WW1 TL Help: What to do if you can't get nitrates

Oddball

Monthly Donor
We do have giant mountain ranges and massive rivers, you know.

But you see, Norway do not... :D
True! Realy! :D:D:D

There are no massive rivers and our mountain ranges are rather medium sized in hight. Highest point in Norway is only 2469masl.

Anyhow, is it possible to come to an agreement on this matter? :)




I will attemt to sketch a compromise:
  1. The Birkeland-Eyde process is massivly economicaly beneficial under OTL Norwegian circumtances.
  2. But the Birkeland-Eyde process is also suitable in many other locations. This might come at a somehow reduces economical profit tough, in extreme cases even to the point that it will have to be subsidized by the government. This would anyhow be acceptable for production of a strategic important good like Nitrates.
Acceptable? :confused::)
 
Last edited:
Being currently in a situation where we have to develop and sell new technology to very reluctant industrial customers, I can imagine that the explanation is not really economic.

There is always some mistrust against new technology. I'm not talking about GM food style mistrust - but every established industry has optimized their cost, they know what the average repair time is, what additional issues come up from time to time and how to deal with them, etc. And our US (potential) customers tend to operate on a far thinner margin than those in rest of the world - giving them a slight competitive edge when everything else works well, but if anything doesn't go according to plan they are in far deeper trouble than, say, their Australian counterpart. So reliability is just as high an issue as actual costs - and people don't know much about reliability of new technologies. So, naturally, companies operating with less margin tend to be more leery concerning new technologies.

Similar things may have gone through the head of the people in 1909-1910 concerning Birkeland process. Once established, the plant is more than competitive against Atacama saltpeter; but the competition may still decide to pay premium for reliable Chilean saltpeter supply rather than build a Birkeland-Eyde plant and be stuck if some details don't work out.

It doesn't help that commodity industry tends to be more conservative than the rest just by itself. Look at mining - the last major technological advances took place in the early 1960s...
 
A 1917 multi part article on the nitrate industry from 1912-1916.
This article gives the following production figures for 1913:
Chile Saltpeter 2,740,000 metric tons
Ammonium Sulfate 1,365,000 metric tons
Lime Nitrogen 80,000 metric tons
Norwegian Saltpeter 30,000 metric tons

These figures suggest that the scale of the Norwegian Birkeland-Eyde electric arc plants are too small to be significant at this point, with the Norwegian Birkeland Eyde plant apparently producing less than 0.8% of the worlds fertilizer nitrates in 1913 according to these figures. The claim that Norway produced 8.0% in 1912 appears to be wrong. This is even after being in operation for several years and with production growing at a rate 170% per annum. The article notes the electric method is basically limited to Norway.

(Also, using the old eyeball guesstimate method, the idea of Norway making 0.6%-0.8% seems more reasonable in a 4,200,000+ ton market from one Birkeland-Eyde plant than 8.0% previously asserted, particularly when you look at the power figures. The volume Industrial Nitrogen Compound and Explosives, etc., by Martin & Barbor, that was cited in the first post and that I linked to, forgetting that it was already cited, gives figures that seem more consistent with 0.8% rather than 8%. Specifically, at p 21 the book gives these figures: a production rate of 0.5-1.0 ton for 1 horsepower year with a 40,000 hp hydroelectric plant powering Norwegian Birkeland-Eyde electric arc plant. This is also consistent with the figure of 60,000 kwh/ton of N2 fixed which is given with G.J. Nitrogen Fixation At The Millenium and which I linked to a few posts earlier. Given the Norwegian plant in question was 29,000 kw/40,000 hp plant, that means a little less than 1/2 ton an hour could be fixed at best. Using the optimistic estimate of a 8400 hour production year, remembering that Norwegian Saltpeter contains more than just nitrogen, and that Norway also had cyanamide plants, the figure of Norway producing less than 1% in 1913 seem reasonable. The 200,000 ton, 8%, figure given earlier for Norway's production for 1914 is incorrect and appears to be given out of confusion. As I read the text the 200,000 tons was world production of all nitrates made by all fixation methods, including cyanamide process, not just Birkeland-Eyde process. Also, 200,000 tons would probably closer to 5%, given a world production exceeding 400,000 tons in 1913.)

