Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Two Fertilizer Companies Now Worth More than Citigroup

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby lorenzo » Tue 11 Dec 2007, 23:53:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Windmills', 'D')oesn't the Haber-Bosch process require natural gas in order to be produced economically, or at least relatively inexpensively?

China is the largest producer of nitrogen fertilizer in the world:
Image
Source

And:
"60% of China's nitrogen fertilizer production is currently based on coal."
Source

Economics clearly aren't a problem. Coal is far cheaper per btu than NG. Peak oil is a complete non-issue for nitrogen fertilizer.

But hey... Keep swinging guys. Maybe one of these days you might actually hit the ball.


Thanks JD, we all knew this, but some POers don't want to believe it.

Phosphorus is no problem either: in the past 100 years, phosphate has been discovered at a rate that exceeds the rate of consumption. Reserves are so huge we can last for +200 years, but best of all, the resource can be recycled easily.

There is too much phosphate in Europe's waters, and a new recycling order is going to lead to a production of 300,000 recycled tonnes or 25% of all EU consumption of P fertilizer, from animal manure alone.

So P is no problem at all (certainly not when it is used for the production of bioenergy, in which case the resource can be recycled even easier). In fact, there's too much of it in the system already.

So that leaves us with potassium - ehe.

Nice try, dudes.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 04:27:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'l')orenzo, Dezakin, JD, I don't believe any of you cornies or technocornies bothered to read what I wrote. It doesn't matter that phosphorus is everywhere. The problem is that it is nowhere in the necessary concentration to support agriculture. It always must be imported and every exporter is running out.

No they aren't. Its a full .1% of average crust! concentrating that for fertilizer is trivial. You're talking about doing what you do all the time with minerals, simply upgrading the concentration and doing chemical selection. We've known how to do that for well over a century.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')simov noted that phosphorus composes about 0.12% of an average soil, yet a much greater percentage of an alfalfa plant's body, about 0.7%, is phosphorus. Therefore, the "concentration factor" for phosphorus is about 5.8 (0.7/0.12).

No other mineral element even comes close to having a concentration factor as great as phosphorus's. The closest is sulfur with 2.0, then chlorine with 1.5. All the rest have less than a factor of 1.


So Peak Phosphorus is a very real and growing (or not growing, no pun intended) problem indeed. World production peaked in the early 1990's at 162,000 metric tons/year and is now closer to 140,000/year.

Mercury production peaked in the 60's! This has nothing to do with the sustainability of agriculture or the avaliability of civilization to ramp up phosphorus production in any time of actual need. We produce minerals with far lower concentrations at far higher rates that are less critical than phosphorus, like tin for instance.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 05:38:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')So how would you "extract" it from a rock consisting of 98% of CaCO3 and 2% Ca3 (PO4)2 ?

Probably by limeburning as part of cement production, if you ever had to use ore grades that low. Which we wont this side of a thousand years.

Given that we reduce hundreds of millions of tons limestone a year, thousands of times that of phosphates, I'm not terribly worried about the miniscule expense phosphorus extraction will cost.


It seems that you don't know much about chemical process which can be used in phosphates extraction.

In lime burning you will convert calcium carbonate into oxide, then into hydroxide upon water treatment.
Phosphates would still stay with this oxide/hydroxide and any separation would require expensive "wet" chemistry.
Essentially your phosphate would end up as lime impurity, not separable without an expensive and resources intensive process.

(NB it would not be possible to use such product as efficient fertilizer directly. Presence of too much calcium is reducing bioavailabilty of phosphorus).

In chemical industry apatite rock Ca3(PO4)2*CaClF is treated with moderately concentrated sulfuric acid.
This results in water phase containing phosphoric acid and calcium sulfate solid together with hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids are produced as by products.
Hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids are distilled off, calcium sulfate filtered off and phosphoric acid is left in liquid phase.
Phosphoric acid is then converted to fertilizer
Any calcium carbonate present would have to be converted into sulfate first, before desirable reaction takes place.
So if you have 2% of phosphate (in molar terms), your load of sulfuric acid would have to increase about 50 fold.
So you will soon face a problem with sulfuric acid supply, if you try.

