Winbrock 1 Ian Winbrock ENVS 140: Environmental Policy Daniel Press Ureic Nitrogenous Fertilizer Policy Brief Part

One 1. Introduction Ureic nitrogenous fertilizer, is a widely used nitrogenous fertilizer, which is created by manufacturing an aqueous solution of liquid urea which can be then concentrating into a solid in order to produce different final products. Roughly 53 percent of all the urea produced is used its solid form for fertilizers, 31 percent is used in its liquid form, while the remainder is used in other products such as animal feed, adhesives and formaldehyde resins (EEP, 2000, page 142). Urea is readily combined with other fertilizers such as the commonly used urea-ammonium nitrate mixture as well as made into Formaldahyde resins which can be found in a number of consumer products such as dinnerware (EEP, 2000, page 142). Because ammonia production dominates the nitrogenous fertilizer production market, there is significantly less data regarding nitrogenous fertilizer production. For the purpose of this policy brief I will use data that encompasses the entire market for nitrogenous fertilizer production as well as Ureic Nitrogenous fertilizer. Throughout the policy brief I will make the distinction clear when I am using data either from the industry as a whole or specifically ureic nitrogenous fertilizer. While relatively stable now, the demand for all nitrogenous fertilizers had risen steadily from 1990 to 2000 (EEP, 2000, page 143). In 1999, percentage rates for the application of nitrogenous fertilizer range from 87 percent of acres planted to 99 percent of acres planted, depending on the commodity, see nitrogen column in table 1 (EEP, 2000, page 143). The market for nitrogenous fertilizer as a whole as well as the market for ureic nitrogenous fertilizer has been rather volatile in the past decade because of China and Indias decision to move from importing nitrogenous fertilizer to producing it domestically. China (the worlds largest fertilizer consumer) banned the importation of ureic nitrogenous fertilizer in the mid part of 1997, and India has followed suit since, reducing imports as a result of government control on specific fertilizers (EEP, 2000, page 143). This decrease in demand and accompanying supply surplus has driven prices down, making the market much more competitive, see table two for export trends of U.S. Fertilizers (EEP, 2000, page 143).

Winbrock 2 According to the rural sociologist Willard Cochrane, during the period between 1940 and 1950, the use of all nitrogenous fertilizers more than doubled, tripled between 1950 and 1960, and more than doubled again from 1960 to 1969 (Cochrane, 1979). This trend of nitrogenous fertilizer use has now come to dominate conventional crop production. The National Research Councils committee on Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture defined one major aspect of conventional crop production as the use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides, and supplements nutrients generated on the farm (manure) with synthetic fertilizer to maintain soil fertility. (NRC, page 19, 2010). The 2003 to 2006 iterations of the farm bill had $63.4 billion in farm subsidies for major commodity production (corn, wheat, soy, and rice), thus encouraging the use of nitrogenous fertilizer use (NRC, page 292, 2010). In order to reverse this trend of conventional industrial agricultural commodity production through the continued application of nitrogenous fertilizers including urea, this policy brief will focus on policy tools that decrease demand for nitrogenous fertilizers. Reducing the amount of Nitrogenous fertilizer consumed in the United States will have both economic and social effects for those who are working in the chemical industry that produces nitrogenous fertilizer. As of 2006, there were 65 firms producing various kinds of nitrogenous fertilizers in the United States (MCES, 2006) employing 3,173 people with shipments valued at $4,146,055,000 (ASM, 2006), and recent data shows that the employment numbers and the value of shipments are trending upwards. Data from 2010 shows that employment is now at 4,529 and that the value of recent shipments are at $7,120,305,000 (ASM, 2010). These firms, which produce the differing varieties of nitrogenous fertilizers, are located primarily in California and Texas, having 20 and 15 firms located within each state respectively. After Texas; Kansas, Minnesota and Ohio have six, six, and four facilities respectively within their state lines producing nitrogenous fertilizers. In order to reduce the overall use of ureic nitrogenous fertilizer, I will be suggesting three separate policies that will reduce overall demand for nitrogenous fertilizers as a whole, and by proxy reduce the waste product, raw material usage, energy consumption associated with ureic nitrogenous fertilizer production. 2. Raw Materials and Production The process of urea production for nitrogenous fertilizer begins with the input of synthetic ammonia (NH3) and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) that are reacted in order to form ammonium carbomate, see step one for figure one (NH2CO2NH4) (CAPEF, page 1, 1995).

