Ann: Technology Investment & Hydrogen Certification Responses, page-56

Thank you MM, Iwill take this on board, do a little research, regarding carbon neutrality. Ithink this is an important issue worthy of discussion. If we promotesomething that does not stand up on analysis, the Greenies will beall over us like a rash, and we know what they can do, (eg Marathon'srubbish).
Research is quite clear about the storage and sequestration of CO2 through the production of urea. The AmmoniaIndustry has published a detailed paper written by Trevor Brown titled "Urea production is not carbon sequestration". It explains, among other things, the CO2 liberating process inthe field. It is easy to read, not too technical, and the chemistry is easily understood.
In answer to one part of your post, the CO2 is liberated by hydrolysis,
I will cherry pick a few lines from the paper:
- "No CO2 is permanently stored or sequestered throughthe production of urea."
- "The carbon contained in urea contributes only 14% of urea's total carbon footprint." (the scary bit)
- "The carbon in urea is not a plant nutrient."
- "Within 8 days of application, 98% of the carbon in urea will be emitted into the atmosphere."
- "Essentially, all of the CO2 in urea will be emitted to the atmosphere in one week."

You say, Urea is already being applied to Australian Soils (>95% of urea is imported). Therefore no net increase in CO2 being liberated"
This is where I am struggling; I have yet to find out how the government determines, in this instance, carbon neutrality. Perhaps someone can help off the top of their head.

Taking a simplistic view, and I am not trying to be cute, one could say:
- it doesn't matter where the urea comes from, it brings carbon with it, and
- that like buying energy from the grid from a particular supplier (eg AGL or Origin), the CO2 sucked up by the crop might not be a by-product the urea but from the power station down the road.
And urea nitrate is used in explosives - Guess where the C ends up. J L
.