Every time a WW1 thread comes up, and someone is talking about how a war would go, John Q. Smith pops up and tells you that if you aren't on Great Britain's side, or not Germany post-1914, you will lose because you can't import nitrates from Chile. Nitrates are important in this time frame because that's what you make explosives out of. Your postulated thread or time line withers and dies because no one is really interested in talking about your war's sad and pathetic end, when the alt-land-based power gets choked to death by the RN's stranglehold on the import of nitrates. Even if you try to say "Haber's process gets developed in Country X", you get shot down by people saying (correctly) that your country doesn't have the chemical industry required to happen upon the Haber process.
This has gotten a bit tiresome for me, too, so after a bit of research, I've decided to help you out. Just credit me if you want to use the idea in a time line.
My source is Industrial Nitrogen Compounds and Explosives: A Practical Treatise on the Manufacture, Properties, and Industrial Uses of Nitric Acid, Nitrates, Nitrites, Ammonia, Ammonium Salts, Cyanides, Cyanamide, Etc. Etc., Including the Most Recent Explosives, Martin and Barbour, 1915.
* * * * * * * * * *
So you need nitrates. In OTL, these were recovered by digging down a couple meters into the Atacama Desert in northern Chile. Chile and Peru combined to export 90% of the nitrates at this time, and unless you're in South America, you need ships to bring these goodies to your country. The problem you face is that the big nasty Royal Navy is in your way, and they are likely to cut off all of those nitrates at the outbreak of war. While nitrates aren't really hard to mine, no one has any alternative mining operation available, nor can one be started to produce enough nitrates while a war is going on because you don't have enough nitrate resources in your country, and you need a lot.
1912 Production Figures:
Total Ore Exported: 2.54 million tons
United Kingdom: 5.6% of total
Germany: 33.3% of total
France: 14.3% of total
Belgium: 12.2% of total
Netherlands: 5.9% of total
Italy: 2% of total
Austria-Hungary: 0.5% of total
United States: 22.2% of total
Taking the US as our example, that is a requirement for 564,000 tons of nitrates...good luck coming up with that in the traditional UK vs. US AH war.
So how do you make up the shortfall?
Traditionally, you make nitric acid (the stuff that's most widely used in explosives, but also in a boggling number of other chemical processes) by using a process requiring sulphuric acid and Chilean saltpeter. Of course, you can't do that now. The other usually-discussed way is via the Haber process, which uses the catalytic oxidation of ammonia. If you don't have a buzzing chemical industry, you're not likely to stumble upon that.
My research, however, has led me upon a third way to do it with that era's technology: you can simply electrically oxidize the atmosphere. When air is strongly heated, atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen directly unite to form nitric oxide. This is accomplished by means of an electric arc. There are three main specific processes used to do this, but as you probably aren't interested in the nitty-gritty details, I'll skip over them in favor of national production figures, though you are welcome to PM me for exact details.
This method was first solved in commercially successful form in 1903, and first utilized in 1907 by a British company operating in Norway. Interestingly enough, German companies were quite interested in this and built their own plant in Norway, only selling it once the Haber process was perfected. My reference states that the process is very power-intensive, and for some reason it only looks like you can use hydroelectric power to do this process efficiently, though I can't ascertain the reason.
The writers conflict on how much electricity is required, however, so I will do calculations for both cases. They state that if the entire hydroelectric capacity of Europe were to be used for the production of nitrates, 50 million tons could be produced per year. Since the total hydroelectric capacity of Europe is given as between 5.05 and 6.05 million horsepower per year, this means that 1 hp per year would yield (in worst case scenario) 8.2 tons of nitrate per year. The US would require a paltry 70,000 horsepower to produce its entire nitrate requirement. Niagara Falls was producing 50,000 horsepower in 1895, and over 100,000 by 1905. This case makes this process look ridiculously easy: have your nation's government install a couple medium-sized dams, and send your boys to the trenches with all the explosives they need.
On the other hand, the writers also state that it requires 1 hp per year to produce 1 ton of nitrate per year, which is really confusing when compared to the numbers I just showed you; that means you need 8x as much hydroelectric power as you required in Case A for Case B. Your barely-noticeable government operation has now become a national plan that requires a bit of foresight, but it can still be used given a couple years of lead time. The United States, in this instance, now requires nearly 600,000 horsepower from its hydroelectric plants per year. That's quite a bit, but not too difficult, at least with some planning before a war. Construction of Niagara Falls' new power plant was slowed by the onset of WW1, but if a project of such national importance was needed in case of likely war, it could be accomplished with enough national will. Once the Falls got their new, additional power plants running, they produced 450,000 horsepower. If America's farmers go without quite as much fertilizer, the US can now be self-sufficient just using Niagara, though of course it would make more sense to use and build a good number of smaller hydroelectric plants elsewhere.