Winbrock 3 Ammonia and carbon dioxide are reacted under high pressure (between 140 and 250 atmospheres) and moderate temperatures in comparison with other chemical processes (between 350F and 400F) (EEP, page 146, 2000). This mixture is around 47 percent ammonia, 35 percent urea, 10 percent water, and 8 percent ammonium carbamate (EEP, page 146, 2000). From point the ammonia is distilled and the ammonium carbamate is then dehydrated, yielding a 70 to 77 percent aqueous urea solution (NH2CONH2 + H2O) (CAPEF, page 1, 1995) (EEP, page 146, 2000). From this point the process can progress in two separate directions. In one direction, the urea solution can be used as an ingredient of Nitrogen Solution Fertilizers, and would be sent off in its liquid form for bulk shipping, see step two for figure one (CAPEF, page 1, 1995). However, the second and more complicated solution concentration process, which consists of turning the aqueous urea solution into urea solids (crystalline form), and involves a complex multi-step methodology, which varies in design according to equipment, used (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). At this point (the beginning of the solution concentration process) the liquid urea solution or urea melt is injected with additives (such as clay or Formaldahyde) as a conditioning agent in order to reduce urea solids from caking during storage, and urea dust formation during transportation and handling once the process is complete, see step two for figure one (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). After additives are injected, two separate processes can be employed in order to form solids; prilling and granulation (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). Prilling can consist of using Floridized or non-fluidized beds, while Granulation consists of using either Drum or Pan granulation (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). First I will describe the process of Prilling used to produce Urea solids. Prilling is a process in which solid particles are produced from molten urea. Molten urea is sprayed from the top of a prill tower (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). There are two types of prill towers (fluidized and non-fluidized), the major difference being that a separate cooling process is needed for prill towers that are using non-fluidized beds. As the droplets fall through a countercurrent airflow they cool into spherical particles, which later form into solids (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). Granulation is used more frequently than prilling in solid urea production (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). Solids are built up in layers on seed granules (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). There are two types of granulation; drum and pan granulation. Drum granulation build up layers on seed granules placed in a rotating drum granulator that also acts as a cooler, and is approximately

Winbrock 4 fourteen feet in diameter (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). Pan granulators have a similar process, but require different equipment as they require secondary cooling, supplementary cooling required for Pan Granulation as well as nonfloridized beds are provided by auxillary rotary drums (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). Once cooled, the urea solids are screened, removing the offsize product from solid urea (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). The offsize material may be returned to the solid phase or be redissolved in water and recycled back into the urea melt, during the solution concentration process, see step two for figure one (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). Once uniform urea solids are created, they are coated with clay to reduce product caking and urea dust formation (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). The coating also reduces the Nitrogen content of the product (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). The use of clay coatings has diminished considerably, and is being supplanted by the injection of additives such as formaldehyde into the molten urea melt before solid formation (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). After cooling (and coated if additives are not injected), the final product is shipped in either bagged (approximately 10 percent) form or in bulk on trucks, rail cars or barges (approximately 90 percent), see step three for figure one (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). 3. Energy Process energy requirements for the manufacture of urea are relatively low, when compared to the production of other fertilizers, see chart three and four below comparing ammonia fertilizer production to urea fertilizer production for 1997 (EERP, page 161, 2000). The two tables lists the energy used to provide heat and power for the process (net processing energy), in the form of fuels, electricity, or steam (EERP, page 157, 2000). The two tables also outline the total process energy; which is the amount of processing energy needed in order to produce the final product, subtracting any steam or fuel generated by the process, but including energy losses from electricity (these are sustained during the generation and transmission of electricity and happen regardless if energy is produced on or off site). Much of the energy used during the urea production process is the centrifuging and screening of solid products as well as the energy expended during process heating which comes from steam (EERP, page 161, 2000). The main source of fuel for urea production is natural gas, with 113 billion cubit feet used for production in 2006, however, only one of those 113 cubic feet are switchable to another fuel source, which is distillate fuel oil (MECS, 2006). Albeit its small energy cost to produce when compared to other nitrogenous fertilizers, the process of producing ureic nitrogenous fertilizer is becoming more energy efficient over time. As seen in

