CS, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. So, this little phrase (carbon-based fertilizers) has got your pedantic little knickers in a twist. It would seem that patmad is suffering too, poor chap.
"I can see no reason for NRZ wanting full ownership of the railway. If they are forced to have it they will have to have a disposal and rehabilitation programme in place. This will be required sometime in the future when carbon-based fertilizers are taxed so highly that the company becomes unviable eg Leigh Creek Coal, and is shut down, IMO. Thirty years is a long time."
To put it into context let me start with fertilizers. The term "fertilizer" is a grab-all term and does not define the types of compounds under its umbrella ie organic or non-organic or combination of both or others (NPK).
Some examples of nitrogenous fertilizers.
Urea - CH4N2O
Ammonium nitrate - NH4 NO3
Ammonium sulphate - (NH4)2SO4 20.5
Note that they are all compounds, and they all contain nitrogen, but there is only one organic compound (Carbon-Based Urea). This is a way of further categorizing nitrogenous fertilizers.
If you don't like chemical formulae, IW has drawn you a pretty picture of Urea.
Nitrogen-based fertilizer is the grab-all term. Non-specific.
Organic or non-organic is next down. More meaningful in a chemical sense.
Hense, synthetic organic fertilizers, (eg urea) either alone or in combination with non-organic fertilizers (eg as NPK), are carbon-based. And, because of their high carbon content, IMO, will become obsolete in time.
CS, that's how I see it. I hope this better explains the meaning of my post. J L.
Expand
(20min delay)