Another method of phosphorus separation rely on endothermic reduction of apatite by carbon in presence of sand according to process:

2Ca3(PO4)2+6SiO2+10C= 6CaSiO3 + 10CO + P4 (at 1800*C)

P4 (white phosphorus) distills off, then is burned to P2O5 and this is treated with water to produce phosphoric acid finally converted to fertilizer.

You may note that any calcium carbonate present would have to be converted into silicate (CaSiO3) for the process to work.
With 98% of CaCO3 it really look hopeless.
This would entail heating massive amounts of rock with a lot of sand and some coke to produce a tiny bit of phosphorus.
Expensive & extremely inefficient energy hog.

NB. CaSiO3 by product is a useless one.

So the question is, if phosphorus fertilizer is to be 50 times more expensive, will farmers be able to afford it?
And if they do, how much food will cost?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 05:49:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'l')orenzo, Dezakin, JD, I don't believe any of you cornies or technocornies bothered to read what I wrote. It doesn't matter that phosphorus is everywhere. The problem is that it is nowhere in the necessary concentration to support agriculture. It always must be imported and every exporter is running out.

No they aren't. Its a full .1% of average crust! concentrating that for fertilizer is trivial.

No, it is not.
Read my post above.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 05:57:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '
')So that leaves us with potassium - ehe.

Nice try, dudes.

No, that leaves us with Lorenzo who does not know much about phosphorus chemistry and also believes that some sort of recycling order will deal with global phosphorus depletion.

BTW. With 25% recovery 75% is still lost...
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby JohnDenver » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 07:58:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o Peak Phosphorus is a very real and growing (or not growing, no pun intended) problem indeed. World production peaked in the early 1990's at 162,000 metric tons/year and is now closer to 140,000/year.


As usual, you've got your figures wrong. According to the USGS, phosphate rock production peaked in 1988 at 166,000,000 metric tons/year.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/phosphate.pdf

And you still haven't answered the $64,000 question, i.e.:
If phosphate rock production peaked 20 years ago, and has now terminally declined by about 16% from its peak value, how is it that world population grew by 27% from 5.1 billion to 6.5 billion in the same interval?

Sounds like the camel snuck through the eye of the needle.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby JohnDenver » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 08:26:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')No, that leaves us with Lorenzo who does not know much about phosphorus chemistry and also believes that some sort of recycling order will deal with global phosphorus depletion.


China, Korea and Japan maintained the fertility of their soils for thousands of years by recycling all waste back into the soil. This amazing feat was achieved with no fossil fuels at all. It was a natural consequence of economics: without mined/manufactured fertilizers, shit was GOLD, and wealthy men operated the shit concessions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n 1908 the International Concessions of the city of Shanghai sold to one Chinese contractor for $31,000, gold, the privilege of collecting 78,000 tons of human waste, under stipulated regulations, and of removing it to the country for sale to farmers. The flotilla of boats seen in Fig. 106 is one of several engaged daily in Shanghai throughout the year in this service.

Dr. Kawaguchi, of the National Department of Agriculture and Commerce, taking his data from their records, informed us that the human manure saved and applied to the fields of Japan in 1908 amounted to 23,850,295 tons, which is an average of 1.75 tons per acre of their 21,321 square miles of cultivated land in their four main islands.

Source: FARMERS OF FORTY CENTURIES, OR PERMANENT AGRICULTURE IN CHINA, KOREA AND JAPAN

I read the print version of that book some years ago, and it has the author's photos. One shows a little Chinese boy riding on the back of an ox, which is driving an irrigation pump. The boy has a ladle which he uses to collect the ox's shit in a bucket. That's how thorough shit recycling was in China 100 years ago.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 11:12:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'S')o the question is, if phosphorus fertilizer is to be 50 times more expensive, will farmers be able to afford it?
And if they do, how much food will cost?

Its not the least bit obvious phosphorus would be 50 times more expensive from some similar process, nor is it likely that we'll have to resort to limeburning before the coal burns out anyways.

Nice to see some of these processes illustrated but if you illustrate the process of cement production in the same pernicious fasion you might conclude that its impossible for such a product to ever be affordible for construction purposes.

Its not apparent or obvious why the wet chemistry separating the phosphorus from lime is necissarily expensive. The lime afterwards could also be sold itself.
Last edited by Dezakin on Wed 12 Dec 2007, 11:53:45, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby JJ » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 11:15:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')No, that leaves us with Lorenzo who does not know much about phosphorus chemistry and also believes that some sort of recycling order will deal with global phosphorus depletion.