Winbrock 5 chart one, over a period of fifteen years, the BTUs (British Thermal Units) expended to produce a single short ton of ureic nitrogenous fertilizer has gone down significantly, meaning that the process for producing urea has become more efficient, and the energy needed to produce a short ton of urea has decreased in response. 4. Emissions and Waste The two primary emissions, which result from the manufacture of urea for fertilizer, are ammonia and particulates (EEP, page 164, 2000). Trace amounts of VACs (volatile additive components such as methanol or formaldehyde; see step two for figure one) may also be emitted; however, there is currently no reliable means of measuring free gaseous formaldehyde emissions in order to accurately quantify emissions (EEP, page 164, 2000) (CAPEF, page 2, 1995). Other additives, such as the proprietary formaldehyde additive blend Formalin, contains upwards of 15 percent methanol (EEP, page 164, 2000). Ammonia has the potential to be emitted during both the solution synthesis and production of solid products steps of production, while particulates are emitted at every step in the process order (see figure one) (EEP, page 164, 2000). Emissions that result from the process of synthesizing the urea solution are combined with emissions from concentrating the solution and then vented (EEP, page 164, 2000). The control of particulate matter is difficult, and is mainly conducted in areas where the final product (coated uniform solids) is produced; all other particulate emissions are negligible by comparison (EEP, page 164, 2000). It should be noted that the combined particulate emissions from urea synthesis and concentration operations are minor when compared to the particulate emissions from a typical solids-producing urea plant (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). If prilling towers are being used for particle formation during the solid formation process, uncontrolled emissions rates from prill towers may be affected by several factors including; product grade being produced (feed, resin, fertilizer), air flow rate through the tower (needed for uniform solid formation), type of tower bed (floridized or non-floridized), and ambient temperature and humidity (uncontrollable variable) (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). Total emissions per urea produced is, on average less for feed grade urea solid production than for urea manufactured for fertilizer because of lower airflows circulating in prill towers during production (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). The emission rate for uncontrolled particulates in fluidized bed prill towers are higher than uncontrolled particulates in nonfluidized bed prill towers making fertilizer grade urea solids, and are roughly equal the particle emissions for nonfluidized bed feed grade urea solids (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). As stated earlier, the variability in the ambient has the capacity to affect

Winbrock 6 prill tower emissions (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). The minimal data that is available suggests that colder temperatures possibly promote the crystallization of smaller particles in the prill tower exhaust (vent system) (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). Because of the difficulty associated with small particle size (smaller particles are much more difficult to trap and remove), the efficiency of prill tower control devices trends downward in relation to declining ambient temperatures, causing higher particulate emission rates during cold weather (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). Conversely, ambient humidity also has the capacity to affect prill tower particulate emissions; the countercurrent airflow rates need to be increased parallel to the increase humidity, as the higher airflow rates usually cause higher emissions (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). As stated before, drum granulation is the more common solid formation method used during urea manufacture. As with prill towers the design scheme of formation and cooling mechanisms may affect emissions (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). One of the reasons that drum granulators are favored over prill towers is their capacity to produce very large urea solids without comparative ease, as well as the lessened necessity of airflow for urea formation during the cooling process (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). Granulation however, is not without its disadvantages. One main drawback of granulators is their incapacity to produce smaller feed grade urea solids cost effectively (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). In order to produce the smaller urea granules for feed, the drum must be operated at a higher seed particle recycle rate (more seed has to be inputted, leading to a higher operating cost) (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). On top of this, granulator operators have reported that through an increase in seed material input, lower bed temperature have come about as a result, which leads to a higher emission rate (similar to the ambient cooling effect for prill towers) (CAPEF, page 3, 1995). This cooling lowers the temperature of the air stream (which is controlled with a wet scrubber that is a standard piece of equipment on drum granulators), which passes through the drum granulator pulls out between 10 to 20 percent of the final product. (CAPEF, page 3, 1995) When the solids are being screened for uniform size, before the final coating process is conducted, fine dust particles are generated when urea particles collide and the screen that filters them vibrates (EEP, page 164, 2000). During the manufacturing process, almost all of the screening operations are sealed or shielded to minimize emissions (EEP, page 164, 2000). However, if clay is used during the coating of the product, there is the possibility of entrained clay dust being emitted during the loading and product transfer process, but there are no quantifiable emission data regarding this source (EEP, page 164, 2000).

