20:07:00.003-05:00

Freedom Fertilizer Recieves $100,000 grant

2008-09-04T18:43:00.003-05:00

Freedom Fertilizer and their farmer steering committee Winds of Change, is very pleased to announce that they have been awarded a $100,000 USDA matching funds grant to explore the feasibility of wind driven ammonia production. The money awarded will be used to study the costs and the technology involved to produce Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) by using wind driven electrical generation. NH3 is the back bone of all Nitrogen fertilizers. It is an essential ingredient in todays modern production agriculture and it is a vital part of our food supply and now biofuel production also. This funding is part of the USDA funded Value Added program, the goals of which are to help encourage new ventures in rural areas. Ventures that can help create new jobs and industry by adding more value to the resources or products that are already available or being produced in Rural America.

Freedom Fertilizer along with the Winds of Change committee believe that they have a great opportunity in NW Iowa to add additional value to a resource that they have quite an abundance of, wind. Freedom Fertilizer founder Steve Gruhn has been investigating wind issues for a number of years. He has been very encouraged by the tremendous growth that they have seen in the wind industry and it brings many areas of positive growth with it. But one of the items that concerned him was seeing the miles of transmission lines leaving the area. Steve said "When I looked at these power lines I saw something that reminded we of what happened in the 1970's with Ag production. Farmers at that time were encouraged to plant fence row to fence row, only to see the fruits of their labor loaded on 100 car unit trains and shipped from the area. Just like the power on these new transmission lines. Back then when the grain left in the 70's so did the livestock industry and when the livestock left, so did the meat packing industry and so on and so on. Soon after that it was the 1980's. I started farming then and know all to well where that left us". From that point on Mr Gruhn became determined to come up with away to to see if some way we could produce a product from wind power that would not only stay in Iowa but also do something that would enhance the industry that was already here. Hence the beginning of Freedom Fertilizer.

The Freedom Fertilizer/Winds of Change group will not only work on perfecting the wind to NH3 process but they will also use this money to fund business planning as well. Planning that will be needed to make a profitable venture from this wind to NH3 discovery process. Their preliminary work and study of this process is proving very favorable. Mr Gruhn says From what they have learned so far, much of which is posted on this website, they have every indication that Wind to NH3 is not only a viable venture but a profitable venture as well.

Please Visit our New Website too

2008-08-28T19:21:00.002-05:00

For more information please check out

our new Freedom Fertilizer website

We are still adding to it. You will find it very informative

Excellent Papers on Ammonia as fuel

2008-08-28T19:10:00.003-05:00

Recent work done at University of Michigan on using ammonia in a spark ignition engines

http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Publications/Adobe/P2008_06.PDF

http://me.engin.umich.edu/autolab/Publications/Adobe/P2006_12.PDF

Freedom Fertilizer. What is it all about .....?

2008-08-15T23:03:00.001-05:00

Freedom Fertilizer. Our goals are to develop, promote and produce green, renewable NH3 from wind power and other renewable energy sources.

As we all know concerns about fossil fuels, our economy and global climate change all go hand in hand. The largest percentage of fossil fuel consumed in growing an acre of corn is for the production of Nitrogen fertilizer. More energy is consumed to produce the 150 plus pounds of nitrogen that is required to sustain today’s yields than all other aspects of production. More energy than tillage, planting, harvesting and delivery combined. A single ton of NH3 made from natural gas also produces 1.8 tons of Co2. And if we where to use coal rather than natural gas as some are promoting. Well over 3 tons Co2 would be produced along with many other unwanted pollutants. Worldwide there are more tons of NH3 produced annually than any other man made chemical compound. NH3 production is a huge consumer of fossil fuel. The production of NH3 consumes over 4% of our yearly fossil fuel production worldwide and hence a major greenhouse gas contributor.

Currently the United States is importing a higher percentage of NH3 than we do fossil fuel. More than 75% of the ammonia used in this country is imported. This is not only bad for our economy this puts the United States at risk. It is not just about food production but about food security.

By Freedom Fertilizer promoting green NH3 and assisting in the development of new ammonia production technology we can reduce greenhouse emissions and the energy needed to produce NH3. This new process we are assisting with can reduce the energy requirements to produce a ton of NH3 by 1/3 and slash the Co2 emissions to zero. This not only makes corn production greener but will help to silence the criticism of the carbon foot print of corn based ethanol as well. Our current cost estimates using this new technology is: for every 1 cent of kw electricity cost, NH3 cost is $100 per ton. So 5 cent a Kw wind power would make for $500 per ton NH3. Much better than today’s spot prices of well over $1000 per ton. Not only greener but less expensive as well

As demand grows for dwindling domestic natural gas supplies and transportation costs sky rocket, foreign produced NH3 will continue to become more costly. The most common sense solution is for green NH3 produced "renewably" from local wind and water resources. Right here in the corn belt. This is Freedom Fertilizers main objective

But then to make the scenario even more appealing is the prospect of NH3 as fuel. You are probably not aware of Mr Norm Olson from the Iowa Energy Center and his push for ammonia fuels. We are working closely with his Ammonia Fuel Network to push these ideas of NH3 as an ultra clean 100% renewable energy source. A local company H.E.C. in Algona, Ia is currently working on building Ammonia fueled internal combustion engines.

Imagine the day when renewable sources of energy, wind, solar, wave, hydro or geothermal could be producing the power required for NH3 production units in or close to the same fields as crops that require Nitrogen fertility. These same units could also be producing the NH3 fuel for the equipment that will be tilling, planting and harvesting these same fields. Does this seem impossible? We don't think so. With proper promotion and funding this can happen. And just maybe, much sooner than anyone can imagine. We have the renewable resources, technology and knowledge to accomplish everything that I have just described. What we need is wide spread support and venture capital funding to make it happen.

In times like these projects like Freedom Fertilizer can help to shed light on not just ideas but work to create long term solutions.

Ammonia as Fuel Belgium 1945

2008-08-15T21:28:00.013-05:00

Whats old is new!!! We can learn from the past for our future.
I have put the summary first as it reads like it was written just
yesterday.... Not 63 years ago. Imagine what could happen putting
todays technology with yesterdays proven mechanical genius.

Ammonia from Hydro. Dr. John Holbrook

2008-08-15T18:06:00.003-05:00

Wind to Ammonia Generation

2008-08-15T17:53:00.001-05:00

Ammonia is an essential commodity for industry and agriculture, and without large-scale production of synthetic ammonia, modern high yield agriculture would be impossible. Half of the protein content of our food supply is sustained by man-made ammonia. Ammonia and some of its derivatives provide the fixed nitrogen needed by plants and algae to produce proteins from carbohydrates via photosynthesis. In addition to sustaining the production of all seed grains other than nitrogen fixing crops (such as soybeans), ammonia based fertilizer is essential to maximizing yields in biofuel stocks. Accelerating demand for food driven by population increases will be paralleled by enhanced demand for agricultural production of biofuel inputs. Pressure on ammonia production and pricing is inevitable.

Unfortunately, almost all ammonia is currently produced using methane (natural gas) as both the hydrogen source and energy source for this reaction. Huge quantities of carbon dioxide by-product are then dumped into our atmosphere. Almost 4 % of manmade CO₂ pollution (i.e. CO₂ made from fossil fuel combustion) is generated by fossil fuel-based ammonia production.

In addition to the environmental impact of current ammonia production, instability in the natural gas market has driven the cost of production to unsustainable levels for farm producers. The price of natural gas appears to be mimicking the rise in world oil prices. Ammonia prices are tracking the rise in natural gas pricing, and in some cases, exceeding this rate of price increase, doubling and even tripling fertilizer prices in some areas.. Many natural gas based ammonia plants have been shut down in the U.S. in the last 5 years, and most ammonia used in the U.S. is now imported. Availability of ammonia fertilizer in some markets is even now problematic, and with increasing pressure on natural gas supplies, is likely to deteriorate.

A solution to this untenable situation exists, which is to produce ammonia free of dependence on fossil fuels. Prior to the 1970’s ammonia was commercially produced for nearly a century from air and water using the Haber/Bosch process. Air plus water plus energy input equals ammonia. Integrating renewable wind generation as the primary energy input for ammonia production creates a carbon free process for ammonia generation at a predictable and sustainable price…a price currently competitive with natgas ammonia and less expensive as natural gas prices increase. New technology for solid state ammonia production is coming online within the next two-three years, which will improve efficiency and provide significant scaling advantages over Haber/Bosch.

Pickens Plan and LeMars Iowa Town Hall Meeting

2008-08-15T17:42:00.003-05:00

If you have not heard of Mr T Boone Pickens and his Pickens Plan yet you have probably been under a rock. He and his plan have been all over newspapers and news shows lately. He seems to be the only person with enough money and foresite to see what this Country is up againist and what he thinks maybe an answer. We need to applauded and support his efforts and I encourage you to learn more.

Here is a link to his website: The Pickens Plan

Well Mr Pickens was in LeMars, IA today (Thursday 8/14) to present his plan to a full house of 300 plus. I was lucky enough to attend. Not just as a specator but as a guest. What an opportunity!!!! It was absolutely great to meet Mr Pickens in person and to get a few minutes of his time to tell hiim about our projects and hear first hand about the Pickens Plan. Fate has been on our side. Mr Pickens hosted a Pre-Pickens Plan presentation reception that Neal Rauhauser (fellow Freedom Fertilizer member) and I were are part of. It involved Mr Pickens, the two of us and 4 others, one of which was 5th district Congressmen to be (candidate) Rob Hubler who I called a couple of days before to make him aware in hopes that he could attend. Needless to say Freedom Fertilizer had great representation. Even though T Boone did most of the talking Neal and I both got some points in and I was able to get the attached information into his hands.

Now for the best. After the meeting Boone took off. A Friend who was with, Duane Kolar and I decided to stop at the Wells Dairy for Ice Cream. And guess who came in? Mr T Boone Pickens and a couple of his people. He saw me and called me by name, and asked what I thought about the presentation. I then was able to bend an ear about the information that I gave him earlier, renewable NH3, SSAS, and HB. I got one of his cards and a contact at his BP home office to talk with further about what we are doing. I plan to follow through and contact his office right away. Who knows? Right place, right time hopefully the right investor?

Freedom Fertilizer has a place and now is the time. A development such as the Pickens Plan could be just the right spring board for renewable fertilizer. I will keep you updated.

Hydrocarbons feed the world: All the more reason for Freedom Fertilizer

2008-07-12T20:02:00.002-05:00

About 97% of nitrogen fertilizers are derived from synthetically produced ammonia. Natural Gas-based Nitrogen fertilizer made it possible for us to populate the Earth, and now we're hooked. 40 percent (soon to be 60 percent) of the Earth's inhabitants thus owe their survival to natural gas, a non-renewable fossil fuel.