The 1917 article linked to in this post cites experts as saying that the United States needs for nitrates should be met with ammonium sulfate, the by-product of coke ovens. The article cites some experts who say the United States government should rely on the ammonium sulfate and not build the nitrogen fixing plant. (Presumably the plant the article refers to is Mussel Shoals, iirc which would have been a cyanamide type plant.) Others disagree.

Later (pp 252-53), the 1917 article cites experts claiming that electric arc nitrates are far more expensive than cyanamide nitrates, including ammonia and nitric acid. However, it also cites an opinion who says that the Haber process will be more expensive than the cyanamide process, which history showed was incorrect. As the article was published in 1917 by an American in a General Electric (of America) publication and the Haber process was a prized military secret, data may have been lacking.

The 1917 article also cites a paper that reports the cost of electric power in Norway $4-6 horsepower year versus $10-15 in the United States. In other words, Norwegian electric costs were just 40% of electric cost in the United States. This massive advantage would seem to explain why Norway alone used the Birkeland-Eyde process.

Another of the causes of confusion may be the various nitrogen compounds. Nitric acid and ammonia seem to be the two most important for explosives. Nitric acid is the product of the Birkeland-Eyde process and is used for such things as gun cotton and TNT. Nitric acid can also be made from ammonia via the Otswald process. Ammonia is used for such things as amatol and ammonium nitrate, and is made all sorts of ways but most cheaply from the later Haber Process. I think I am in the same boat as many folks here--I learned this level of chemistry stuff many years ago, studied or used little of it after the admission exams, and have forgotten most.

Notably, the 1912 Popular Science article mentions the Norwegian nitrate plant also mentions that the ammonia used in the plant was imported from the United Kingdom.

So, more grist for the powder mill.
 
Last edited:
But you see, Norway do not... :D
True! Realy! :D:D:D

There are no massive rivers and our mountain ranges are rather medium sized in hight. Highest point in Norway is only 2469masl.

Anyhow, is it possible to come to an agreement on this matter? :)




I will attemt to sketch a compromise:
  1. The Birkeland-Eyde process is massivly economicaly beneficial under OTL Norwegian circumtances.
  2. But the Birkeland-Eyde process is also suitable in many other locations. This might come at a somehow reduces economical profit tough, in extreme cases even to the point that it will have to be subsidized by the government. This would anyhow be acceptable for production of a strategic important good like Nitrates.
Acceptable? :confused::)

What exactly is it that makes Norway so incredibly spectacular for hydroelectric power? I can see why it would have a greater concentration of locations for plants, but individual sites can't compare with huge and rapid rivers that you find in the Western USA.
 
Being currently in a situation where we have to develop and sell new technology to very reluctant industrial customers, I can imagine that the explanation is not really economic.

There is always some mistrust against new technology. I'm not talking about GM food style mistrust - but every established industry has optimized their cost, they know what the average repair time is, what additional issues come up from time to time and how to deal with them, etc. And our US (potential) customers tend to operate on a far thinner margin than those in rest of the world - giving them a slight competitive edge when everything else works well, but if anything doesn't go according to plan they are in far deeper trouble than, say, their Australian counterpart. So reliability is just as high an issue as actual costs - and people don't know much about reliability of new technologies. So, naturally, companies operating with less margin tend to be more leery concerning new technologies.

Similar things may have gone through the head of the people in 1909-1910 concerning Birkeland process. Once established, the plant is more than competitive against Atacama saltpeter; but the competition may still decide to pay premium for reliable Chilean saltpeter supply rather than build a Birkeland-Eyde plant and be stuck if some details don't work out.

It doesn't help that commodity industry tends to be more conservative than the rest just by itself. Look at mining - the last major technological advances took place in the early 1960s...

I don't agree. If you can get the same product for less, you will. If someone has demonstrated that you can produce something profitably and people will buy it, other people will make it.

The issue in the case of this process was timing. By the time it was developed, WWI was just a couple of years away, and the country that had the greatest need was working on their own, better process.

But electric arc technology existed much earlier, so a small POD could lead to its earlier development.

The late 19th c was a pretty optimistic and forward-looking time. There wasn't a lot of conservative resistance to new technologies.
 