Winbrock 7 Because of the limited data regarding the production of urea production for nitrogenous fertilizers and nitrogenous fertilizers as a whole, much of the data regarding types of pollutants emitted as well as the toxic release inventory for nitrogenous fertilizers are skewed, or inappropriately measured which limits the capacity of that data to accurately gauge trends. All data collected for Carbon Dioxide emitted, as sourced from the Inventory of U.S. emissions and sinks from 1990 to 2006 and 1990 to 2004 (IUSES, 90 06, 90 04) is regarding Ammonia manufacture, and therefore is insufficient to use as a metric for urea emission production, as the processes have vastly different energy (see tables three and four) and raw material inputs. Simalarly, the data for carbon monoxide from the Emissions Trends 1970 2002 and the National Emission Inventory from 2002 to 2005, as well as the nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) and sulfur dioxide from the IUSES, 90 06 and 90 04 are insufficient to use to predict trends. The data for those air pollutants is organized for the agricultural industry as a whole from 1991 to 1998 for all pollutants, which does not give an accurate representation of the nitrogenous fertilizer industry, much less ureic nitrogenous fertilizer. Nor does the data for 2002 to 2005 because although it is the data for Ammonium Nitrate / Urea production, it only spans a three year period, which is an insufficient time period to make trending inferences from. While the data for ammonia, as well as several other types of pollutants and waste products do exist and they are standardized, they only exist for nitrogenous fertilizer as a whole, and are so variable (see charts two through four) that no clear inferences or trends can be gained from them, except for in the case of ammonia, which trends downward, falling over time from 18,283.41 short tons in 1991 to 45,053.63 short tons in 2006 (RTKN, 1991, 94, 98, 2002, 06). One can make the inference from correlating charts one (British Thermal Units expended per short ton of nitrogenous fertilizer produced) and two (Short tons of ammonia product released over time) that as nitrogenous fertilizer manufactures became more efficient in their production methods, they also became more adept at reducing the amount of ammonia released through the production process, perhaps sequestering that potential emission into more final product. Part Two 5. Actors There are a variety of policy actors that play a role in the development, discourse and implementation and enforcement / regulation of public policy surrounding ureic nitrogenous fertilizer visa nitrogenous fertilizer policy as a whole. The two main public policy actors are:

Winbrock 8 trade associations, and relevant environmental organizations. Legislators and responsible governmental agencies also play the main role in the public policy process, but for the purpose of this brief, I will only concentrate on the trade organizations and relevant environmental organizations that influence the ebb and flow of policy development, regulation and enforcement within Washington. The main trade associations that lobby on behalf of their body of members regarding aspects of nitrogenous fertilizer policy tools in Washington D.C. are the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Fertilizer Institute (TFI). Relevant environmental organizations such as The National Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Nature Conservancy play a major role in Washington, counterbalancing the clout of NAM and TFI by lobbying on behalf of the interests of their own constituents; environmentalists. All of the groups mentioned above are registered lobbyists and they use their respective political capital in order to influence the policy process (OS.org, 2010, 2011) 6. Policy Tools As mentioned earlier, I will be using suggesting three policies that produce the same result (reducing the demand for nitrogen fertilizers, and thus ureic nitrogen fertilizer) but in different ways. The policies suggested here will work based on the same principles that drove down the price of nitrogenous fertilizer in the United States when China and India ceased to purchase foreign fertilizer and began to produce it domestically. Through the three policy tools of; increasing subsidies for sustainable agriculture while diverting money from subsidies for conventional agricultural commodity production, mandating the instillation of riparian buffer zones for conventional agricultural commodity producers to mitigate the effects of nitrogenous fertilizer runoff, as well over time establishing a nitrogen budget for conventional agricultural commodity producers, demand will decrease for nitrogenous fertilizers. The decrease in demand for nitrogenous fertilizer will eventually precipitate a reduction in the amount of waste product, raw material usage, and energy consumption associated with ureic nitrogenous fertilizer production. A. Increase of Subsidies for Sustainable Agriculture by transferring money from conventional agricultural commodity production The reason that farmers used nitrogenous fertilizers so readily in the 1950s, 60s and 70s was in order to increase the yields of agricultural commodities they were growing in order to meet the growing domestic market demand for food of an ever-expanding population. By

Winbrock 9 incentivizing a series of alternative to conventional best management practices, professional development strategies and farmer-researcher alliances through rural and urban development grants funded through the USDAs SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education) program, the demand for nitrogenous fertilizer could potentially be substantially reduced. SARE a proven track record of creating real change and innovation within the agrifood system and is perfectly positioned to be the implementing body for this policy. In an effort to decrease the demand for Nitrogenous Fertilizer, I am recommending that an incentive policy tool be implemented which would alters the existing framework of the past Food, Conservation, and Energy Acts (also known as the farm bill) in order to foster the further development of existing agrarian paradigms which promote using no alternative farming methodologies to conventional crop production, ones in which no nitrogenous fertilizers are needed in order to produce parallel crop yields to modern conventional agriculture. This policy tool would be directed at decreasing the federal subsidies for current commodity production which are subsidized by the farm bill; including corn, soybeans, wheat rice and other currently conventionally gown industrial crops over a period of fifty years (allowing for farmers, industry and researchers to retool to this new paradigm) unless they change their growing methods to those outlined later in the proposed policy, as defined by the National Research Councils report; Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. The best management practices in the place of Nitrogenous fertilizer which I recommend to incentivize are; the use of manure, compost, and green manure, the use of crop rotation, cover cropping, nutrient management planning, and integration of animals and other on farm inputs to create closed nutrient cycles (TSASTFC, pages 6 to 21, 2010). The use of manure, compost and green manure reduce(s) the need for synthetic fertilizer and hence reduce the energy used for fertilizer productionfarms [can] successfully use on-farm inputs to maintain soil fertility and to insulate themselves from fluctuations in costs of synthetic fertilizer. Published studies, however, show variable results as to whether systems using commercial fertilizers or systems using cover crop-based or animal manure-based nutrient management have higher profits (TSASTFC, pages 6, 2010). Cover cropping provides ground cover to protect soil and provide other services, including maintaining soil organic matter, providing nutrients to subsequent crops (green manures), trapping excess nutrients in the soil profile following harvest of the primary crop, and preventing leaching losses (catch crops) (TSASTFC, pages 6, 2010). Crop rotation is the cyclical rotation of diverse crops which each contributes a certain array of nutrients to the soil,