The Saudi Arabia of Wind

2008-07-09T19:39:00.001-05:00

Ammonia Fuels Conference

2008-06-19T19:17:00.002-05:00

Ammonia – The Key to US Energy Independence

Ammonia Conference

5th Annual Ammonia Fuel Conference
September 29 – 30, 2008
McNamara Alumni Center
Minneapolis, MN

Agenda - COMING SOON
Participants can expect an excellent technical agenda covering all areas of ammonia as a fuel.

Tentatively scheduled optional tour
University of Minnesota wind-to-ammonia synthesis lab, Wed., Oct 1.

Meeting Location and Accommodations
The McNamara Alumni Center on the UM campus, www.alumnicenter.umn.edu/events/johnson-3.html.

We have arranged for a block of rooms at the nearby Radisson University Hotel, www.radisson.com/hotels/universi, which is within easy walking distance of the McNamara Alumni Center. NOTE: this block of rooms will be released on August 29, 2008 - set your accommodations now.

Check with your hotel regarding transporation from/to the airport.

A number of other hotels are also near the meeting location...
Radisson University Hotel, 615 Washington Ave SE
Minneapolis, Phone: 612-362-6625

Days Inn, 2407 University Ave SE
Minneapolis, Phone: 612-623-3999

Holiday Inn Metrodome, 1500 Washington Ave S
Minneapolis, Phone: 612-333-4646

Radisson Hotel Metrodome, 615 Washington Ave SE
Minneapolis, Phone: 612-379-8888

Registration is free
But, it is mandatory in order for us to know who and how many will be participating. There is a conference room space limit, register today.

The Iowa Energy Center has covered the cost of the meeting facility. There are dining options available within walking distance of the McNamara Alumni Center.

To Register
By Fax, complete the Registration PDF and fax to: (515) 294-9912

By Phone, call the Iowa Energy Center: 515-294-8819

By E-mail: send the completed Registration PDF as an attachment to:
iec@energy.iastate.edu

Call for Papers -- If you would like to present a paper at the conference, please submit a title and half-page abstract to John Holbrook by June 30. The emphasis of the paper should be on some aspect of ammonia as a fuel, i.e., NH3 production, storage, distribution, safety, and end uses. The presentations will be 25 minutes in length with 5 minutes Q&A.

Meeting Organizers
John Holbrook, AmmPower, 509-396-2082, john.holbrook@charter.net
Norm Olson, Iowa Energy Center, 515-382-1774, nolson@iastate.edu
Mike Reese, University of Minnesota, West Central Research and Outreach Center, 320-589-1711, reesem@morris.umn.edu

Open Letter to Senator Tom Harkins Office on need to fund renewable fertilizer research

2008-06-13T11:47:00.003-05:00

Dear Harkin Staffers:

I am located at Spirit Lake and have been working on a project we call Freedom Fertilizer (freedomfertilizer.com). The goal of this project is to produce renewable nitrogen fertilizer from wind power. We applied for a USDA Value Added Grant in April and at that time we received a letter of recommendation from both Mr Harkins and Mr Grassleys offices, which I am very grateful for. Because of current fertilizer price and availability trends and the fact that nearly all Nitrogen fertilizer is made from fossil fuel our project and research along these lines becomes more important very day.

Congress wisely included a provision in the Farm Bill -- Section 9003 -- that addresses the current fertilizer availability and price crisis, but it requires funding to succeed. Can you please pass along this request that Senator Harkin support funding for Section 9003 in the 2009 budget to help solve this crisis?

The main reason for the high price of fertilizer is the escalating cost of natural gas used to produce anhydrous ammonia, the primary ingredient in nitrogen fertilizer. Section 9003 of the Farm Bill therefore calls on USDA to study the challenges and opportunities for producing fertilizer from renewable energy sources in rural areas, like ours.

This study is necessary because, despite the substantial public benefits of fertilizer produced with renewable energy, the technology research and development is moving too slowly. It's a new idea, the renewable energy and fertilizer industries have very few business relationships with each other, and until recently cost was not a major issue. That is no longer the case. Farmers in the Midwest have seen their costs for ammonia fertilizer raise ten fold in the past few years. USDA needs to start solving the problem now.

Supporting this study provides benefits for Iowa on multiple levels, economic, environmental, and national security. Apart from lowering fertilizer costs, producing "renewable fertilizer" should benefit the renewable energy industry in particular and rural economic development in general. Wind resources all over the Midwest can be used to produce renewable fertilizer during off-peak times and increase winds economic value. Producing renewable fertilizer domestically, in rural areas, will yield much more economic benefit than importing fertilizer from abroad, and assist in food security since fertilizer is a basic input.

Senator Harkins support for funding this worthwhile program at the $1 million level authorized only in FY 2009 will help free farmers in Iowa from dependence on imported, fossil fuel-based fertilizer, lower their costs, and build new green industry in rural areas of Iowa around renewable energy sources.

Please contact Senator Harkin and ask that the program be funded. If you have any questions about the provision, please review the attached fact sheet, and please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Sincerely,
Steve Gruhn
Freedom Fertilizer – freedomfertilizer.com
3006 Hwy 71
Spirit Lake, IA 51360
712-330-3114
sgruhn@freedomfertilizer.com

The Impending Oil Export Crisis

2008-06-11T20:42:00.001-05:00

All,
I normally do not make a habit of posting commentary particular from brokers, sales people and those that like to declare the extreme or worst case scenario. I like to think that all of you are smart enough to listen, read and come to your own conclusions as to the cause and affect of what is happening in the world today. But here is a case where the author seems to have the best explanation I have found and I feel the need to share. We all know that the oil well is not dry. But in the world of economics supply and demand still king. What we are experiencing today is nothing more than these two simple laws at work. The hardest part for most Americans to understand is the fact that we (the biggest, the brightest and the strongest) can not just flip a switch that will change these 2 simple laws. We do not control the supply and the worlds demand is now way more than even our own over indulgence in oil. We must realize that the only way to fix the problem.... is to fix the problem. This is fixing our fixation on energy that we need to import. We can not discover new reserves, pump American or conserve our way out. We must turn to capturing the sustainable energy that we have right here at home. Wind, geothermal, solar, ocean current and bio. By doing so we will create a new American economy that will be stronger and healthier fed by our own desires to over indulge in energy not oil. Freedom Fertilizer wants to and can play a major part in this transition.
Steve

The Impending Oil Export Crisis

By Chris Nelder | Wednesday, June 11th, 2008

Just shy of a year ago, I wrote an article for Energy and Capital entitled "Canary in a Data Mine," in which I examined the global scenario for oil production and demand, and concluded:

So the upshot is this: There is clearly a yawning gap, possibly as much as 2%, opening between production and demand in 2007 for those of us who depend on imports.

It looks to me like the loss of export capacity will prove to be the canary in the data mine. It doesn't really matter if the peak is technically a few years off if we can't satisfy our ever-growing thirst.

That canary has now keeled over.

The problem is simple: Net oil exporters are awash in the cash from their oil exports. As they grow up and continue to industrialize, they consume more of their own production, which cuts into their exports.

There is also the factor of subsidies. With such extraordinary income from their oil sales, net oil exporters don't need the income from domestic consumption. They'd rather invest it in building infrastructure and stimulating their economies, so they subsidize the cost of fuel. Fast-growing economies like China would screech to a halt if consumers had to pay the market rate for fuel, so instead the Chinese pay about $2.80/gal for gasoline, and in the countries of the Middle East, gasoline generally goes for under $1.50/gal.

It should be obvious that as time goes on, the export problem becomes a vicious circle. As export supply falls, the price of exported oil goes up, which sends even more money to the producers, who will use it to build more and consume even more energy, which will further cut into their exports. A growing sentiment among net oil exporters to save some oil for future generations will further limit their output.

For a country like the U.S., which imports about two-thirds of its oil, the most immediate problem isn't peak oil, but peak exports. The gradual loss of imported oil has hit us first, and will cost us more than the mere global supply peak would.

So this week, I take a closer look at the vicious circle of declining exports.

The Export Land Model

Dallas-based independent petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown and Dr. Samuel Foucher (aka "Khebab"), a Ph.D. expert on signal processing, have been working for about two years now on a model to demonstrate the net export problem, which they call the Export Land Model (ELM). Progress on the model and its implications have been regularly discussed on TheOilDrum.com, including the recent update "Is a Net Oil Export Hurricane Hitting the US Gulf Coast?"

The model proposes a hypothetical oil exporting country called "Export Land," and makes the following simple and reasonable assumptions about it:

Peak production rate: 2 mbpd
Rate of decline post-peak: 5%/year
Internal consumption: 1 mbpd
Rate of consumption increase: 2.5%/year

Here's their model in graphical terms:

Source: The Oil Drum

The results of this analysis are startling:

Exports cease in only nine years, far faster than overall oil production.
Exports decline at an accelerating rate, starting at about -13% and ending at about -48%, averaging about -29% per year over the 8 years of decline.
Only about 10% of the oil produced after the peak is ever exported!

Applying the concepts in the model to the world's actual oil production, they focused on the world's top five net oil exporting countries—Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran and the UAE—which together account for about half of the world's net oil exports.

The results were ominous:

In their middle case scenario, these top five exporters will approach zero net oil exports around 2031, starting from an average net export decline of about one mbpd per year in 2006. In a recent post, Brown notes, "net exports by the top five net oil exporters dropped by 800,000 bpd in 2006, from a 2005 peak of 23.5 mbpd, and I estimate that they dropped by about one mbpd in 2007."

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, data from the EIA did indeed show about a one million barrel per day decline in exports in 2007.

Exporters to the U.S.

Since "peak exports" is what we really should be worried about in the U.S., let's take a closer look at our imports.

Here are the top 10 sources of U.S. crude oil and petroleum product imports, as of March 2008:

Top 10 Suppliers of U.S. Oil Imports and Their Fuel Costs

Rank	Country	Thousand Barrels	Domestic cost of gasoline ($/gal)
1	Canada	78,814	$5.49
2	Saudi Arabia	47,806	$0.45
3	Mexico	42,111	$2.35
4	Nigeria	36,381	$0.38
5	Venezuela	32,009	$0.19
6	Iraq	23,967	(no data, probably about $0.25)
7	Algeria	13,674	$1.21
8	Russia	12,466	$3.97
9	Angola	12,043	$1.90
10	Virgin Is.	9,002	(no data)

Sources: Oil Import data: EIA. Gasoline prices: German Technical Corporation

According to EIA, the total crude oil and petroleum product supplied to the U.S. market in March was about 612 million barrels. Total imports were 389 million barrels, or 64% of our total consumption. (Considered on an annual basis, and looking only at crude oil, our imports are probably closer to three-quarters of the total than two-thirds.)

By way of example, if it were all priced at $130 a barrel, the oil we imported last year would have cost $638 billion, which is probably in the neighborhood of what we'll spend this year for imports. That's over four times as much as we are spending annually on the war in Iraq.

The economic fallout from oil prices has arrived in the form of a widening trade deficit. According to a report from the Commerce Department yesterday, both the price and the volume of imported oil hit new highs in April, which contributed to overall U.S. imports reaching a record $216.4 billion. The trade deficit now stands at $61 billion.