China, Korea and Japan maintained the fertility of their soils for thousands of years by recycling all waste back into the soil. This amazing feat was achieved with no fossil fuels at all. It was a natural consequence of economics: without mined/manufactured fertilizers, shit was GOLD, and wealthy men operated the shit concessions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n 1908 the International Concessions of the city of Shanghai sold to one Chinese contractor for $31,000, gold, the privilege of collecting 78,000 tons of human waste, under stipulated regulations, and of removing it to the country for sale to farmers. The flotilla of boats seen in Fig. 106 is one of several engaged daily in Shanghai throughout the year in this service.

Dr. Kawaguchi, of the National Department of Agriculture and Commerce, taking his data from their records, informed us that the human manure saved and applied to the fields of Japan in 1908 amounted to 23,850,295 tons, which is an average of 1.75 tons per acre of their 21,321 square miles of cultivated land in their four main islands.

Source: FARMERS OF FORTY CENTURIES, OR PERMANENT AGRICULTURE IN CHINA, KOREA AND JAPAN

I read the print version of that book some years ago, and it has the author's photos. One shows a little Chinese boy riding on the back of an ox, which is driving an irrigation pump. The boy has a ladle which he uses to collect the ox's shit in a bucket. That's how thorough shit recycling was in China 100 years ago.




I have that book. Its awesome. They recycle EVERYTHING. Thinks will have to be really, really bad before Joe sixpack does what they do, if ever.
User avatar
JJ
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Tue 07 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby efarmer » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 13:20:16

And so it goes, the phosphorous we belch into the ocean blooms in algae and sinks as plant skeletal remains to lay on the bottom and wait out a tectonic fling back up sometime for a return engagement.
This is another long term mineral process loop like petroleum indeed.

On a lighter note, Pstarr sure gives good lip lashing. When I read some of his energetic posts, I often hear the voice of Jack Nicholson saying the words in my mind. You know the "you can't handle the truth" voice. I happen to agree with him often, but I sure hope I never end up getting the hot tongue and cold shoulder from him. (Go back a couple pages on this thread and pretend Jack is reading the post about getting the human waste out to the fields using you bicycle.)
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby buzzard » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 13:55:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'P')heba,
OK you gave us some good ideas about the subject.
However how all that was done in the past?
At the beginning of XIX century there was still about 1 billion peoples on the world and no synthetic fertilizer at all.
How these were fed?

NB. You insist that poop based fertilizer could feed 300 millions at most.


The answer in a word is Capital. Natural soil fertility was higher in the past and has been slowly degrading as mono-culture farming has increased in order to feed a growing population. We have been spending the capital of fertile soil until now it takes huge inputs of synthetic fertilizers in order to grow a crop. You see we have also reached and passed peak soil.
User avatar
buzzard
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby frankthetank » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 15:28:45

I wonder what will happen when the non doomers on this site go to the grocery store and its empty? Who will the blame? What technology will get them more food?

If you bred a non doomer with a doomer what would be the result? A mutant hybrid of some type?
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 15:31:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'S')o the question is, if phosphorus fertilizer is to be 50 times more expensive, will farmers be able to afford it?
And if they do, how much food will cost?

Its not the least bit obvious phosphorus would be 50 times more expensive from some similar process, nor is it likely that we'll have to resort to limeburning before the coal burns out anyways.

Again, that is base on converting 98%carbonate + 2%phosphate rock, using most common sulfuric acid based process.
It calls to mine 50 times as much of rock, then crush this 50-fold amount and then 50 times as much sulfuric acid would have to be used due to basic chemical constrains.
Those are basic "inputs" to price.
This calls for roughly 50 fold price increase.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ice to see some of these processes illustrated but if you illustrate the process of cement production in the same pernicious fasion you might conclude that its impossible for such a product to ever be affordible for construction purposes.

No, not at all, I can illustrate for you technology used in cement manufacturing if you are interested in it.
As long as you have thermal energy available from burning whatever (as done now), or from electricity or whatever else and this allows you to get up to 1400*C, then cement production is dirt cheap.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts not apparent or obvious why the wet chemistry separating the phosphorus from lime is necissarily expensive. The lime afterwards could also be sold itself.