Winbrock 10 which improves its long-term capacity to produce food, and prevents the loss of nutrients through leeching from certain crops (TSASTFC, pages 6, 2010). Nutrient management are holistic plans which help growers manage nutrient inputs for their crops and animals (TSASTFC, pages 6, 2010). The integration of animals allows for farmers to use more local inputs and source the nutrients they need for crop production, particularly nitrogen, they need from an on farm source, creating a closed nutrient loop, and replacing external resources with internal ones (TSASTFC, pages 6, 2010). In 2006, $7.4 billion dollars of the farm bill was set aside for commodity payments, which are the subsidies commodity farmers for growing their crops such as corn or soy (TSASTFC, pages 321, 2010). Although there will opportunities for those farmers to transition to a new business and farming model, many could potentially struggle with the transition, and that is why it is critical that a certain portion of the allotted money that is being drawn from the subsidies from conventional commodity production go back to the farmers who are growing those crops in order to help them retool, relearn and reassess their management practices in order for them to succeed in a new marketplace B. Mandated implementation of vegetative buffers by conventional agricultural commodity producers in order to mitigate nitrogen fertilizer eutrophication Riparian buffers are areas of intentionally planted vegetation that are designed to manage environmental concerns such as nutrient runoff, which can lead to eutrophication (TSASTFC, pages 121, 2010). If planted at the edge of arable fields, or water sources, buffers would be able to mitigate nitrogenous fertilizer runoff which can lead to eutrophication, and hypoxia in bodies of water which is the accumulation of nutrients in a body of water to the point where unnatural levels of algae reproduce, removing the oxygen from the water making it impossible for organisms to live the affected ecosystem. (TSASTFC, pages 121, 2010). By mandating the use of buffer zones for all agricultural commodity producers which currently use nitrogenous fertilizers (the cost of which would be for up to fifty percent of the participants cost in establishing these buffer zones), this suggested authority tool will incentivize a decrease in demand for nitrogenous fertilizer, making commodity producers more likely to choose subsidized alternative to conventional agricultural practices, thus decreasing the demand for nitrogenous fertilizer and by proxy the raw materials, energy and waste products associated with the production of those fertilizers.

Winbrock 11 The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) would be the means of implementing this policy as they already have an established and successful methodology of providing long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible farmland (FSA, 2012). Through the CRP farmers would be able to receive annual rental payments and cost-sharing assistance to establish the buffer zones and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) would make annual rental payments based on the agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of the participant's costs in establishing approved conservation practices (FSA, 2012). The major difference would be that farmers enrolled in the program as it now are only enrolled in it for between 10 and 15 years, this policy would be permanent(FSA, 2012). C. Establishing a nitrogen nutrient budget for conventional agricultural commodity producers to diminish use of nitrogenous fertilizers The last policy which will reduce overall demand for nitrogenous fertilizer consumption while simultaneously diminishing the amounts of raw materials, energy consumed and waste produced is helping conventional commodity growers develop and implement nitrogen budgets for their land. This authority tool would be implemented and carried out by the USDA and would be conducted in conjuction with research partnerships between land grant, private and other public universities. The goals of the nitrogen budget is outlined in the Sustainable Agriculture for in the 21st century report eloquently: The goals of a good nutrient management program are two fold: to provide sufficient nutrients for crop or animal growth throughout their life cycle, and to minimize negative impacts of nutrient losses on the environment (TSASTFC, pages 121, 2010). It is to this end that farmers will be coerced to work with researchers in order to optimize their crop production if they choose to remain using nitrogenous fertilizers. According to Schroder and Neetson, two scientists in the Neatherlands (one of the preeminent countries in the world working to develop and implement nitrogen budgets schemes) in their white paper entitled, Nutrient management regulations in the Netherlands [nitrogen budgeting] provides farmers with decision support tools that allow access to better fertilizer N recommendations. Estimates of economically optimum N rates can be improved with additional information about current soil and plant N status. Models can [then] be used to extend estimates to fields for which empirical evidence is not available, and advanced crop sensorsprovide a practical means for further adjusting N rates to current- season conditions (NMRN, Page 422, 2007).

Winbrock 12 Appendix: Figure one, Charts one though four and tables one through four

Chart One: Percentage of U.S. Acres receiving Fertilizer in 1999 Source: (EEP, page 143, 2000)

Table Two: Export Trends of U.S. Fertilizers in 1000s of tons Source: (EEP, page 143, 2000)

Winbrock 13

Table Three: Estimated Energy Use in Urea Manufacture for 1997

a: Does not include losses incurred during the generation and transmission of electricity. b: Includes ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, normal butane, butylenes, and mixtures of these gases. c: Includes net purchased steam, and any other energy source not listed (e.g., renewables). d: Steam/fuel use estimated based on current distribution of fuels in chemical plants (CMA 1998). Values are based on published fuel use and electricity requirements for licensed technologies, including CO2 and NH3 stripping, isobaric double recycle, and advanced processes (EFMA 1999, HP 1999). e: Calculated by multiplying average energy use (Btu/lb) by1997 production values for urea is (11.8 billion lbs) (CMA 1998).