No economy can survive such a drain on its finances. If we don't do something to stop that flow of money to oil exporters, it will kill us. Consider this: The price of oil has approximately doubled over the last year. If it doubles again in the next year, that fiscal wound will be bleeding at the rate of about $1.3 trillion per year, or about 10% of our total GDP!

Charts for Our Top 9 Suppliers

To see how the export decline problem might affect us here in the U.S., we now look at the net exports of our top 9 suppliers in turn. Normally, I wouldn't have attempted this sort of data analysis for a weekly column, but I just discovered that Jonathan Callahan of Mazama Science has released a very handy little online tool called the Energy Export Databrowser that makes it easy. (The tool uses data from the BP 2007 Statistical Review, which has no data for the Virgin Islands, so their production not shown here.)

Here are his charts of oil consumption, production, exports and imports for each country, with the net percentage change from 2005-2006. (Note: for countries with no consumption data, only production is shown.)

Canada: Exports +16.4%

Fortunately for the U.S., oil exports from Canada are actually rising, due to a boom in production from unconventional oil and gas, and tar sands. Canada's production is truly the only significant bright spot in the outlook for oil imports to the U.S., and we have focused on it intently in picking stocks.

Saudi Arabia: Exports -4%

The situation for the world's top oil exporter is quite different, where exports decreased 4% from 2005-2006, and 7% from 2006-2007 (EIA). At Saudi Arabia's level of production, this is an enormously worrisome development.

Mexico: Exports -4.2%

Mexico's export decline is of particular concern, since they are one of only two suppliers who can reach us by pipeline. Their supergiant field Cantarell has gone into collapse, declining at the rate of about 14% a year. By the end of 2009, it is projected to be producing only half of what it was producing at the end of 2004.

Nigeria: Production -4.6%

Nigeria continues to be beset with civil unrest and strikes, which have shut in between 800,000 and 1 million barrels per day of capacity for the last two years, and dampened hopes for a significant increase in its production. In fact, its production actually fell from 2005-2006:

Venezuela: Exports -5.5%

Venezuela's exports have been in decline for a decade, and the rate appears to be accelerating. According to the latest EIA data, Venezuela's net export decline rate now stands at -7.6% a year.

Brown notes that the combined net oil exports from Venezuela & Mexico to the US dropped at the whopping rate of -32% per year over the six months between last October and this March.

Iraq: Production +9%

Production data from Iraq is notoriously unreliable, due to a robust black market and deliberate reporting of incorrect data. We also have no consumption data for Iraq in this database. In my considered opinion, the extremely slow progress that the Iraqi congress has made in establishing revenue sharing and production agreements between the various parties, and the continuing violence and sabotage in that country, makes it an unreliable hope for increasing exports substantially, at least in the foreseeable future.

Algeria: Exports -1.1%

Algeria is one of the few African oil producers where the environment is relatively stable, and where oil production might hope to be increased. It is also utterly dependent on its oil revenues, which make up nearly all of its export income, and that should serve to make it a compliant participant in the global oil markets. However, it is still a small producer, accounting for only about 5% of our oil imports.

Russia: Exports +1.5%*

I put an * after that number because Russia's export situation has changed since 2006, where the dataset used to generate these charts ends. I included this chart for the sake of completeness, and to keep with the same dataset as the other charts.

According to Brown and Foucher, Russia's exports declined 6.7% from December 2006 to December 2007. Their projected 10-year net export decline rate for Russia is -8.2%/year, ±4%, with a middle case scenario approaching zero net exports in 2024.

(For a good detailed look at Russia's oil production, see Foucher's recent analysis, "Russia's Oil Production is About to Peak.")

Angola: Production +14.2%

Angola has just surpassed Nigeria for the first time in 50 years as the top African oil producing nation. The country produced 1.87 million barrels per day in April, according to OPEC, vs. Nigeria's production of 1.81 million barrels per day. As previously mentioned, this is mostly due to the shut-in capacity in Nigeria. Angola's production—accounting for about 5% of the U.S.'s imports—might be increased a little in the coming years, but in the absence of consumption data the exportable portion is unknown, and in any case is fairly insignificant in the big picture for the U.S.

Looking at those charts, one thing should be very clear: Many of the big exporters on whose output we most desperately rely aren't going to be reliable for much longer. Most of the production gains are from small producers in Africa, which are fraught with conflict and relatively inhospitable to foreign investment, so we shouldn't count on them too much, either.

A Sobering—and Profitable—Thought

The impending export crisis is a very sobering realization. When oil imports simply aren't available, we will be forced to live within a smaller energy budget, and the adjustment could be painful.

So never mind the fact that the world will still be consuming a wee little bit of oil by the end of the century.

Never mind that we're only about halfway through the total amount of oil that the world will ever produce.

In fact, never mind peak oil.

The real questions are much more urgent:

Will the world be ready to deal with zero next exports from the top five exporters in a mere 25 years or so? World net exports appear to be declining at about 2.5% per year already, and according to the ELM model, we should expect that rate to accelerate.

Closer to home, will the U.S. be prepared to replace the two-thirds of its lifeblood that is imported, before it goes off the market? High oil prices and a struggling economy have already reduced our imports by 6% over the last year, but how close to the bone can we cut?

This is why we here at Angel Publishing have sought out the best fossil fuel plays we can find in North America. As the old Billie Holiday song goes,

Money, you've got lots of friends
Crowding round the door
When you're gone, spending ends
They don't come no more

Rich relations give
Crust of bread and such
You can help yourself
But don't take too much
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own

The unconventional oil and gas plays we have uncovered in the U.S. and Canada may not be able to make us fossil fuel independent, but they will be the resources we count on as the export curtain falls.

Amid the panic, there will also be profit...and a piece of it can be yours when you subscribe to the $20 Trillion report.

Until next time,

Chris

Global Warming Meets Peak Oil

2008-05-28T10:28:00.001-05:00

Nice article written by fellow Freedom Fertilizer LLC member Dave Bradley

Summary

In this paper, a 50 x 50 approach is described that will significantly cut foreign imports of crude oil/transportation fuels while still allowing some degree of automobile usage and truck transportation. The 50 x 50 plan envisions a doubling of fuel efficiency in cars (to the present European levels), which will allow a 50% reduction in gasoline usage. Next, another 50% reduction in gasoline usage is achieved by cutting the car miles traveled per year in half through a variety of methods – more mass transit, closer proximity of residences and workplaces, more telecommunication, technology improvements such as more electric cars, plug-in hybrid vehicles and especially more electrically powered mass transit for urban and inner ring suburban populations. The combination of 50% reduction of a 50% reduction would lower U.S. automobile fuel consumption by 75%. In conjunction with a doubling of current biofuels production, the 50 x 50 approach would drop crude oil derived auto fuel by almost 84%. While such an approach will still not result in cheap auto fuels, it will result in the ability to use SOME fuels, with essentially no need to import hydrocarbons for auto fuels. After all, having some is better than having none, at least from a transportation fuel perspective.

Introduction

First, a couple of definitions are in order. Global warming (GW) is caused when the amount of energy coming from the sun onto the earth for a year is greater than the longer wave radiation that gets radiated out into space from the earth. It’s a simple energy balance; accumulation is equal to the difference between incoming and outgoing energy. Peak Oil (PO) can be defined many ways, but the simplest is when the demand exceeds the available supply for an extended period, and it tends to happen when about half of the readily recoverable oil has been removed from the world’s oil fields. Once demand exceeds the supply, the price rises until some part of that demand is “extinguished”. This process is known as demand destruction and the result is that supply and demand are brought into balance. This balancing does not have to be fair or equitable, since this is a macro economic process, but it does appear to be how scarce resources are rationed by our society, at least in the energy field. Fairness and equitability in this process can be arranged, but that must be done by political means – otherwise, the default is a ruthless economic outcome, where those least able to deal with the consequences of the GW + PO combination will be most severely impacted.

In general, GW results when the composition of certain components in our atmosphere change; most notably carbon dioxide and to a generally lesser extent, methane concentrations are the main variables in this balance. In some instances, ash and other compounds can block solar radiation from reaching the earth’s surface (this happened when the Krakatoa volcano exploded in the late 19^th century). Humans have been causing this GW at a detectable level since the invention of the steam engines and widespread coal usage occurred in the late 18^th century, but the pace has accelerated drastically in the latter part of the 20^th century. As of the beginnings of the 21^st century, it’s a runaway train. Partly this is a result of more people on earth, and more importantly more people consuming greater per capita quantities of fossil fuel energy, and dumping the by-product CO₂ into the air at a rate faster than the oceans can absorb it. A significant amount of the GW effect has arisen by the combustion of those ultra-convenient fossil fuels – oil, diesel, fuel oils and natural gas. But, those “good times” are about to become very expensive really fast. As for the substitution of coal derived fuels for oil and natural gas – that will just make a bad situation worse, and faster, too.

PO and the related Peak Natural Gas (PNG) can be described from the mathematics of exponential growth in the consumption of finite resources. A modification of the “growth equation” (exponential growth – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth) is called the Logistic equation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function), and this has been verified as valid in a number of fields, and most oil fields, for some time. In summary, when the amount of oil initially consumed is a very small faction of the available resource, things behave like the growth equation. However, as larger amounts are cumulatively consumed, the rate of production eventually begins to decline; the maximum rate of consumption/production tends to occur when about half of the resource has been consumed, and then the rate of production of this resource begins to decline. Before this peak era, the price for this depleting finite resource (such as oil) is somewhat a function of the costs of production, purification and distribution. Near and/or after this peak, the economics of scarce resources become dominant, since greater rates of production become increasingly difficult and then impossible to maintain. Prices tend to be no longer a function of the cost of production, purification and distribution, but more a function of what customers either can and/or are willing to pay for this valuable product. And at this point, customers tend to assume the characteristics of desperate gambling addicts. Their only recourse is to either go without or to find alternatives, or else cease to either consume as much and eventually, any. After all, the down side of addiction does not have to be attractive; in theory, the pain of this downside is supposed to discourage the addiction in the first place. In theory……

Some Solutions

The solution to the global warming problem is quite simple. This mostly involves lowering rate of CO₂ pollution (combustion of fossil fuels and dumping the CO₂ into the atmosphere) to the point where the oceans can absorb more of this than is dumped into the air by human activities. Odds are, we will actually need to reduce the CO₂concentration from 385 ppm to near 350 ppm, which requires a sustained period when CO₂ consumption by the ocean is greater than the amount emanated into the air (see http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/mckibben). Of course, stating the solution and actually doing the solution are two different things…

The solution to PO and PNG is also quite simple….consume less of them, and do this at an increasing pace to at least match the decline of oil and natural gas production. While some of this lower oil and gas consumption can occur via substitution of renewable fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol, most of the substitution will involve greater efficiency and the replacement of the need to consume liquid and gaseous fuels. It turns out that the direct substitution of biofuels for our current rate of gasoline and diesel fuels consumption would be highly improbable – we just don’t have enough arable land. And some of this can be accomplished by the replacement of liquid fuel usage in transportation with electricity made via non-polluting techniques, such as wind turbines, tidal and run-of-river systems. Again, such solutions are easier said than done.