What exactly is it that makes Norway so incredibly spectacular for hydroelectric power? I can see why it would have a greater concentration of locations for plants, but individual sites can't compare with huge and rapid rivers that you find in the Western USA.
I read one advantage may be that Norway has steep, short rivers, so no massive reservoirs are need. The turbines can be fed via long dropping tubes--no Grand Coulee or Bonneville type megaprojects are needed. Instead, the tubes basically replace waterfalls. I think Oddball mention basically the same to me in a PM.

Another article I read reported another advantage is the water flow tends be more constant than most places due to rain and stable snow packs. No massive fall or summer droughts, less excess spring run off. This also lessens the need for large reservoirs, lowering capital costs.

I would be curious as to whether the velocity of the water is on average is higher. Higher water speed equals higher energy output.
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Monthly Donor
Hydro power rant comming up:

What exactly is it that makes Norway so incredibly spectacular for hydroelectric power?

Ah, I tought you would never ask... :D:cool:

Just so that the words wont be my subjective opinion, I will quote from "Hydropower development in Norway" edited by Vidkunn Hveding 1992:

The potential energy in the average annual rainfall on Norway's surface has been roughly estimated at 500 TWh.
..., the numerous ice-carved lakes offer a generally favourabe basis for the creation of storage, by damming to moderate heights and by tapping belowe the natural level. Hyperannual storage can also be provided, to even out annual variation and bridge series of dry years. Using these opportunities to an economic optimum, recent surveys indicate that some 150 to 170 TWh could be economical exploited, ...
A most fortunate aspect of these resources has been their favourable distribution, geograpical as well as size. The generaly short distance from watershed to sea does not allow the agglomeration into few and wide rivers but leaves instead a large number of smaller water courses, a good many of them relativly short and steep. Consequently, convenient sites could be found near every town or population centre for development on an affordable scale right from the beginning. The ten hydro power installation supporting towns before 1900 ranged from 800kW down to a mere 50kW, and by 1930 the country had more than 1400 power stations of less than 10MW. Later, when demand increased, there was no problem in combining separate resources for large scale development, such as Sira-Kvina and Ulla-Førre of more than 2000 MW each.
The favourable distribution, rather than abundance of resources per se, has been at the root of the early , broad-based start of hydr power development in Norway and the consistent growt ever since.
As noted, mega projects are not the key in Norway, rather the oposite. :)

A consequence of this is that Norway on an annual average basis is the sixth larges hydro power producer in the world at 140TWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Countries_with_the_most_hydro-electric_capacity

But if you look at lists of the world largest hydro power stations installations, you will have to go far down on the list to find a Norwegian plant.

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

I would be curious as to whether the velocity of the water is on average is higher. Higher water speed equals higher energy output.

Both yes and no. Velocity of the water is important, but it is also dependent of the area it flows trough. The velocity of the water in the system above the penstocs (99,9% of the waterway) are rather low due to an enlarged area. But water velocity at the turbin is high, ofcource to an small area.

The one of the generators in my company only uses 13m3/s of water to generate 110MWs. The velocity of the water at this production is merely 4 m/s before the penstocs, but increases to 125 m/s in the turbine. The head is 950 meters. :eek::)

My companys hydro power stations is actualy located in one of Norways driest areas (30-36 l/s/km2), but still we generate 1,7 TWh yearly average. My largest dam is merely 60meters high and 450meters long. So no mega projects.
 
I don't agree. If you can get the same product for less, you will. If someone has demonstrated that you can produce something profitably and people will buy it, other people will make it.

I have to disagree back ;). We are not talking about something an artisan can use in a backyard workshop. I have chosen a wrong formulation - the question of reliability is very much an economic one. Depending on the downtime of the reactor (maintenance/repairs, parts replacement accidents), it can be more or less expensive to produce nitrates in it. The thing is, with more downtime it can well lose out against Chilean saltpeter - and you, as an investor, have no way to know the expected downtime. You can invest enormous amounts of money with incalculable result, or accept smaller but predictable margin of working with what you know.

This is what I meant with conservative industry - it's not necessarily just visceral resistance to any new idea.

Edit: For an untested technology with uncalculable risks, you need a backer with deep pockets for the first few year of commercial operations. Any process using electric arc is a capricious bitch - a failure of any component results in enormous losses. And how do you calculate the risk of the failure without statistical data gained during long operation time? D'uh.