Source: (EEP, page 157, 2000)

Table Four: Estimated Energy Use in Ammonia Manufacture for 1997 Source: (EEP, page 157, 2000)

Winbrock 14
a: Does not include losses incurred during the generation and transmission of electricity. b: Includes ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, normal butane, butylenes, and mixtures of these gases. c: Includes net purchased steam, and any other energy source not listed (e.g., renewables). d: Steam/fuel use estimated based on current distribution of fuels in chemical plants (CMA 1998). Values are based on published fuel use and electricity requirements for licensed technologies, including those licensed by ICI Katalco/Synetix,Linde AG, and Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. (EEA 1983, HP 1999, EFMA 1999). e: Calculated by multiplying average energy use (Btu/lb) by1997 production values for ammonia (28.4 billion lbs) (CMA 1998).

Key: Arrows = Process White numbers = Step Order Squiggly lines leading to red lettered text = Emission / waste product Arrows on either side of text = Inputs / raw material Sources: (EEP, page 196, 2000), (CAPEF, page 1, 1995)

BTU's expended per short ton of nitrogenous fertilizer produced

7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1991 1994 1998 2002 2006

BTU's expended per short ton of nitrogenous fertilizer produced

Chart One: British Thermal Units expended per short ton of nitrogenous fertilizer produced Sources: (MECS, 1991, 1994,1998, 2002, 2006), (CIR, 1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006)

Winbrock 15

Short tons of Ammonia released over Short tons of Ammonia time

released over time 2006 2002 1998 1994 1991 0.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 30,000.00 40,000.00 50,000.00

Chart Two: Short tons of ammonia product released during urea production over time Source: (RTKN, 1991, 1994,1998, 2002, 2006)

Short tons of Sulfuric acid released over time

2006 2002 1998 1994 1991 0 5000 10000 15000 Short tons of Sulfuric acid released over time

Chart Three: Short tons of sulfuric acid released during urea production over time Source: (RTKN, 1991, 1994,1998, 2002, 2006)

Winbrock 16

Nitric acid

Chromium compunds

2006 2002 1998

Methanol

1994 1991

Lead

1000

2000

3000

4000

Chart Four: Short tons of nitric acid, chromium compounds, methanol and lead released during urea production over time Source: (RTKN, 1991, 1994,1998, 2002, 2006)

Winbrock 17 Sources: Cochrane, 1979 W.W. Cochrane The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. University of Minnesota Press, Washington, DC (1979)

National Research Council. Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2010.

Energy and Environmental Profile of the U.S. Chemical Industry: Chapter 5: The Agricultural Chemicals Chain, U.S. DOE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Industrial Technologies Program

Annual Survey of Manufacturers: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries. U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, D.C.: GPO. (2006, 2010)

Percentage Compilation of Air Polluting Emission Factors, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Washington, DC: GPO Annual Percentage Current Industrial Reports. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006) Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration. Washington D.C.: GPO. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006)

Chroeder JJ, Neeteson JJ. 2008. Nutrient management regulations in the Netherlands. Geoderma

Author Unknown. Right to Know Network. http://www.rtknet.org

Author Unknown. Open secrets. http://opensecrets.org

Author Unknown. National Association of Manufacturers. http://NAM.org

Author Unknown. The Fertilizer Institute. http://TFI.org

Winbrock 18 Sources (Continued): Author Unknown. National Resource Defense Council. http://nrde.org

Author Unknown. Sierra Club. http://sierraclub.org

Author Unknown. Nature Conservancy. http://nature.org

USDA. Conservation Reserve Program. http://www.fsa.usda.gov