Furthermore, much of the GW and PO problem is not necessarily of a technological nature so much as it is a behavior problem. And the U.S. is the poster child of bad energy behavior, since we use about 25% of the world’s energy consumption with only 4% of the world’s population. One of the by-products of the export of the U.S. way of life is greater imitation of the American lifestyle (suburbs, cars, high energy consumption, high food/meat consumption) by countries such as India and China, which have over 8 times the population of this country. Thus, the current situation cannot continue with respect to oil and natural gas, and also for the climate control system of the world.

The replacement of electricity made via polluting approaches seems to be fairly straightforward, and somewhat particular to a given locality. In the U.S., the combination of a larger and more integrated electricity grid, widely distributed wind turbines and storage approaches such as pumped hydro has several times the capacity of the current U.S. consumption (potential of over 3000 GW supply, current demand/consumpton of about 450 GW), and all at prices similar to what are now being paid for electricity. However, the transportation energy issue probably will be an order of magnitude more difficult than the electricity production, and again, technical issues are not the major constraint – it is largely a behavior based problem.

One way to envision a solution to the current transportation involves what can be called the 50% times 50% approach. That is, a 50% reduction in gasoline consumption due to a doubling of the mileage of our automobiles, and a 50% reduction in the number of miles traveled in a given year. This will reduce our gasoline consumption to 25% of current levels. For the diesel situation (mostly associated with trucks, trains and airplanes), the basic solution will be increasing use of trains, and the concurrent electrification of train lines. For example, trains can haul about nine times the mass of trucks for the same quantity of diesel fuel. Freight trains were once often electrified in NY State, and that could also happen again. Passenger rail is significantly more fuel efficient than are airplanes, and such systems are widely used in advanced countries such as the European Union and Japan.

The current U.S. gasoline consumption is about 9.6 million barrels/day (mbd), of which about 0.5 mbpd is ethanol (EtOH), or about 5.2% of current gasoline usage. Most of the hydrocarbons are imported, and significant amounts of monies are now being exported to pay for this consumption of imported goods. U.S. average car mileage is nothing short of pathetic, and about 50% of Western Europe’s. And due to the recent devaluation of the dollar, Western Europe now has a higher standard of living than does the U.S. The efficient transportation is undoubtedly an important part of that equation. Thus, the first item of business should to replicate the car fuel efficiency of the European Union. Further improvements, such as the use of plug-in hybrids and electric cars, would obviously help this process along, but currently employed technology can achieve a doubling of average car mileage. Lowering of speed limits on interstates to 55 mph will also help with fuel efficiency (exclusively a behavior problem). Lowering consumption of gasoline to 4.8 mbd would raise the EtOH percentage to over 10.4% (for 0.5 mbd production), and lower gasoline imports (either as gasoline or as crude converted to gasoline) by 4.8 mpbd. That has a value of $655 million PER DAY, or almost $239 Billion/year, and that is just at current prices. If prices double by next year from today’s values (crude oil doubled from May of 2007 to May of 2008), that money export will be about $480 billion/year, all for something consumed with nothing left to show for it. Obviously, the impact of home grown fuels rises as the fuel efficiency rises. Even if 1 mpd of EtOH is produced, it has a negligible effect at an overall consumption of 9.6 mppd, and much more effect at reducing imported requirements at 4.8 mpd overall auto fuel usage rates.

The next 50% reduction would lower the U.S. net auto fuel consumption to 2.4 mppd. At this level, the combination of renewable fuels and domestically produced (or U.S./Canadian produced) hydrocarbons could eliminate almost all gasoline imports. As EtOH production rises to nearly 1 mbd, the net need obtain hydrocarbons for automotive use would be about 1.5 mpbd, a significant drop from the current value of 9.1 mbd, or a net (hydrocarbon) gasoline reduction of 7.6 mbd. Thus, a combination of some biofuels production and significant efficiency improvements can result in ending the dependence upon most foreign fuel imports. This will also be an enormous economic blessing with respect to the balance of payments issue, even if domestic fuel prices are higher than current levels. Much of the monies spent on domestically manufactured biofuels will translate into new job creation, also a desirable outcome. After all, jobs are good things to have.

This second 50% incremental reduction would come from a combination of efforts. A primary one would be mass transit, and especially rapid rail/light rail, which could be electrically powered. Another would be the net abandonment of “distant burbs”, such as outer ring suburbs and “ex-urbs”, in favor of higher density living which makes rapid rail/mass transit more economical and logical. Another would be to encourage people to live near where they work, and to discourage distantly located low density developments. Still another approach would be to encourage telecommuting, and video conferencing. Properly costing sprawl, and ceasing to invest in sprawl, as well as taxing it to discourage more sprawl from ruining our country further also would be important, and probably a very convenient way to finance some of the required mass transit infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt or built up. Finally, a huge investment in electrically powered mass transit and “short haul” rail (for example, Buffalo to Albany, with stops at Rochester, Syracuse and Utica, running down the I-90 tollway) would be needed, as well as decisions to not build any more roads in any significant manner. The previously mentioned electric cars (and examples such as electrical U.S. Postal vehicles)/plug in hybrids will also help achieve the second 50% reduction. Higher density living also will allow more use of walking and biking to replace what was formerly accomplished by cars in the ‘burbs.

On the supply side, increasing the amounts of biofuels used will have consequences – but these would certainly be significantly less dreadful than the alternative of continuing importation of crude oil and refined oil materials. The biofules and related agricultural/rural developments would also be a source of significant regional economic and employment growth. The increasing coupling of food and energy prices will need to be broken via the use of higher sales taxes on fossil fuels. This not only raises revenues for governments but it denies revenues to oil companies and especially oil countries (often both). However, this will require “profiles in courage” for politicians, and few of them seem to be prepared to be honest with their constituents, who probably don’t want to hear honesty or truth with respect to oil supplies, and oil prices from their political leaders, anyway. The other effect would be to stimulate the rural economy, since farmers could now sell their crops for both food AND energy (generally both, and only energy in certain circumstances) and do so profitably. Two common examples of this are when corn is converted into equal amounts of EtOH and DDGS, or soybeans are converted into soybean oil and soybean meal. This food and fuel option will result in somewhat higher bulk raw food prices, which tend to be a very small fraction of purchased food prices. This will also result in a transfer of money from urban to rural America, which would probably be a good thing, on balance. As a result, there will actually be a market for more crop outputs, and more farms can be profitably operated. For example, Erie County has seen a significant degradation of its farm economy, so this biofuels route offers the route to revive the farm economy. However, if crop prices are kept as low as possible, farming communities in the county will continue to dwindle, even if these crops are used exclusively for food. Thus, expansion of rural economic prospects seems predicated on raising prices for these products, and the energy or food plus energy options seems to be the only way that this can occur.

Another sort of crop – energy only crops – such as wood or shrubs/fiber crops could be grown, either as a solid boiler fuel (wood chips, for example) or as a feed for pyrolysis/Syn-gas facilities. Cellulose crops can be readily converted into synthesis gas (a mix of carbon oxides, hydrogen and water), which can be converted into methanol, EtOH, butanols, or hydrocarbon fuels. Finally, any carbon dioxide made from biofuels production, especially ethanol fermentations, can be reduced with hydrogen into fuels such as methanol, EtOH or hydrocarbons, such as gasoline or diesel components. The hydrogen could be derived from renewable electricity (especially wind turbines) and water, and this would increase the yield of fuels from crop fermentations by 50%, with no net CO₂ pollution. There has also been the possibility of cellulose derived EtOH (or butanols), but this requires EtOH prices that are well in excess of $6/gallon (or $ 7.50/gal hydrocarbon gasoline) before such operations are economically feasible. That break-even point appears to be coming soon.

Additional biofuel production from locally grown sources will require more crop feedstocks, which will require greater crop production. Inevitably, this will require greater usage of ammonia derived fertilizers, whether for energy only, food only or food-energy crops. Synthetic ammonia production involves the reaction of hydrogen with nitrogen, while “natural ammonia is made by a symbiotic arrangement of bacteria with certain plant roots, and where the plants exchange energy (as sugars) in return for ammonia (from the bacteria). For the local perspective, currently about 2 tons/hr of H₂ is used as boiler fuel in Niagara Falls (a by-product of chloralkali production). This is a dreadful waste of a valuable local resource, one which could be used to magnify local economic activity by significant amounts – this quantity of H₂ could be used to produce 1 million acres of corn, or 156 million bushels, or 408 million gallons of EtOH/year (or 26,600 barrels/day). This ammonia could also be produced in a “no CO₂ pollution mode”, presently very unique in the world – most ammonia fertilizer is made with H₂ made from fossil fuels, with by-product CO₂ pollution. However, both Olin and Oxychem, the current producers of the electrolytic H₂ in Niagara Falls, would undoubtedly want some kind of energy trade to make up for the H₂ that would not get burned if it were made into ammonia instead. At present, ammonia prices are somewhat coupled to natural gas prices (actually, higher priced than a direct ammonia-natural gas relationship would predict), and ammonia prices are also rising, while world wide capacity seems to be stagnant. Ammonia represents a potential growth industry for those regions with abundant electricity and large demand for fertilizer, and if we are to grow crops, we need NH₃.

Conclusion

The recent price spikes for crude oil and its major products – gasoline and diesel fuel – have gotten the attention of the public, which we are told is “surprised” by this price increases. However, this situation has been predicted – for just one example of this, see http://www.energybulletin.net/41167.html. Odds are, the doubling of prices from May 2007 to May 2008 is just the beginning of the demand destruction process, and especially the “peak exportable oil” situation. Once the initial whining and complaining process has passed, the solutions to ever decreasing quantities and availabilities of crude oil and refined oil products need to be undertaken. And the “we can drill our way out of it” or “we can use other fossil fuels” need to be avoided, as they are, in general a foolish, short-sighted and economically ruinous route to proceed upon. We need to realize that a lifestyle, economy and society built upon the inefficient use of finite and depleting quantities of liquid fuels for transportation arrangement is now obsolete, and becoming ever more untenable as the world’s petroleum reserves get used up.

One way around this disaster in the making is a 50 x 50 strategy, which can transition American society to a more efficient arrangement using already existing technology. The initial 50% drop in auto fuel usage can be accomplished just by raising current American car fleet fuel efficiency to current European levels. The next 50% reduction in auto fuel usage can be accomplished by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled per year by up to 50% in conjunction with electric car, plug-in hybrid vehicles, mass transit and higher density living arrangements for the vast majority of this country’s population, which lives in urban areas. The lowered transportation fuel usage will allow existing domestically produced petroleum to be supplemented with biofuels and renewable electricity produced fuels to satisfy the domestic market. And while this won’t be cheap, it will be a bargain compared to the alternatives, which range from societal decomposition to oil wars to a world where the climate is ruined by global warming.