The major obstacle is that lime would have to be chemically destroyed to allow phosphates separation.
Lime and calcium phosphate are not separable by any sane solvent extraction or mechanical separation process.
They are essentially powders not soluble in water and other solvents to any meaningful degree.
In fact it would be cheaper to separate calcium carbonate from phosphate without converting it into lime first.
If you want to separate lime from phosphate, then lime must be chemically converted into something else first.

So if you treat it carefully with hydrochloric acid then lime will be converted into useless calcium chloride, well soluble in water and phosphate will remain undissolved, as long as final pH didn't drop below 4 - if it does phosphate will also dissolve but that is technicality only.
It is easy to separate phosphate now (enough to filter it off) but necessary amount of HCl will be so huge, that entire process will be a total nonsense, if you think about million tons scale.

As alternative you may attempt treatment with huge amounts of sulfuric acid, filter off insoluble calcium sulfate and recover phosphoric acid from water phase and then convert it to fertilizer.
Again, huge amounts of sulfuric acid this time are making process very expensive and there is no way around it.

All troubles described above are due to basic chemical constraints are there are no satisfactory ways around it.

Meticulous reprocessing of existing phosphates, as JD suggest is the best hope here.
However such a process does not mix well with current industrial agriculture practice.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 16:12:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'S')o the question is, if phosphorus fertilizer is to be 50 times more expensive, will farmers be able to afford it?
And if they do, how much food will cost?

Its not the least bit obvious phosphorus would be 50 times more expensive from some similar process, nor is it likely that we'll have to resort to limeburning before the coal burns out anyways.

Again, that is base on converting 98%carbonate + 2%phosphate rock, using most common sulfuric acid based process.
It calls to mine 50 times as much of rock, then crush this 50-fold amount and then 50 times as much sulfuric acid would have to be used due to basic chemical constrains.
Those are basic "inputs" to price.
This calls for roughly 50 fold price increase.

Its not that simple. The cost of production might multiply that much but the price of the phosphate itself might well not. The price of production of coal liquefaction is some 20 times that of saudi arabian crude production, but the price floor for oil has been 10 times the saudi production cost for decades. Given how other commodities behave, I somewhat doubt that the market price of phosphates is the production cost.

In addition, there are economies of scale and leveraging that reduce the costs of operations. Mining phosphates next to copper sulphates would provide ample sulferic acid (its a waste product of copper mining) for instance.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ice to see some of these processes illustrated but if you illustrate the process of cement production in the same pernicious fasion you might conclude that its impossible for such a product to ever be affordible for construction purposes.

No, not at all, I can illustrate for you technology used in cement manufacturing if you are interested in it.
As long as you have thermal energy available from burning whatever (as done now), or from electricity or whatever else and this allows you to get up to 1400*C, then cement production is dirt cheap.
But you're chewing through several thousand times the rock that you go through for phosphate resources today... And we dont even need to eat cement.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts not apparent or obvious why the wet chemistry separating the phosphorus from lime is necissarily expensive. The lime afterwards could also be sold itself.
The major obstacle is that lime would have to be chemically destroyed to allow phosphates separation.
Lime and calcium phosphate are not separable by any sane solvent extraction or mechanical separation process.
They are essentially powders not soluble in water and other solvents to any meaningful degree.
In fact it would be cheaper to separate calcium carbonate from phosphate without converting it into lime first.
If you want to separate lime from phosphate, then lime must be chemically converted into something else first.

So if you treat it carefully with hydrochloric acid then lime will be converted into useless calcium chloride, well soluble in water and phosphate will remain undissolved, as long as final pH didn't drop below 4 - if it does phosphate will also dissolve but that is technicality only.
It is easy to separate phosphate now (enough to filter it off) but necessary amount of HCl will be so huge, that entire process will be a total nonsense, if you think about million tons scale.
Why does this seem too huge, especially when global production is only on the order of 150,000 tons. Are you talking about the millions of tons of calcium carbonate that needs to be processed? Were the other posters posting wrong figures?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s alternative you may attempt treatment with huge amounts of sulfuric acid, filter off insoluble calcium sulfate and recover phosphoric acid from water phase and then convert it to fertilizer.
Again, huge amounts of sulfuric acid this time are making process very expensive and there is no way around it.

All troubles described above are due to basic chemical constraints are there are no satisfactory ways around it.

