Nitrogen runoff solution for Gulf of Mexico dead zone?

On a recent trip to the UK I visited the Cardiff (Bute) area, where it has been upgraded to a public entertainment area. The water level to the dock is maintained by a dam across the river mouth, the consequences of this was stagnation, it started to smell and the fish die off. The solution is they have laid pipes around the bay floor that aerates the water, this cured the problem. I know the Mississippi is a bigger deal, and probably not feasible..........., and finding a good argument to met the cost......? But like you say I think there may be a solution and some one should do the sums.

Regards JD.

"How about infusing oxygen into the dead areas of the Gulf?"

It'll definitely help a lot. Regardless of whether the die-off was due to dissolved oxygen being consumed to nitrify ammonia or eutrophication due to the high nitrogen content, what actually kills the life is lack of dissolved oxygen. Adding sufficient quantities of it will eventually help life recover.

Looks like it would be a no-brainer to infuse the entire Mississippi Delta area with oxygen. Whatever the infusion system would cost would be paid back many times over.

Not only would it revive the marine population for commercial fishermen, but it would just be plain ecologically responsible!

I wonder how much an infusion system would cost relative to one single Gulf oil platform (of which there are many)?

Is there a way to change the nitrogen runoff into something more chemically inert and, thus, less harmful? Gotta check into this one, but others have probably already researched it extensively.

-John

"Is there a way to change the nitrogen runoff into something more chemically inert and, thus, less harmful?"

Off-hand, I'd say that the best way would be to install a wastewater treatment plant on the platform. The WWTP should consist of a membrane bioreactor (MBR) and an anoxic-oxic (AOR) bioreactor.

The operation sequence should be aerobic for the MBR, followed by approximately 2 hours of anoxic treatment, then 3 - 4 hours of aerobic treatment in the AOR. In this way, ammonia and other proteinaceous or organic material will be oxidized almost completely in the MBR. As this will result in NO₃ formation, following this up with anoxic treatment in the AOR will denitrify the NO₃, resulting in the release of N₂ gas into the atmosphere. This will remove nitrogen from the effluent completely. Finally, another round of aerobic treatment will result in luxury update of PO₄ from the effluent, resulting in the bacteria removing much more PO₄ from the effluent than ordinary aerobic treatment would bring about.

By doing this, it will almost completely eliminate the demand on dissolved oxygen the discharged effluent will impose on the receiving waterway, both from oxidation of BOD/COD, and from the results of eutrophication of the receiving waterway.

You said "install a wastewater treatment plant on the platform."

Where would this "platform" be located?

On the oil platform itself. If you're referring to dealing with farm runoff, installing a wetland wastewater treatment system downstream of the farm will do, since it will breakdown the waste and the plants will absorb the nutrients. Finally, the plants themselves can be exploited as a source of fuel.

I was referring to farm runoff. I did not know that nitrogen runoff occurred with oil platforms.

Anyway you said "installing a wetland wastewater treatment system downstream of the farm will do..."

I don't think that's practical because there are many corn farms along the Mississippi river, with most contributing to the nitrogen runoff problem. What you suggest would entail treating the entire Mississippi river before it reaches the Delta and the Mississippi is one huge river. I just don't see how it could work.

Good thoughts though.

-John

Sorry, my bad. What might be doable would be for each farm to construct a wetland system and channel its runoff into it for treatment prior to discharge. Another possibility would be to surround each farm with a cut-off drain to trap runoff, then channel this drain into a sump or pond as a storage area for the WWTP. The pond can also serve as a water source for irrigation, with the advantage that as it is already high in dissolved NO₃, the farmers can save money by reducing fertilizer consumption.

Think this might be more feasible?

This is probably completely daft & impractical - I haven't done any sums on it.

How about sea-bed electrolysis units? (electricity from solar?). The hydrogen could be piped up for fuel (at least getting something out of the setup), leaving the oxygen in solution.

Just an idea.

scotchdrnkr,

I do agree but think of how scary if would be to face the formidable chemical/oil industry. To be environmentally responsible without duplicity would supremely challenge the industries profit margin.

Scary also to depend upon our natural world and it's resources necessitating a respect in kind.

You're gonna change the world...and it's about time.

This is yet another mess we have found ourselves in due to short sightedness. We as humans have an uncanny knack for messing things in nature up. It can always be attributed to a quest for either power or wealth without regards for the ones most affected. Everthing comes at a price. Greater crop production at a lower cost yeilds profitablility. I have been acutely aware of the situation for most if not all farmers in that the commodity prices have not kept pace with inflation or machinery costs since the late seventies when soybeans were $12 per bushel and you could actually expect to pay for a new peice of equipment. But the outlook looks better ahead if you up the production while getting a higher dollar per bushel price. Once again some will jump at the opportunity to profit from a new idea or technology without regards to who actually has to pay for it. All of this again comes at a price ie the environment, food shortages or just a matter of economics. If you can't afford to eat ,you probably won't. The Ethanol economy is a problem rather than a solution if it comes at a catastrophic price we do not realize immediately. We still burn fossil fuels to distill it, so it is not completely clean as we might want to believe. So how do we controll the problem in the gulf. Come up with a better energy solution that does not take a heavy toll on food or the environment. We as humans that are dedicated to preserving our earths health will have to lose some sleep and try to find the solutions before it is too late. JMO

Good post cottonmouth.

To make matters worse consider this:

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

* soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
* sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

Read more about it here.

In short, "A fuel's 'net energy' is calculated by attempting to assess how much energy a new fuel supplies, and then subtracting the energy supplied by fossil fuels needed to create the new fuel. The calculation is often carried out in a way that leaves grain ethanol with a net energy of -29% [emphasis added], giving the impression that it uses more fossil fuels to produce it that the new fuel supplies."

-John

Good deal Johnjohn,

I've noticed the argument against hydrogen production is also the determination that more fossil fuel is burned compared to production.

Ironic that the model uses fossil fuel to transport commodities in production of hydrogen. When actually the product itself (hydrogen) should be used. I guess its that chicken or egg concept but that only applies initially. After product begins you need realize that production uses only 1/3 the quantity produced.

No brainer...I think I think.

Johnjohn,

I have learned that an increase of sulfur and ammonia applied to cropland will reduce the nitrogen run-off a significant degree. It is and overlap technique I think.

Hi bwire,

How does that work? Does the supfur and ammonia have any adverse affect on the soil for following year's planting?

In my OP I quoted Jerry Peckumn who farms corn and soybeans on about 2000 acres near Jefferson, Iowa. In it he said "I think you have to try to be a good steward of the land, but on the other hand, you can't ignore the price of corn."

So I guess a better question is "are the major corn producers aware of this, and if so, why is it not being used"? How would using this technique affect their bottom line profit?

-John

Ammonia anhydrous, pure liquid ammonia is a highly reactive chemical that kills off soil life, produces the nitrogen by burning up humus when injected into the soil. This procedure is normal after harvest tillage has been completed annually by most corn belt farmers.

The technique I previously described calls for layering sulfur over the ammonia.

An alternative which virtually eliminates run off is the organic way. Till under nitrogen rich foliage and allow bio to work it's way.

Johnjohn,

A correction, the ammonia/sulfur application is combined dry fertilizer applied by creating furrow 6" below the seed. It has been available for 20 years or so. Farmers have not used due expense but we must change our mind set to one of sustainability.

The research towards controlling nitrogen run-off with this compound is being conducted at OSU.

Thanks bwire,

I'll look into it.

-John