by yesplease » Tue 05 Aug 2008, 05:44:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'H')owever phosphorus is not technofixable, so if you want to argue with cornucopians on issues related to food supply, you should concentrate on phosphorus, not on nitrogen.
What about recycling? Collection and processing of human waste streams seems doable, so the only problem would be current industrial agriculture practices wrt (re)-processing run-off. In a hundred or two years or so, depending on recycling rates, agriculture would have to shift drastically. Or else...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by yesplease » Tue 05 Aug 2008, 06:09:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') want to know mathematically why a vast majority of the population will not be able to 'go-green' in time.
For the reason of
system inertia.
Could you elaborate on this? Models (available) are always welcome.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by jbeckton » Tue 05 Aug 2008, 10:19:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bromius', '
')With respect to the low hanging fruit, that has a major bearing on the usefulness of the remaining 50%.
Sure, but it doesn't automatically render it relatively useless as the doomers seem to imply. Failure to understand that takes your "competitive advantage" right back.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
-
jbeckton
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2082
- Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
-
by EnergyUnlimited » Thu 07 Aug 2008, 05:11:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') want to know mathematically why a vast majority of the population will not be able to 'go-green' in time.
For the reason of
system inertia.
Could you elaborate on this? Models (available) are always welcome.
You may wish to read read Hirsh report for some ideas in that respect.
In general it seems that we have several years left to drastically change a way how our society works, all that in environment of crumbling financial system to make it funny and I do not see any mainstream program to implement or even suggest such changes coming, what is really hilarious.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat about recycling? Collection and processing of human waste streams seems doable, so the only problem would be current industrial agriculture practices wrt (re)-processing run-off. In a hundred or two years or so, depending on recycling rates, agriculture would have to shift drastically. Or else... Wink
by yesplease » Thu 07 Aug 2008, 05:50:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') want to know mathematically why a vast majority of the population will not be able to 'go-green' in time.
For the reason of
system inertia.
Could you elaborate on this? Models (available) are always welcome.
You may wish to read read Hirsh report for some ideas in that respect.
In general it seems that we have several years left to drastically change a way how our society works, all that in environment of crumbling financial system to make it funny and I do not see any mainstream program to implement or even suggest such changes coming, what is really hilarious.
I've thumbed, well, clicked, through the Hirsh report and found it lacking in a few respects. Very static if that makes any sense. It ignored the reduction in externalized costs associated with a reduction in driving/fuel consumption as well as alternatives that are taking place right now such as driving more efficient vehicles more efficiently, as well as less, not to mention replacement via changing location, mass transit, cycling, etc...$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by EnergyUnlimited » Thu 07 Aug 2008, 07:53:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'A')re you sure about that?
This link states a significant portion of Phosphorous from is recycled in Europe. How is this not feasible in practice if it's already being done?
Quote from article, which you have submitted:
"Where sewage sludges are spread on agricultural land, phosphates are already effectively recycled, as fertilisers contributing to crop growth. However, agricultural re-use of sewage sludge is diminishing throughout Europe, for a variety of reasons independent from phosphorus contents.
Agricultural re-use of sewage sludge is diminishing both for logistic, environmental and social reasons."As we can see your "recycled" phosphorus containing sludge is not reusable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here isn't a problem w/ phosphorous availability AFAIK, it's just that greater rates of extraction, especially in light of higher energy prices, require greater costs. I doubt prices will continue to rise over the past decade as they have over the past couple years, but only time will tell. The reserve base is after all ~three times what the reserves are given prices that are roughly a third of what they were six months ago. I'm pretty sure than given current prices the available reserves will also change significantly.
The problem is that you will not be able to manufacture enough sulfuric acid to convert low grade phosphate ores into phosphorus fertilizer as per global demand.
This render those additional phosphorus resources useless for all practical purpose.
Too much acid consuming calcium carbonate there.
by yesplease » Thu 07 Aug 2008, 19:11:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'A')re you sure about that?
This link states a significant portion of Phosphorous from is recycled in Europe. How is this not feasible in practice if it's already being done?
Quote from article, which you have submitted:
"Where sewage sludges are spread on agricultural land, phosphates are already effectively recycled, as fertilisers contributing to crop growth. However, agricultural re-use of sewage sludge is diminishing throughout Europe, for a variety of reasons independent from phosphorus contents.
Agricultural re-use of sewage sludge is diminishing both for logistic, environmental and social reasons."As we can see your "recycled" phosphorus containing sludge is not reusable.
That doesn't make any sense. I suppose you could say it's re-usability is decreasing/diminishing, but how can you say with a straight face that phosphorous containing sludge isn't reusable if it's still being reused, albeit at lower rates due to logistical, environmental and social reasons? That's like saying scrap steel isn't recyclable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'T')he problem is that you will not be able to manufacture enough sulfuric acid to convert low grade phosphate ores into phosphorus fertilizer as per global demand.
This render those additional phosphorus resources useless for all practical purpose.
Too much acid consuming calcium carbonate there.
What's constraining sulfuric acid production?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by bromius » Thu 07 Aug 2008, 19:56:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bromius', '
')With respect to the low hanging fruit, that has a major bearing on the usefulness of the remaining 50%.
Sure, but it doesn't automatically render it relatively useless as the doomers seem to imply. Failure to understand that takes your "competitive advantage" right back.