Dave Bradley

Making Iowa farms energy self-sufficient

2008-05-07T18:15:00.000-05:00

There is a lot of talk of making Iowa farms energy self-sufficient using biomass feedstock these days. Doing this would pretty much have to cut into food production. And in todays world doing this is going to be a very tough sell. The energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of corn ethanol (1.3) means that a farm can never reach the factor of 2x EROEI if it only produces corn for ethanol. A method with an EROEI of 4 would require half the land to be used for energy, cutting the food supply in half. On the other hand, wind farms or solar collectors can use land more efficiently for energy production and would not cut into food production nearly as much. In the case of Freedom Fertilizer's goals and plans not at all.

One further way to look at this: Iowa is devoting about a quarter of its corn crop to making around 2 billion gallons of ethanol or about 160 billion MJ of energy a year. The installed wind capacity in Iowa is about 1.3 GW and this represents about 0.6% of Iowa's wind potential. But, already, wind is producing 12 billion MJ/yr in Iowa (30% capacity factor). So, if Iowa used just 10% of its wind potential, it would produce as much useful energy as using all of its corn for ethanol since ethanol is burned at about 30% efficiency.

Not all of Iowa has class 3 or better wind, yet in terms of energy production, the state would do much better promoting wind production rather than with ethanol. But we must make good with what we now have. That is an already installed corn/ethanol production capacity that requires fossil fuel to operate from seed to harvest and harvest to fuel tank. Or does it? Adopting the ideas and goals of Freedom Fertilizer would mean being capable of harvesting a larger percentage of the entire states wind capacity. 50% of Iowa's estimated wind production that would be 1 trillion MJ/yr. 6.5 times the energy of ethanol produced. Subtract the energy (Fossil fuel) used to produce ethanol, 120 billion MJ/yr leaving only 40 million green MJ/yr net gain from 25% of the states corn harvest that is converted to ethanol. While meeting a Freedom Fertilizer goal would mean 25X the green energy harvested using only 1/2 of the states wind resources.

Freedom Fertilizer's concepts and goals of making green fertilizer and fuel can make this even better. By converting this states wind energy into storable NH3 we can replace the corn's nitrogen fertilizer made from fossil fuel and the fossil diesel fuel used to plant, cultivate, harvest and ship this crop to the ethanol plant. Completing a full circle of production using 100% renewable, sustainable, locally made and reliable green fertilizer and fuel. This is only a part of the full Freedom Fertilizer concept, Making all of ethanols 160 MJ of energy content produced in Iowa green MJ
.

How much would this NH3 cost on a per ton or per equivalent gallon basis? Our estimates are quite surprising. Using newly developed technology (Solid State Ammonia Synthesis) created by our associates NHthree. Ammonia can be produced from wind power or any other renewable resource (hydro solar, geothermal, ocean current or off peak grid electricity). This process is particularly appealing to stranded resources that could not be developed or connected to the grid. NH3 produced with the SSAS process would cost approximatively $100 per ton per 1cent KW cost of electricity. In other words 4-cent KW power would equal $400 per ton NH3.

For a equivalent fuel basis. $400 per ton NH3 would be equal to $2.60 a gallon diesel. And how do we use NH3 as fuel. Actually very simply. Ammonia has a high auto ignition temperature (high octane rating) and a low flame speed. It has a critical temperature of 132.4°C which means that above this temperature it is a gas no matter what pressure it is under. The high auto-ignition temperature allows us to use very high compression ratios that boost efficiency. The slow flame speed means the fuel is thus better suited for compression ignition (as in diesel engines). The low critical temperature from the compression of NH3 makes it impractical for it be directly injected into the cylinders as a liquid. So ammonia must be introduced into the induction manifold behind a turbocharger where it vaporizes. The key to simple operation is dual fuel. Starting a diesel engine on diesel fuel and then introducing the vaporized gas into the manifold on a computer controlled basis. Running an engine on a blend of NH3 and biodiesel of up to 95%. The roll of the biodiesel is to act as an igniter and lubricator.

Freedom Fertilizer may not have all of the answers to making Iowa farms totally energy self-sufficient but we challenge anyone else to come up with a better plan that is greener or easier to implement. If we are to prosper in this state and make the best use of the resources available to us we must do it quickly and wisely.

Steve Gruhn
Freedom Fertilizer
3006 Hwy 71
Spirit Lake, IA 51360
712-330-3114

Ammonia: The Fuel for the Hydrogen Economy

2008-05-06T09:17:00.005-05:00

Ammonia: The Fuel for the Hydrogen Economy

Link to
Vox-Solaris
Independent Alternative Energy Technology Think Tank
Authors of this Article
Link to
Vox-Solaris newsletter

Hydrogen Carriers

Once a copious supply of hydrogen is established, the Hydrogen Economy could be implemented directly with hydrogen as it's name implies. But our research has shown that there are clear advantages to using ammonia instead. The ammonia molecule has 3 hydrogen atoms and 1 nitrogen atom. It contains absolutely no carbon whatsoever. It is easy to make on an industrial scale by means of the Haber process in which nitrogen from the air is combined with hydrogen at pressures of around 200 atmospheres and temperatures of the order of 500°C in the presence of an iron catalyst. And it is easy to use as a fuel. It can be reformed back into nitrogen and hydrogen so that the latter can be used in fuel cells although there are fuel cells that can operate directly from ammonia. And it can be burned directly in an internal combustion engine albeit with some modification, resulting in an exhaust of water and nitrogen. Ammonia is therefore, a good 'carrier' of hydrogen.

Hydrogen carriers are of interest because hydrogen on it's own is very difficult to store and by inference, to transport. By weight, hydrogen has a far higher energy content than any other fuel. But by volume it has by far the lowest. Roughly speaking, 1Kg of hydrogen contains about as much energy as 4 liters of gasoline, but at normal atmospheric pressure, occupies a staggering 11 cubic meters! To be as energy dense by volume as gasoline we would need to compress the hydrogen to something approaching 3000 atmospheres pressure. Even with a more achievable 300 atmospheres a hydrogen tank would be 10 times the size of a gasoline tank containing the same amount of energy.

And tanks capable of withstanding that sort of pressure are very heavy, not to mention expensive. Typically a modern tank made of carbon fiber composites, would weigh some 15 to 20 times the weight of the hydrogen it contains and weigh more than the equivalent gasoline tank. This puts paid to hydrogen's advantage of being the most energy dense fuel by weight.

And it gets worse. Hydrogen has the smallest atomic size of all elements and as a result, has a nasty habit of seeping into and through the walls of the tank, weakening their structure and posing a significant risk of structural failure. Clearly with 300 atmospheres of highly flammable gas involved, such an outcome is unwelcome. Tanks can be lined with a material less susceptible to hydrogen infusion and this certainly helps but only up to a point. Compressed hydrogen tanks will likely need regular inspection and are likely to have limited lifetimes.

Some car manufacturers have experimented with liquid hydrogen stored in a dewar. But it takes a lot of energy, about 40 percent of the fuel's energy content, to refrigerate hydrogen to the -253°C needed to liquefy it. And of course, the hydrogen in the tank won't stay cold and liquid all by itself. While dewars are very effective at keeping out the heat, they are not perfect and heat from the outside slowly creeps in causing the hydrogen to steadily boil off. It either has to be vented which adds to the wastage or the tank has to incorporate a cryostat which is a very expensive extra. In our view, liquid hydrogen for applications other than taking men to the moon, is completely impractical.

The problems posed by compression are less than those posed by liqification making compression a possible albeit expensive option for road transport where weight was not critical. The tank size would be mitigated if we use fuel cells instead of an internal combustion engine as the greater efficiency would require less fuel for the same distance. And we could accept a shorter range. But compression is a much less plausible for aircraft. Implementation of the hydrogen economy directly by using hydrogen is not really a practical proposition. Hence the interest in hydrogen carriers.

The Ammonia economy

Ammonia suffers from none of the storage and transportation problems posed by hydrogen. Instead of needing tanks capable of withstanding enormous pressure, ammonia is a liquid at ordinary temperatures when pressurized to a mere 8 atmospheres and there is no tendency for ammonia to pervade the walls of the tank. This is comparable to LPG and means we can use cheap, reliable tanks that last and do not require regular intensive inspection.

Converting hydrogen to ammonia does involve an energy cost that is higher than the cost of compression but only a fraction of that of liquefaction. This matters but if you have a carbon free source of hydrogen that is economic, this energy cost is acceptable if it results in a fuel that is cheap to transport and store. Another drawback is that compared to gasoline, an ammonia tank would occupy nearly 3 times the volume and be twice the weight. A headache for car designers yes but a blazing migraine no. A serious challenge for aircraft designers certainly, but a plausibility rather than an implausibility. The hydrogen economy was never going to come for free but the drawbacks of ammonia are in our view an acceptable price to pay for carbon neutrality. And compared to compressed hydrogen or the even worse liquid hydrogen, ammonia is a dream.

The hazards of ammonia

Ammonia has a very nasty smell so small leaks are easily detected but larger leaks are a serious threat to health. Concentrations of 5,000 parts per million are lethal. Large leaks arising from such as a car accident could easily kill the occupants as well as kill or very seriously injure, passers by.

Ammonia sounds scary but nor would you want to be to close to a gasoline tank that was about to be involved in an accident and rupture. The reason we never think of this is because decades have passed since being in a car accident commonly resulted in people getting cooked. Modern cars are designed to prevent tank rupture even in the most serious accidents and the strategy works.

It is actually more meaningful to compare ammonia not to gasoline but to LPG as both are liquefied gases under pressure. Tank rupture is clearly seen as being a very small risk by authorities charged with ensuring safety. If this were not the case there would not be LPG cars. In the event of a rupture, LPG is not going to poison anyone as ammonia could, but on the other hand, ammonia is much less likely to turn people into kebabs. With an ignition temperature in the region of 700°C, ammonia outside an engine, is essentially inflammable.

Ammonia fueled internal combustion engines

The real future of ammonia as a fuel almost certainly lies with fuel cells that can either operate directly with ammonia or a mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen obtained by cracking ammonia. However these are some way off and require scientific breakthroughs to become economic that we cannot just assume. There is also a huge legacy in the form of nearly a billion pre-exiting cars with internal combustion engines and the manufacturing infrastructure to build them. We are therefore interested in how to optimize an internal combustion engine for ammonia. This research needs to cover the scenario where we have the luxury of designing an engine from scratch, but also where we have a pre existing engine.

Ammonia has a high autoignition temperature (high octane rating) and a low flame speed. It has a critical temperature of 132.4°C which means that above this temperature it is a gas no matter what pressure it is under. The high auto-ignition temperature allows us to use very high compression ratios which boost efficiency although we can still use ammonia in low compression engines. The slow flame speed means the fuel is thus better suited compression ignition (as in diesel engines). It can also be used in engines with spark plus (gasoline engines) but would benefit from more aggressive ignition formats such as multiple spark plugs. The low critical temperature makes it impractical for ammonia to be directly injected into the cylinders as a liquid so injectors if used, must be designed to inject gas. Direct injection of a fuel into a cylinder is necessary to control timing of combustion in any engine utilizing compression ignition. Ammonia can be introduced into the induction manifold where it vaporizes without the need of a carburetor. but in this scenario we cannot use compression ignition as either the engine would fail to start when cold or knock (pre-ignite) when hot - or both!