This backing role was obviously played by Norwegian government for Birkeland-Eyde process, and by the sheer size of BASF for the Haber-Bosch process.

And then there is relative cost of electricity per hp-year in Norway resp. USA as Phil noted.
 
Last edited:
Phil

Most of the analysis sounds good but with this section aren't you comparing averages. Just because US costs overall are $10-15, I presume this is covering a range of installations. Possibly some that would be compatible to Norwegian costs.

Steve

http://books.google.com/books?id=iG...16+helen+hosmer+cost&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
The 1917 article also cites a paper that reports the cost of electric power in Norway $4-6 horsepower year versus $10-15 in the United States. In other words, Norwegian electric costs were just 40% of electric cost in the United States. This massive advantage would seem to explain why Norway alone used the Birkeland-Eyde process.
 
Phil

Most of the analysis sounds good but with this section aren't you comparing averages. Just because US costs overall are $10-15, I presume this is covering a range of installations. Possibly some that would be compatible to Norwegian costs.

Steve
I am just reporting the figures the article cites. (I hope my reporting is accurate.) These appear to be average costs as I read the article.

Possibly some United States plants would be comparable in production cost. But remember that production cost does not determine price. Rather, price is determined by demand, as long as price at least covers marginal costs.

The price in the United States may be greater than in Norway because demand in the United States may be greater. After all the United States was more industrialized than Norway, so there may be more buyers.

Another factor in the choice of method in the United States is the United States producers had the possibility of cheaper nitrates from ammonium sulfate produced coke ovens and from the more efficient cyanamide. Norway lacked the steel and coke industry the United States possessed (and the United Kingdom, Germany, and others also possessed), so producing ammonium sulfate as a nitrate this was not an option for Norway.

Norway did have cyanamide plants, which also required considerable electricity and which were more efficient at producing feedstock for the explosives industry. I am not certain why Hydro-Norsk stayed with the Birkeland-Eyde process except perhaps the Birkeland-Eyde process could produce nitric acid without any other inputs. Another reason was perhaps because Hydro-Norsk controlled the licensing rights for the Birkeland-Eyde process.

Again it must be remember at the time, with the Great War going on, Norsk-Hydro was building plants into a sellers market. Even then, BASF backed out of building a plant in Norway, realizing that the Haber process would be more economical.
 
Last edited:
No, we just don't like you nor respect your opinion.

Actually, that's a possible POD - it's just that we got sidetracked by pages of challenges based on only Norway being able to use bonds to finance factory construction.

@Nugax: I'm not sure that anyone would intervene in a Latin American war just to keep the nitrates flowing, if there's an alternative. The US won't tolerate European powers doing so (Monroe Doctrine), and it's hard to imagine the US getting involved in something like that. You'd be left with non-violent pressure, and in any case, some capitalist is bound to smell the opportunity and build a nitrates factory, even if this takes considerably longer than the war lasts. It's very much within the scope of possibility that such a factory could be informally subsidized by a guaranteed order by a national military - a safer, national source would always be welcome. This type of thing was very common - a large number of British shipping firms were launched with mail contracts, for example.

The 1880s still saw the British being the ones enforcing the Monroe doctrine, and I can see the US having absolutely no problem with Britain acting to stablise trade and a South American government. Heck the British could just allow one of the sides to buy guns again and would tilt the war drastically in one direction. Additionally the geography of the Atacama makes it a fundamentally unsuitable to long term disputes - whoever has the local naval advantage will control the desert (in OTL it was Chile, but it could easily have been Peru, but whoever did win would do it decisively as the opposing sides lack of supplies would see them dead in months) and then its over bar the bickering. This can be seen in the Chincha Islands War - Spain had a naval advantage and quickly humbled Chile and Peru, in the War of the Pacific Chile had the naval advantage and quickly beat Peru.

Again with the geography - despite it originally being 'Bolivas' the mountain barriers made it difficult for them to excert sovereignty. The population in the area was 98% Chilean and both British and Americans had stakes in the main Chilean extraction company and little opposing interests.

Its not like some densely populated segment of the world - there just isn't anything there to sustain a protracted contest and the countries involved don't have the fiscal resources to do so. Its like saying there will be a multi-decade war over Nevada between Deseret and an independent California.
 
Top