Meticulous reprocessing of existing phosphates, as JD suggest is the best hope here.
However such a process does not mix well with current industrial agriculture practice.
It just isn't shown to be necissary in any near future given the rather large phosphate deposits we have before we go to recovering apetite from limestone.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ ... pmcs06.pdf

Given the reserves are some 18 million tons and the reserve base is some 50 million tons at current prices thats a good several centuries at current demand.

There seems to be ample supply from other sources that aren't in the reserve base however.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 18:20:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I')t calls to mine 50 times as much of rock, then crush this 50-fold amount and then 50 times as much sulfuric acid would have to be used due to basic chemical constrains.
Those are basic "inputs" to price.
This calls for roughly 50 fold price increase.

Its not that simple. The cost of production might multiply that much but the price of the phosphate itself might well not. The price of production of coal liquefaction is some 20 times that of saudi arabian crude production, but the price floor for oil has been 10 times the saudi production cost for decades. Given how other commodities behave, I somewhat doubt that the market price of phosphates is the production cost.

You are observing this situation because Saudi oil is still there.
That is profit margin cutting phenomenon, just to stay in business.
What if it is no longer there?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n addition, there are economies of scale and leveraging that reduce the costs of operations. Mining phosphates next to copper sulphates would provide ample sulferic acid (its a waste product of copper mining) for instance.

Sorry you are mistaken here.
First, these are rather copper sulfides, not sulfates (or sulphates if you prefer), which are actually mined, and sulferic acid certainly don't exist, albeit sulfuric acid does... never mind.
More importantly you are missing one big picture:
Sulfuric acid is usually produced from elemental sulfur or pyrite (iron disulfide) ores.
It's recovery from copper processing is small enough to be irrelevant.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut you're chewing through several thousand times the rock that you go through for phosphate resources today... And we dont even need to eat cement.

If we have to eat something, it does not imply that it must be cheap.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy does this seem too huge, especially when global production is only on the order of 150,000 tons. Are you talking about the millions of tons of calcium carbonate that needs to be processed?
It seems you do not know actual annual production of phosphates, as it is clear to me that you are making 3 orders of magnitude error.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/phosphate.pdf (JD - thanks for a link :) )
Clearly our range is 150 millions tons of phosphate, not 150 thousands tons, as you imply.
Sadly it means billions of tons of carbonate...
You should reconsider your math again 8O

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t just isn't shown to be necissary in any near future given the rather large phosphate deposits we have before we go to recovering apetite from limestone.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ ... pmcs06.pdf

Given the reserves are some 18 million tons and the reserve base is some 50 million tons at current prices thats a good several centuries at current demand.
What about medium term future?
Say 100 years range?
Much less, if peak production is taken into account?

Again, you confused millions with billions of tons while discussing your reference.
Three zeros one way... or another... who cares?
Hint: read it carefully again (including small print under the heading) :)

Regarding limestone:
Bon apetite :-D
Last edited by EnergyUnlimited on Wed 12 Dec 2007, 19:21:00, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 18:58:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'E')nergyUnlimited thank you for the chemistry lesson. I only wish I remembered enough to make sense of it.

Essentially it imply that you must have high grade phosphate ores to think about converting them into commercial fertilzers

With low grade ores entire adventure becoming to be a nonsense even if some phosphorus actually is there. :)


BTW, I disagree with few of your assertions regarding cellulosic ethanol, albeit in respect of corn ethanol you are obviously right.

I can see some prospect of success, if we pinch a bit of cellulose from agriculture by-products and make some high EROEI ethanol from it, as long as adequate enzymatic tech is designed.
Possible and probably will be done.
On the other hand we can take from the land only small part of produced cellulose.
If we take too much, land will no longer work...
You don't have to worry, though.
Amount which we could recover sustainably will rather be insignificant... :)
1-2% of total current world needs?
May be less? :-D
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby efarmer » Wed 12 Dec 2007, 19:14:08

When I read the USGS footnotes on Reserve and Reserve Base definitions, you see that they are indicating what portion of the resource is recoverable with present technology and economics
(ignoring other gating factors) as well as the larger endowment of the mineral that meets minimum characteristics to possibly be useful with current or future technology.

