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.