Essentially what this boils down to is this. If we start with an diesel engine, we would need to change the injectors and if we start with a gasoline engine we would need to change the spark plug regime and for good measure, fit a high compression head. Not as cheap as a conversion to LPG but not as expensive as changing the engine let alone the car.

If we start from scratch, then we can really go to town. We would go for very high compression (35:1), direct gas injection but with spark plugs for cold start. We would spring load the pistons to be knock tolerant and use high temperature lubricants to allow a higher operating temperature. The inlet valves would close late, part way into the compression stroke. This technique reduces the effective compression ratio (down to about 27:1) but also reduces exhaust temperature, thereby improving efficiency. The technique also reduces power output so this we make up for by heavily supercharging the engine. We anticipate a thermal efficiency of around 42 percent and we will let you know how far we got when we publish the results of our research towards the end of 2008.

NH3 Prices critical to a hungry world and our local and national economy

2008-05-02T20:40:00.008-05:00

NH3 pricing per ton, per region, 1990 to 2008

NH3 article in the New York Times

USDA report on rising NH3 prices

Anyone connected to agriculture knows how important fertilizer is to plant production. It is a critical ingredient for modern production agriculture. With out it or with less use, crop yields plummet. At Freedom Fertilizer we like to refer to NH3 as the catalyst to all plant production. Nitrogen is the first step in plant growth and NH3 is the first step in all sources of nitrogen fertilizer. So without out NH3 we have no healthy plant production of sugars and starches. No grains for livestock. No food no fiber. And now with bio fuels, no ethanol or bio diesel. Yes, NH3 is the first step to all Ag production. But now with its steadily increasing price, it is a catalyst for inflation too. NH3 pricing is a major determining factor in all food prices and food availability around the world. Sadly without NH3's use, a catalyst for hunger.

Freedom Fertilizer is working to further the development of new technology like SSAS (solid state ammonia synthesis). Along with our goal of producing green fertilizer and fuel. Freedom Fertilizers wants to answer the call for a reliable, renewable, sustainable and affordable source of nitrogen fertilizer. Think of the amazing possibilities of green NH3 produced around the world from resources like wind, hydro, ocean current and solar. This opens the door to producing NH3 in remote areas with stranded resources. Areas that may not be connected to the grid, roads or pipeline. Areas like Central Africa and Asia where Nitrogen fertilizers maybe hard to come by. This could mean modern production agriculture for hungry people and a potential source of income by harvesting a bumper crop. These stranded, unusable resources can be used for the creation of food and NH3 fuel. Just imagine what economical, locally produced NH3 that is green, renewable and sustainable could mean to to Iowa, the nation and the hungry around the world.

Please pass this information on and lets get behind an idea that can literally change the world we live in. Permanently for the better.

Freedom Fertilizer Summary Business Plan

2008-04-20T19:04:00.003-05:00

Freedom Fertilizer answers the energy/production challenge facing the Iowa ag-economy by capturing and converting stranded wind power into anhydrous ammonia (NH3), a fertilizer critical to sustain corn production and a biofuel capable of delivering the advantages of hydrogen based energy using existing diesel technology, which will facilitate consistent renewable power generation and provide carbon free fuel for agricultural use.

Increasing pressure on oil and natural gas reserves is driving the cost of farm production ever higher. All ammonia fertilizer is currently produced from natural gas, and prices have consistently risen over the last seven years. Natural gas production is expected to peak within five years, putting more pressure on costs. Availability of ammonia fertilizer in some markets is even now problematic. An alternative source of this critical fertilizer that is local and sustainable is a critical need for Midwest corn producers. Iowa farmland requires an average of 125 to 200 pounds/acre of ammonia to produce current corn yields. Current cost is approaching $800/ton and expected to increase.

Oil prices have also impacted ag producers in rising fuel costs. Diesel is $4.00/gallon and increasing. Ammonia is a carbon free hydrogen based fuel which can be used in current diesel internal combustion engines with minor modifications. The fuel will be locally produced and sustainable, freeing farm producers from reliance on foreign oil and the unpredictability of energy prices.

Iowa is blessed with great natural wind energy resources. One of the primary challenges of effectively utilizing wind as an energy source is its inconsistency. Developing a technological answer to store wind energy from peak production periods to be used when the wind stops blowing is a critical need. NH3 production will generate carbon free hydrogen based fuel which can be used for electric power generation to supplement wind when necessary.

The business opportunity presented by the synergy of wind power generation and ammonia production offers locally produced carbon free power, fertilizer and bio-fuel that is sustainable and profitable, while reducing reliance on foreign oil and stabilizing costs.

Freedom Fertilizer LLC seeks funding to construct a 50MW ammonia production plant co-located with a current wind generation facility to begin production of commercially viable ammonia. Capturing excess heat from the process creates the opportunity for a year round green house facility or algae/biodiesel production unit offering additional revenue potential.

Process

The following graphic provides an overview of the Freedom Fertilizer process:

As shown, outputs of the process include:

192 tons per day of Oxygen (O₂) from Electrolysis
36 tons per day of Oxygen (O₂) from Air Separation
136 tons per day of Ammonia (NH₃) from Haber-Bosch
~23 MBtu/hr of heat from Electrolysis
~7 MBtu/hr of heat from Haber-Bosch

Management

Freedom Fertilizer LLC management includes experience in all aspects of the enterprise, including agriculture, wind energy, chemical engineering, business development, banking, environmental regulation, government and the law.

Dave Bradley Mr. Bradley has degrees in chemical engineering (BSChE) and Environmental Engineering (MS). Currently an energy consultant, wind turbine developer, and local environmental activist (Wind Action Group, WNY Climate Action Coalition), Mr. Bradley worked for 20 years at Allied Chemical's Buffalo Research Laboratory in various R&D and production/design projects. His work at Allied Chemical resulted in commercialization of products and 14 patents.

Steven Gruhn: Mr. Gruhn is an entrepreneur with over 30 years in agriculture and horticulture, with experience in all aspects of business operation. He successfully started a commercial turf farm, which ran in conjunction with his family’s 800 acre farm, which he took over at the age of 20. Mr. Gruhn currently owns and manages a retail garden center. It currently employs 9 full time and up to fifteen seasonal part-time. It consists of a retail garden center, floral shop, 12,000 sq. ft of greenhouse, nursery sales lot and a commercial landscape division.

Barry Shaw Sackett JD/BBS Finance and Economics: Mr. Sackett is a partner in the law firm of Sackett & Sackett, PC. The firm was started by his grandfather in Spencer, Iowa in 1918 and specializes in Agri-Business, Real Estate, Estate Planning, Taxation and Business Development. Mr. Sackett held positions as CFO, Controller or General Counsel with the following Companies: ATI Title Company, the title insurance division of Wells Fargo Mortgage; F.W. Carson Companies, a general engineering and trucking company; California Waste Services, a construction recycling company; TheBrain Technologies, a knowledge management software company; and Arbor, a sporting goods and apparel manufacturer and retailer. Mr. Sackett’s experiences include start-up, merger, reorganization, and mature growth of companies large and small. Mr. Sackett has worked in state government and federal government on environmental issues.

Neal Rauhauser, CCNP, CCDP: Mr. Rauhauser is the founder of the Stranded Wind Initiative and a leading proponent of the development of stranded renewable energy sources. He was educated at Iowa State University in computer science and currently maintains a carrier network engineering practice in addition to his work for the Stranded Wind Initiative, as well as working with several of the commercial ventures which it has spawned.

Frank Hannaford: Mr. Hannaford has over 40 years of experience in the field of information processing, including more than twenty-five years leading complex, large-scale state-of-the-art projects and business development efforts. His track record includes responsibility for managing complex distributed system projects involving multiple customers at multiple sites, representing millions of investment dollars.

Additional Elements

Freedom Fertilizer uses existing, proven technology to produce ammonia. The Haber Bosch process has a 90+ year history of commercial use. The unique idea is co-locating ammonia production with wind generation to produce ammonia without natural gas, utilizing sustainable power and resources.

Wind based ammonia is a financially desirable alternative to natural gas based NH3 under current market conditions. The University of Minnesota Morris wind driven ammonia pilot project demonstrates that ammonia can be produced using hydrogen from water electrolysis at a cost of $680/ton and these costs are tied solely to the servicing of capital debt and labor. (Current natural gas based ammonia pricing is nearly $800.) Once capital costs are retired, ammonia production costs will be limited to labor and plant maintenance. A near term cost advantage of $200/ton is achievable, with a long term differential projected at $500/ton or more. Price advantage and pressure on natural gas supplies will drive customer demand, ensuring a base of contracted customers before production begins.

Customer base will be local and regional ag producers, reducing transportation costs. A 50,000 ton/year ammonia facility can be expected to satisfy the typical needs of six to eight Iowa cooperatives, resulting in a delivery radius from the plant of roughly seventy miles, providing fertilizer for 780 square miles of corn. Any fluctuation in demand for ammonia fertilizer will be offset by demand for ammonia as a fuel.

Distribution will be through the existing robust ammonia infrastructure currently in place to serve the agricultural community. Iowa is the natural center of the nation’s 3,100 mile ammonia distribution pipeline system and has over eight hundred filling stations already in place.

Project funding will be developed through a mix of government grants and venture capital investment. Project development and construction will require 24-28 months from initial funding to first ammonia production.

Intrinsic to Freedom Fertilizer’s long-term profitability will be the choice of subsidiary enterprises interconnected with the ammonia generation plant. The two primary byproducts of ammonia generation are heat and medical grade oxygen. A 50MW plant will provide sufficient heat to sustain a 5+ acre greenhouse year round. Recent technological innovations in the production of algae based biodiesel may establish that as a more profitable subsidiary enterprise utilizing waste heat. Assessment of the most profitable and sustainable co-located enterprise will be aggressively pursued during the first year of startup, with that construction set to come online within three months of ammonia generation. Oxygen can be used to sustain cellulosic methanol production, which could be another co-located independent enterprise, or sold into the existing market.

Wind based ammonia generation offers immediate quantifiable benefits to ag producers, an opportunity for immediate use of carbon free hydrogen based fuel and will serve as a nexus for other sustainable enterprises via co-location and use of byproducts. The need for carbon free energy and a reliable source for ammonia will drive customer demand and profitability, while moving Iowa closer to a sustainable future.

Renewable Ammonia Fuel for the Future?

2008-04-20T18:40:00.006-05:00

Click on Text to Read

Bumper Sticker

2008-03-31T20:52:00.003-05:00

Grants are submitted

2008-03-31T20:38:00.001-05:00

Freedom Fertilizer has broken new ground again today. We are officially grantee's in waiting. The grants are submitted and we are now waiting for the approvals. We have submitted a pre-application into the Iowa Power Fund and a full blown grant proposal to the USDA Value Added program. Kathy Showalter, who wrote the USDA grant, said this is one of the best ideas that has ever come across my desk and Tom Wind, who is on the Iowa Power Fund board,said he thinks our ideas are right on target, this is just what the IPF is looking. If these statements are correct. Then these applications are going to pass with straight A's.