I hope a geologist chimes in, but my impression is that the industry is predicting 50% or less of the Reserve subset of the total Reserve Base phosphate rock will be exploited before it is uneconomic or untenable to exploit the balance for various reasons. The simple math of 150 million tons x 60 years seems to support the often quoted 40 to 60 year time line. For example, we could exploit Florida for much more phosphate than we do, if we are willing to give up the watersheds and other life supporting attributes that Florida needs for other purposes, like people, agriculture, etc.

Let's hope some phosphate mine geologist out of Carolina or Florida jumps in here soon and lays us down some inside skinny.
User avatar
efarmer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 04:00:00

Re: Fertiliser at a price – if you can get it

Unread postby PhebaAndThePilgrim » Fri 14 Dec 2007, 12:01:25

Good day from Pheba, from the farm:
Energy Unltd., thank you for your interest in my post. I am not as technically savvy as some so I do not post often. I do know farming as I have been involved in agriculture in one form or another for decades.
Buzzard and others answered your question for the most part.
I highly reccomend a study of the history of guano production. The history is fascinating and weird.
Here is an interesting fact to ponder. When our ancestors first stepped foot on the soil of this continent a farmer could stick a shovel in the earth and find 12 to 24 inches of topsoil.
Today the average topsoil depth is 4 to 6 inches. Think about it. We feed billions of people with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil.
I believe it was Richard Heinberg who said that farming is just pouring petroleum on the ground to create food.
I forget the exact detail on this next fact, so somebody can verify for me. But if memory serves I believe it takes earthworms about 500 years to make from 1/2 inch to 1 inch of topsoil.
So I gues we could call topsoil a renewable resource.
But that sure isn't going to save us.
the 160 acres that we raise our cattle on was a crop farm for many years. My husband cropped it until the land played out and his equipment wore out. Prior to my husband's ownership the land went through decades of grazing and cropping in one form or another. The land is just played out. Our farm is similar to most in the state. (and the nation)
We carefully manage the cattle to prevent overgrazing and erosion. We practice intense grazing management. We have the property divided up into small pasture and rotate the cattle heavily during high grazing seasons. We use old big bales, and anything else can find to use in ditches and other places on the farm where we find erosion.
We raise beef cattle to help support us while letting the ground rest and hopefully create a small amount of topsoil during our lifetime. Hopefully we can leave the place a little better than we found it. My husband has worked tirelessly for years to build this farm into something better.
He has planted more trees than I care to think about, and tries to create wildlife areas.
He has planted native grasses, but that is a struggle because the K31 fescue that was imported decades ago has a tendency to crowd out native plants.
This doesn't mean that it is hopeless. But, it does mean that we can not feed 6.6 billion people for much longer.
The one billion people that were fed before petro agriculture were fed from topsoil that was not completely degraded. They were fed with water from water sources that were not being depleted. Check the condition of the two great water aquafers. They were fed from soil that was not chemically depleted of all micronutrients.
And this is important. They were fed utilizing a much higher percentage of the population involved in farming. I don't have the figures before me, but in the year 1900 there were still a lot of people living in rural area. Most of these folk were involved in food production in one way or another.
Today less than two percent of Americans are farmers. Most people that live in rural areas live in house trailers, drive to the city, and their extent of livestock consists of several half starved horses and some rangy looking dogs.
However, that total doomer porn being stated, there is some small glimmer of hope. I highly reccomend a DVD called "The Real Dirt on Farmer John". I have eagerly been awaiting the release of this documentary on DVD. The DVD was released today, and can be purchased at a web site called Angelic Organics.
If you are interested in a method of farming that just may save us, I highly reccomend this DVD.
Pheba, from the farm.
PS. When my husband retires we have plans to expand and diversify our farm. We are planning on raising chickens, utilizing chicken tractors. We can move the tractors into fields the cattle have recently vacated. The chickens scratch in the cattle manure, consuming pest insects, and other nutritious matter, while increasing field fertility.
The problem most farmers have today is time and money. The age old problem. When a person has the money, they usually don't have the time and vice versa. Right now hubby still works. He is a carpenter. he just doesn't have the time, and I can't manage chickens by myself.
We raise blackberries, and hubby spends hours all summer picking them. The only problem I find with blackberries is that I can not hang out my laundry. The birds eat some of the berries and dive bomb my laundry. they have a habit of targeting the most expensive item on the clothesline.
PhebaAndThePilgrim
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Show-Me State

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 106 guests