Nitrogen policy resembles new allowance affair

The Agrifacts Foundation (STAF) has received a sensitive investigation into the production of nitrogen by nature management itself. All the perils about nitrogen and energy raise the question: does the government have a vision?

The publication of STAF did not happen automatically, but had to go through a WOB procedure that was initiated by the Farmers Defense Force (FDF). A study in the nature reserves of the province of Drenthe, carried out by the University of Antwerp on behalf of the province of Drenthe. It was determined from the 286 measuring points that 22,5 kilos of nitrogen came from the air from outside. But all kinds of factors such as deforestation, desiccation and disturbance of the natural soil released 30 to even 250 kilos of nitrogen from the nature reserves themselves.

Natural NH3 belongs in nature
This does not surprise me. After all, one of the largest sources of nitrogen on Earth are the swamps where the Nile River originates. All NH3 nitrogen. The same natural nitrogen as the NH3 of our livestock. What does surprise me, however, is that nature organizations and the government repeatedly blame the farmers for the excess nitrogen in the nature reserves. But they do not recognize that the nature reserves themselves produce a multitude of nitrogen. Their demand for sparse nature reserves will therefore never succeed, even if they have expelled all farmers. The natural NH3 belongs in nature and allows the plants to grow on earth.

How can you, as a government, disadvantage our farmers, a group of people that are important to our society, and saddle them with high costs? While the main cause, nature itself, remains unaffected. It's starting to look like a new allowance affair.

Fossil fuels. to replace
What is not natural is the NOx nitrogen that is released during the combustion of all kinds of fuels. This NOx does not belong in nature and it takes a very long time before it disappears from nature. We can only achieve this by replacing our fossil fuels with non-fossil fuels. All media and politicians in The Hague are full of it: self-sufficient with energy before 2050, so no more fossil fuels and therefore no more NOx emissions.

What a beautiful dream image. The political parties are shouting, but no one has a plan how this should be achieved. Before you say such things, you should at least have a plan and publish how you are going to do it. All fossil fuels must then be replaced by electricity. This means an increase in our electricity needs by a factor of 10. And that has to be done with wind turbines and solar panels. Lots of subsidies are spent on this. A great deal of subsidy goes abroad through foreign investors. A waste of our tax money, but what consequences do these government goals have?

Politicians just shout
If we want to realize this, we must not only fill our North and Wadden Sea with windmills, but also provide the entire mainland with windmills and solar panels. Many farmers have to leave, there is no longer room for house building, our nature parks also have to accept it. Every bird that flies away is slain by all the sails of the mills.

By the way, is there enough copper in the world for all electricity cables? In short, our politicians are shouting something - as is so often the case - but they do not know what they are shouting. Wouldn't it be better to think about this first? I only see a few solutions. First and foremost, these are nuclear power stations. But then nuclear power stations that do not produce waste and are not dangerous. These nuclear power stations are, for example, the so-called Thorium power stations. The development of these power stations is in its infancy and politicians actually have to invest money to get this off the ground.

Solar panels in desert
Second: placing solar panels in a desert to make hydrogen there. Hydrogen is easy to transport and can be transported via our existing gas network with minor adjustments. We supply the residents with food in exchange for hydrogen. They don't starve and we have energy. A win-win situation. Even better: converting heat into energy in warm countries with mirrors. Then we also do not create a future mountain of waste from the solar panels, which are very difficult to recycle.

The first cases of fires with solar panels on the roof have already occurred. The result: a large area around that building is heavily polluted with very fine remnants of the solar panels. Are we not creating a new environmental problem, even worse than our asbestos problem already is?
Our land is far too scarce to sacrifice for solar parks. Now we are constructing new residential areas even without a gas network. Incomprehensible, let's think carefully about our future before we just do something haphazardly.

Jaap Major
Low Zuthem

Boerenbusiness

Under Boerenbusiness opinions are posted from authors who, in principle, give their opinion once Boerenbusiness.nl or from people who prefer to remain anonymous. Name and place of residence are always known to the editors.

© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.