I Want to thank Kathy Showalter and everyone that assisted in helping get these grants together. The numerous letters of support and all information that went into these works make them winning applications. I especially want to thank our newly formed Winds of Change Steering Committee. If it had not been for these gentleman believing in what we are doing with Freedom Fertilizer and stepping up to the plate on a very short notice. The USDA grant would have been dead in the water. Also thanks to Bruce Keenan at the State Bank who got the steering committee idea jelled.

Who would have believed that from our first meeting not much over 8 weeks ago that we would have grant applications submitted and Freedom Fertilizer LLC in place. Not just that but a LLC made up of experts. Some of the best experts on alternative NH3 production in the entire country like David Bradley from New York State. We have also have a great start on business plan development and administration with Frank Hanaford from Omaha, NE. Our legal council Barry Sackett with his environmental back ground and business startups. And Neal Rauhauser doing marketing with his "Stranded Wind Initiative". He has been busy assembling numerous other professionals just waiting in the wings to help as this project is getting primed to exploded with everyones help.

We are looking forward to much success as this project is growing everyday. Please fell free to contact me with any questions or comments. I will try and keep everyone updated as Freedom Fertilizer continues to grow.

Open Letter about the progress of Freedom Fertilizer

2008-03-22T13:47:00.001-05:00

Everyone,
Our meeting this past week in Graettinger went well. This marks a very significant point in this project. Our LLC Freedom Fertilizer is in place and we laying the ground work to find the seed money that we will need to take this project to the next level. We are getting very close to the point that we will talking with potential investors. Myself personally I have taken on the roll of lobbyist. I have been in contact with many local, state and federal people, planting the concepts of wind to Nh3. A trip to Ames and on to Des Moines to drum up support for our project went they well. I was able to attend an Iowa Power Fund Meeting meeting and spent some very valuable time with Secretary of Ag Bill Northey. We have many more contacts to make and a lot of work a head but I have to say we have not received a single negative comment about what we are doing. The timing is right for a project such as this.

Those of us involved with Freedom Fertilizer truly believe that the concept of wind power converted to Anhydrous Ammonia (Nh3) can have a tremendous economic impact on the State of Iowa now and in the future. We all know that Iowa is fast becoming a world class leader in the quest for renewable and sustainable energy. Freedom Fertilizer and everyone else who has been following and or working on the many various ways to promote sustainability believe that Wind to Nh3 is a gigantic step in the right direction. First of all by freeing Iowa agriculture from the grasps of unstable and costly foreign produced Nitrogen fertilizers. And secondly by using Nh3 as a fuel, we can replace foreign oil that is crippling this nation as well. The potential that Nh3 has as a transportation fuel is unlimited. Just imagine Iowa crops fertilized by Iowa produced (carbon free) fertilizer and all of the production equipment fueled from the same renewable Nh3 as well. And all of this renewably produced Nh3 can come from the tremendous amount of wind energy that is available to be tapped right here in Iowa. We truly believe that this Freedom Fertilizer project can be the launching pad that ignites a entire revolution of how we produce just about everything in this Great State of Iowa. By getting behind a initiative to support the development of renewable Nh3. Iowa could set the course for a nation wide conversion to what we see as a truly affordable and entirely carbon free replacement for fossil fuels.

In creating new development such as Freedom Fertilizer we can not overlook the giant steps the State of Iowa has made in supporting the development of renewables like ethanol and sustainables like wind. The absolute beauty of this Freedom Fertilizer wind produced Nh3 project is that we will be helping make ethanol even greener and wind power more sustainable. How? By growing Iowa crops with a Iowa produced carbon free, renewable and sustainable fertilizer, powering the production equipment that plants, harvests and processes these crops with Nh3 fuel.We will also be creating a method for the development of stranded resources. Sustainable resources like wind, solar or geothermal that are to far from the grid to be cost effectively captured can be made into Nh3 and more cost effectively piped, trucked and even stored. And then something really innovative and exciting. By being able to store Nh3 produced from wind, this renewable and sustainable energy filled product. We then have the ability to fuel electrical generation equipment at peak times. We will be able to even the load from the variability of demand and the variable nature of wind power itself. How tremendously exciting and all in a very innovative yet proven cost effective manor.

We are so excited to have this opportunity to put into action an idea that could and should create the bridge that will someday lead to the day when the United States can be energy independent once again. Lets all have the foresight and the determination to make the road to that day start here in Iowa.

I have posted on our web page freedomfertilizer.com more information about what we are doing and the great team that we have working on this project. I have attached to this email a Power Point Presentation about our proposed Graettinger project which some of you have already received and another very interesting and eye opening presentation by Mr Norm Olson from the Iowa Energy Center at Ames, IA. Looking forward to saying in contact and if you have any questions or comments please email or call. Or if you know anyone else who would like more information or to be on our email list please forward this information on to me.

Steve Gruhn
Freedom Fertilizer
3006 Hwy 71
Spirit Lake, IA 51360
712-330-3114

First Farmer Coop Meeting

2008-03-17T20:18:00.003-05:00

Who: Local farmers and Coops interested in the development of wind Nh3

Where: Board Room of EPS Building Systems
Graettinger, IA

When: Tuesday March 18th 7pm

We will be rolling on a plan for the development of a wind to Nh3 production facility in conjunction with a planned wind farm east of Graettinger. The scope of the plan is amazing and the timing is right for such a development. Call or email me if you have any questions.

Steve Gruhn
Freedom Fertilizer
712-330-3114

Local delegation in Washington. DC

2008-02-27T19:12:00.007-06:00

18 community and business leaders from the four-county region of the Iowa Lakes Corridor are enroute on their annual trip to Washington, D.C.

Kathy Evert, President of the Iowa Lakes Corridor Development Corporation, says they'll be lobbying the local congressional delegation on a number of issues. They include the Spencer Beltway Project; upgrading Highway 86 between Highway Nine and the Minnesota border; the Storm Lake Restoration Project; construction of the Sustainable Energy Education Training Center at Iowa Lakes Community College and the Spencer Storm Sewer Project.

Evert says they'll also be advocating renewal of the Production Tax Credit for Wind Energy; the Wireless Universal Service Fund for Rural Areas; and support for completion of US Highway 20.

Freedom Fertilizer and Strandedwind.org has asked the delegation to forward information about our project on to Iowa's Congressional Representatives and Senators. Particularly information about funds earmarked for wind to Nh3 research. See the previous blog entry about section 9019 funding.

Freedom Fertilizer envisions a wind to Nh3 industry that has more potential than the regions ethanol industry. Freedom Fertilizer is at ground zero. As wind to Nh3 develops we see many opportunities for the entire region. There is lots to be done but one of the first things we see needing done legislatively, besides a section 9019 type funding is a bill mandating a green fertilizer initiative. Something similar to what the ethanol's industry has done. One that would call for mandatory use of a certain percentage of green Nh3 by a certain date. And just like the ethanol industry there will be opposition. We see the coal and gas industry who have their own agendas to protect. But the one thing they can not promote that Wind driven Nh3 can is that Freedom Fertilizer would be the first and only renewable Co2 free Nh3 fertilizer and fuel in the world.

Our Name is Official

2008-02-25T18:21:00.003-06:00

Freedom Fertilizer is officially ours. We have registered freedomfertilizer.com and this is our official home for now. Neal has done a ton of work over at strandedwind.org our sister site.
The plan is for strandedwind.org to be our nonprofit lobbying and informational side and for Freedom Fertilizer to become our LLC for marketing and development purposes.

Possible Farm Bill Funding - Section 9019 funding

2008-02-25T18:02:00.004-06:00

As this project rapidly grows we are seeing the need for legislative support at all levels. It is very exciting to see things like section 9019 funding proposed. That others are seeing the need also and that we are at the cutting edge. We are getting steps ahead with our organization and the great people we have on board. With grassroots support and lobbying efforts we have begun to initialize our hope of seeing this kind of development move quickly forward. Having both Senators from Iowa Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin on this committee is certainly a plus.

Highlights of SSAS Why it Works

2008-02-19T10:54:00.010-06:00

Click on chart to view

Link to full Presentation

The Final Tipping Point

2008-02-06T12:23:00.000-06:00

The Final Tipping Point

by Christopher Flavin, President, Worldwatch Institute

There are good reasons to think that the world may be on the verge of a major transformation of energy markets. The powerful interaction of advancing technology, private investment and policy reform have led to a pace of change unseen since men like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford created the last great energy revolution a century ago. But is it enough? Will the coming years bring the accelerated change and trillions of dollars of investment that Nicholas Stern estimates is needed to reverse the tide of climate change?

The answer to that question will likely be found not in the messy world of economics but in the even messier world of politics. Can the enormous power of today's industries be set aside in favor of the common good? Time is growing short. In the United States alone, 121 coal-fired power plants have been proposed. If built, they could produce 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide over their 60-year lives. China is building that many plants every year.

There were growing signs in 2007 that the years of political paralysis on climate change may be coming to an end, spurred by the warnings of scientists and the concerns of citizens. One sign of the changing times is that many of the planned coal plants are under attack by local and national environmentalists, and some have already been scrapped. Germany recently announced that its centuries-old hard coal industry will be closed by 2018.

Several potentially game-changing political developments in 2007 are worth noting:

Twenty-seven major U.S. Companies — from Alcoa and Dow Chemical to Duke Energy, General Motors, and Xerox — announced support for national regulation of CO2 emissions.
The European Union committed to reducing its carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and member states are ramping up their energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in order to achieve these goals.
China announced its first national climate policy, pledging to step up its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and acknowledging that earlier policies were not sufficient.
Seventeen states in the United States moved toward adopting regulations on CO2 emissions, increasing pressure on the U.S. Congress, which was considering national legislation.
Brazil recognized the threat that climate change poses to the country's economically crucial agriculture and forestry industries and signaled a new commitment to strengthening international climate agreements.

As negotiations begin on the international climate agreement that will supplant the Kyoto Protocol after 2012, the world's political will to tackle climate change will be put to an early test. The politics of climate change are advancing more rapidly than could have been imagined a few years ago. But the world has not yet reached the political tipping point that would ensure the kind of economic transformation that is required. And the divide between industrial and developing countries over how to share the burden of action must still be resolved.

As people around the world come to understand that a low-carbon economy could one day be more effective than today's energy mix at meeting human needs, support for the needed transformation is bound to grow. Urgency and vision are the twin pillars on which humanity's hope now hangs.

Call to Action - Lee Iacocca

2008-02-04T12:23:00.000-06:00

It is quotes like this article and people like Lee Iacocca that help motivate me and make me think that we must proceed with what we are working on.

He has a new book, and here are some excerpts.
Lee Iacocca Says:

"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage?