* * *
Hopefully this will be of use to someone. As I said before, feel free to use this in a time line, just credit me if possible. For flavor, and to make your time line sound a bit more top-notch, the three different sub-methods were the Birkeland-Eyde Furnace, the Pauling Furnace, and the Schonherr Furnace.
Thanks for tuning in!
This has gotten a bit tiresome for me, too, so after a bit of research, I've decided to help you out. Just credit me if you want to use the idea in a time line.
My source is Industrial Nitrogen Compounds and Explosives: A Practical Treatise on the Manufacture, Properties, and Industrial Uses of Nitric Acid, Nitrates, Nitrites, Ammonia, Ammonium Salts, Cyanides, Cyanamide, Etc. Etc., Including the Most Recent Explosives, Martin and Barbour, 1915.* * * * * * * * * *
So you need nitrates. In OTL, these were recovered by digging down a couple meters into the Atacama Desert in northern Chile. Chile and Peru combined to export 90% of the nitrates at this time, and unless you're in South America, you need ships to bring these goodies to your country. The problem you face is that the big nasty Royal Navy is in your way, and they are likely to cut off all of those nitrates at the outbreak of war. While nitrates aren't really hard to mine, no one has any alternative mining operation available, nor can one be started to produce enough nitrates while a war is going on because you don't have enough nitrate resources in your country, and you need a lot.
1912 Production Figures:
Total Ore Exported: 2.54 million tons
United Kingdom: 5.6% of total
Germany: 33.3% of total
France: 14.3% of total
Belgium: 12.2% of total
Netherlands: 5.9% of total
Italy: 2% of total
Austria-Hungary: 0.5% of total
United States: 22.2% of total
Taking the US as our example, that is a requirement for 564,000 tons of nitrates...good luck coming up with that in the traditional UK vs. US AH war.
So how do you make up the shortfall?
Traditionally, you make nitric acid (the stuff that's most widely used in explosives, but also in a boggling number of other chemical processes) by using a process requiring sulphuric acid and Chilean saltpeter. Of course, you can't do that now. The other usually-discussed way is via the Haber process, which uses the catalytic oxidation of ammonia. If you don't have a buzzing chemical industry, you're not likely to stumble upon that.
My research, however, has led me upon a third way to do it with that era's technology: you can simply electrically oxidize the atmosphere. When air is strongly heated, atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen directly unite to form nitric oxide. This is accomplished by means of an electric arc. There are three main specific processes used to do this, but as you probably aren't interested in the nitty-gritty details, I'll skip over them in favor of national production figures, though you are welcome to PM me for exact details.
This method was first solved in commercially successful form in 1903, and first utilized in 1907 by a British company operating in Norway. Interestingly enough, German companies were quite interested in this and built their own plant in Norway, only selling it once the Haber process was perfected. My reference states that the process is very power-intensive, and for some reason it only looks like you can use hydroelectric power to do this process efficiently, though I can't ascertain the reason.
The writers conflict on how much electricity is required, however, so I will do calculations for both cases. They state that if the entire hydroelectric capacity of Europe were to be used for the production of nitrates, 50 million tons could be produced per year. Since the total hydroelectric capacity of Europe is given as between 5.05 and 6.05 million horsepower per year, this means that 1 hp per year would yield (in worst case scenario) 8.2 tons of nitrate per year. The US would require a paltry 70,000 horsepower to produce its entire nitrate requirement. Niagara Falls was producing 50,000 horsepower in 1895, and over 100,000 by 1905. This case makes this process look ridiculously easy: have your nation's government install a couple medium-sized dams, and send your boys to the trenches with all the explosives they need.
On the other hand, the writers also state that it requires 1 hp per year to produce 1 ton of nitrate per year, which is really confusing when compared to the numbers I just showed you; that means you need 8x as much hydroelectric power as you required in Case A for Case B. Your barely-noticeable government operation has now become a national plan that requires a bit of foresight, but it can still be used given a couple years of lead time. The United States, in this instance, now requires nearly 600,000 horsepower from its hydroelectric plants per year. That's quite a bit, but not too difficult, at least with some planning before a war. Construction of Niagara Falls' new power plant was slowed by the onset of WW1, but if a project of such national importance was needed in case of likely war, it could be accomplished with enough national will. Once the Falls got their new, additional power plants running, they produced 450,000 horsepower. If America's farmers go without quite as much fertilizer, the US can now be self-sufficient just using Niagara, though of course it would make more sense to use and build a good number of smaller hydroelectric plants elsewhere.
* * *
Hopefully this will be of use to someone. As I said before, feel free to use this in a time line, just credit me if possible. For flavor, and to make your time line sound a bit more top-notch, the three different sub-methods were the Birkeland-Eyde Furnace, the Pauling Furnace, and the Schonherr Furnace.
Thanks for tuning in!