We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car.

But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say,

"Stay the course"

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America
not the damned "Titanic". I'll give you a sound bite: "Throw all the bums out!"

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of the " America " my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.

The Biggest "C" is Crisis !

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory.

Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thin g to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A Hell of a Mess .

So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country.

We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.

Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a cohe rent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense?

I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the
point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?

We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.

Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing.

Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "The Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening.....But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.

What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope I believe in America ..

In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises:

"The Great Depression", "World War II", the "Korean War", the "Kennedy Assassination", the "Vietnam War", the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.

If I've learned one thing, it's this: "You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action.

Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play.

That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to "Action" for people who, like me, believe in America . It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had "enough."

Excerpted from "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?".

Copyright (c) 2007 by Lee Iacocca. All rights reserved.

Recap and orgainization meeting

2008-02-02T18:23:00.001-06:00

Wind to Nh3

I want to thank everyone who attended our first meeting Thursday evening and for all of the good input. For those of you that were unable to attend I would like to update you and to let you know that we all came away much better informed, very encouraged and that yes wind to Nh3 is a viable solution. With current Nh3 market trends, world tensions, fuel and transportation increases we are going to see the need for this type of development much sooner than any of us can image. With new technology that is being developed, Co2 issues and carbon credits. It all points to the fact that this is the next new wave of renewable energy development. And it is going to happen right here! Where the wind and corn production meet!!
We all agreed that we must proceed with further investigation. Neal Rauhauser and I have worked to put together this outline from comments that came from our meeting. This is what we feel we need to do to get to the next level.

Our first objective is to obtain the support of the subject matter experts needed to finish and/or validate a conceptual level plan for a wind driven ammonia plant. A plant with a faceplate input of approximately 200 megawatts. We want to be able to present to the Iowa Power Fund ASAP. With the intent of obtaining the seed funding necessary to bring the plan to the point where it can be presented to ammonia users, distributors, and investment bankers.

Project coordinators

Steve Gruhn - President Over all project development – Windnh3.blogspot.com
Neal Rauhauser - Engineering team coordination - Strandedwind.org
Open Position - a person with a back ground in new startups.

Staff

Frank Hannaford - Stranded Wind Administrative assistant
Dave Bradley - process engineer, Buffalo, NY
David Forsythe - general council attorney (tentative)

Steering Committee

Those of you on this email list

Potential Tech Advisors
We have identified these people for this Wind to Nh3 Production Project
Al Zeitz and Ahmad Hemami ILCC wind energy staff
Norm Olsen Iowa Energy Center - ear on industry
HEC Algona / additional uses of Nh3 - power generation
Jerome Guillet - Investment banker - Energize America 2020 - ea2020.org
John Holbrock - Nh3 production, electrolysis, renewable energies
Mike Reese consultant - U of M, Morris, MN
Chris Mercher - USDA Rural Development, Storm Lake
Jeff Kestel USDA agronomist, Spencer
Wayne Brincks - former fertilizer business owner, Staffer to Steve King
Bill Northey – Secretary of Ag, Iowa
Adam Sigel - Energize America 2020, lobbyist federal level
Merle Clarke Lake Park Scott Tonderum Graettinger- Rural power generation/wind farm interconnect
Earl Cummins –Turning Point Management / Farmer owned wind CoOp developer
Fagen, Inc. Ethanol plant designer/Industrial design of Nh3?

Areas to first concentrate our efforts
And contacts in these areas

Organization Structure
Steve Gruhn
Neal Rauhauser

Start up wind farms or local existing wind farms to contract electricity
Al Blum - Estherville wind farm project
Felix Freedman - Midwest Renewables Vernon Township wind farm project Graettinger, IA
Dave Bradley - process engineer Lackawanna, NY

Involvement with farm coops and ethanol plants.
Promote full circle renewable inputs and planning
Help with contracting inputs for farmers long term (fertilizer) and outputs (corn). Offer long term price protection, Utilization of electricity, waste heat and ammonia
Milt Mckeown - Heron Lake Biofuels
Bob Ferguson - Heron Lake Biofuels
Other ethanol people
Farm CoOp people

Funding Sources
Iowa Power Fund - To be one of the first submittals
USDA value added program
Federal & State alt energy programs already in place
2008 farm bill money earmarked for wind to Nh3
Carbon credits
Member investor owned
Local farm Coops

Engineering study
Overall Energy Architecture
Dave Bradley - process engineer Lackawanna, NY

Determining equipment suppliers and costs

Electrolysis’s equipment , Short term H2 storage
Steve Dollmeyer Distributed Energy Systems, Barre, VT
Designers and or builders of Haber Bosch equipment
Jim Gosnell KBR, Houston, TX
Involve local manufactures to construct equipment
Work with local farm coops for Nh3 storage and handling

Investigate further use of Nh3
farm fuel/backup generation and enrollment of people
from that industry
Agco Jackson, MN
HEC Algona, IA

All in all I think that we all came away very up beat. An interesting fact is that Neal Rauhauser and I have been working on the same ideas at the same time unbeknown to each other until just this past week. Now with our combined efforts it has jump started this project by at least 6 months.

Please feel free to respond to our emails with any comments or questions. We will be updating both of our web sites and will be emailing you more information as we continue to work on this project. We will be putting together more group meetings as the needs arise and would be happy to present this information to other groups as well.

Steve Gruhn
RENEWABLE Nh3 / Winds of Change

John Holbrook developer of solid state Nh3 production

2008-01-30T13:18:00.001-06:00

John Holbrook PhD

John is the developer of a new solid state Nh3 process that could cut production costs greatly.

Link to John's pdf presentation about this development

KBR Nh3 Equipment Suppliers email and reply

2008-01-29T12:40:00.000-06:00

Jim Gosnell <Jim.Gosnell@kbr.com> wrote:

Steve:

Thanks for your interest in KBR. Before we can answer your question we need to know some more about your project.

1) What ammonia capacity do you need?

2) Do you need just an ammonia reactor or do you need the entire synthesis loop?

3) Where does the funding come from to pay for the project?

4) Where is the project located?

5) Who will own the project?

Regards,

Jim Gosnell

Vice President

Fertilizer & Syngas Technologies

KBR

4100 Clinton Drive

Houston, TX 77020

Jim,

Your web site did not leave much room for explanation so thanks for your reply. As you may know no one has done a wind powered nh3 conversion before. So we will be working in new territory. We are located at Spirit Lake, IA. Our area is fast becoming a real hub for renewable energy. With in a 60 mile radius we have several 100 MW's of installed wind power and at least 6 ethanol plants with several more under construction. With the amount of corn acres here Nh3 is in high demand. So with corn and wind a 1st of its kind pilot project of wind power converted to Nh3, especially with todays energy costs, It is only a matter of who will be first. So why not our project. We are bringing together a consortium of local "movers and shakers" to try and get this off the ground. Our local school was the first in the nation to supply all of its electrical needs 15 years ago from wind power. Our local community college was the 1st in the nation to offer classes in wind turbine and biofuels technology. Our movers and shakers include representatives from these institutions along with local bankers, farm co-ops, community development and property owners. So as you can see this will be a 1st of its kind community demonstration project.

Depending on how much funding we can receive from federal, state and local sources will determine how the project progresses. We have several options. We could place a production plant at either school and use local farm co-ops for handling equipment. So only the h2 and synthesis loop production equipment will be needed.

Your expertise would be needed in the development of a synthesis loop. We are investigating several electrolysis methods to supply H2. A very interesting concept is to use the heat from the Haber-bosch reactor in conjunction with possible high temperature electrolysis.

But before we can go any where we need to secure funding which means we need to get costs estimates for the project. So I hope I have answered a few of the questions. Yes we would need the entire loop. Capacity will need to match our h2 supply. Which will be determined by our turbine and electrolysis equipment. Its the old chicken and egg problem. Any suggestions from your expertise will be greatly appreciated.

Steve Gruhn
Winds of Change
3006 Hwy 71
Spirit Lake, IA 51360

Peak Oil Can we handle the truth?

2008-01-28T10:59:00.000-06:00

The truth about oil.

January 28th, 2008
Reading the General Petraeus report on the Iraq debacle reminded me of nothing so much as Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men yelling, "You can't handle the truth!"

The report goes to great lengths to paint a picture of progress in Iraq, but the truth is a far different story. As the New York Times and the Washington Post have reported, the declining number of deaths in Iraq that Petraeus cites depends on a few accounting tricks: like not counting a death as an assassination if you're shot in the front of the head, and not counting deaths by car bombs.

So, what are we really doing in Iraq?

We're building and maintaining permanent military bases from which our military will ensure a near-monopoly of the world's second-largest oil reserve. All this... for a small cadre of corporate fatheads, including the top members of Bush, Inc. The American taxpayer will be burdened with footing the bill for security in Iraq ($2 billion PER DAY!) to provide stable working conditions for Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Halliburton, not to mention the dozens of corporations feeding off the military spend bosom.

But this White House clearly believes you can't handle the truth.

Well, those of us in the energy world can handle it, and here it is: because the U.S. could not tolerate the possibility that the second-largest oil bonanza on Earth might be held beyond our reach by a dictator who hated us.

The fact is, the U.S. uses fully one-quarter of the world's oil, but we possess only about two percent of its reserves, and we rely on imports for about 60% of our consumption.

Meanwhile, Peak Oil is either just behind us, or nearly upon us...

Without guaranteed access to Iraq's oil, we absolutely could not maintain our military and economic dominance of the world. Vice President Cheney has known this, even spoken publicly about it, for many years. And why else would he have convened a meeting of Big Oil representatives within his first month in the White House to pore over maps of Iraq's oil fields, as if that were the top priority of the administration?

Follow this link to a great article about peak oil, oil reserves and the problems associated.

Lets be part of the solution!

www.angelnexus.com/getreport/c3563f099aad38686394d512ddfdb2b1.pdf

Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

2008-01-25T12:20:00.000-06:00

Time To Move On to the Next Bubble: Clean Energy

by Mark Braly

The U.S. economy is a bubble economy -- going from bubble to crash to the next mania -- and the new bubble is likely to be clean energy, says Wall Street insider Eric Janszen in the cover story of the February Harper's.

We've seen two bubbles, internet and housing, within a decade, writes Janszen, "each creating trillions of dollars in fake wealth."

"There will and must be many more such booms, for without them the economy of the United States can no longer function. The bubble cycle has replaced the business cycle."

Here's why Janszen thinks the necessary next bubble will be clean energy. The new bubble sector must:

1. already be formed and growing as the previous bubble (housing) deflates. Check.

2. have in place or in the works legislation guaranteeing investors favorable tax treatment and other protections and advantages. Check.

3. be popular, "its name on the lips of government policymakers and journalists." Check.

4. "support hundreds or thousands of separate firms financed by not billions but trillions of dollars in new securities that Wall Street will create and sell." Is that coming? Janszen is quite expansive in his definition of clean energy, including a massive retooling of the country's transportation and power infrastructure.

For the rest of the story and interesting comments follow this link

www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=51203