I didn't say that it would render the remaining 50% useless. That was your interpretation. What I was alluding to is that while 50% may remain, "the tank" is not half full, in terms of total useful energy available to human beings. I guess going with that analogy, its like each successive gallon of gas burned would move the car fewer miles. This is because while the amount of energy in a gallon of gas is fixed, the amount of energy needed to get that gas increases over time. Petroleum that offers a lower net energy benefit, coupled with less and less of it being available means that there will be less energy available to carry out all the processes that are equated with the current standard of living.
I maintain that realizing a decrease in average per capita energy supply over time allows for planning and behavior change now, before it occurs. Relative to people who ignore that reality, that allows me to use the energy at my disposal between now and then for purposes that will result in a better personal outcome in the future. I think it is reasonable to conclude that society will pursue other sources of energy, but based on the reading I've done, at present I don't see those substitutes completely offsetting what we currently get from petroleum. Assuming that technology and infrastructure that does not yet exist will maintain the status quo seems like a dangerous risk to take at this point.
With respect to doom and TSHTF, I don't see either as inevitable, but the probability of it occurring seems like it will increase sharply over time.
by EnergyUnlimited » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 05:18:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hat doesn't make any sense. I suppose you could say it's re-usability is decreasing/diminishing, but how can you say with a straight face that phosphorous containing sludge isn't reusable if it's still being reused, albeit at lower rates due to logistical, environmental and social reasons? That's like saying scrap steel isn't recyclable.
It is not reusable and using it in current form may well lead to criminal charges against those who use or sell it.
Using such sludge over years or decades will result in wast areas of farmland to be no longer usable for food production due to accumulation of toxic elements well above safe levels.
Essentially you will need a chemical processing to make city waste reusable and expenses of such processing will kill the project.
Rural waste may well be reused (as it was done in China for millennia) but there is not much rural waste in industrialized countries.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat's constraining sulfuric acid production?
Rates of sulfur and pyrites production and partially rates of oil and coal extraction where sulfuric acid is often produced as by product.
by yesplease » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 06:09:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I')t is not reusable and using it in current form may well lead to criminal charges against those who use or sell it.
Using such sludge over years or decades will result in wast areas of farmland to be no longer usable for food production due to accumulation of toxic elements well above safe levels.
It's being
reused currently, so how is it not reusable?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost wastewater facilities in Europe and North America remove phosphorus to prevent algal blooms in receiving waters. Biological and chemical treatment methods concentrate the phosphorus into a residual sludge that is typically applied to agricultural fields as a fertilizer.
Which very well may be declining as a practice, but it's still being done in some areas.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'E')ssentially you will need a chemical processing to make city waste reusable and expenses of such processing will kill the project.
Rural waste may well be reused (as it was done in China for millennia) but there is not much rural waste in industrialized countries.
They may kill the project now, especially since we still have three times the available reserves that will become available porportionally to the long run increase in price, but given how inelastic food is I'm pretty sure that if our phosphorous supply was in trouble people would pay for the increased costs of recycling it w/o other metals and whathaveya.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'R')ates of sulfur and pyrites production and partially rates of oil and coal extraction where sulfuric acid is often produced as by product.
In terms of sulfur production it seems that it's increased ~20% over the past decade while phosphate production has only increased ~10% via the USGS so it doesn't look like sulfur is limited phosphorous production yet. Even if sulfuric acid production drops do you seriously think that as a whole people aren't going to produce more even if it's more costly as opposed to starving to death. It's tantamount to saying that people won't pay for higher gas prices and instead stay home w/ the same result.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
by EnergyUnlimited » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 13:50:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'I')t's being
reused currently, so how is it not reusable?
Plenty of moronic things are being done here and there but it does not mean that a practice is sustainable for long.
The overall result of such practice (using sludge from city wastes as food crop fertilizer) will lead to accumulation of toxic elements in farmland within several years or decades and any food produced there will no longer be edible without adverse heath effects.
That have been realized, so this particular idiocy is being curbed down as we speak.
As I have already said complex and expensive chemical processing would be required to purify phosphorus derivatives for their safe use in the farmland.
For various reasons related to chemical constraints such a product would be hopelessly expensive for end user.
May be 10 times more expensive than current fertilizers and that under optimistic scenario.
Recovery yield would also drop very much...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey may kill the project now, especially since we still have three times the available reserves that will become available porportionally to the long run increase in price, but given how inelastic food is I'm pretty sure that if our phosphorous supply was in trouble people would pay for the increased costs of recycling it w/o other metals and whathaveya.
So peoples would pay...
"After chopping the last tree and poisoning the last river white men will learn at the end that money cannot be eaten"Forgotten name of Red Indian chieftain who have said it at the end of XVIII century, but recent developments are showing that he was correct.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n terms of sulfur production it seems that it's increased ~20% over the past decade while phosphate production has only increased ~10% via the USGS so it doesn't look like sulfur is limited phosphorous production yet. Even if sulfuric acid production drops do you seriously think that as a whole people aren't going to produce more even if it's more costly as opposed to starving to death. It's tantamount to saying that people won't pay for higher gas prices and instead stay home w/ the same result.
That is a worrying development in fact.
There is
non-linear relation between P2O5 content in apatite [ Ca3(PO4)2*CaClF ] and amount of sulfuric acid needed to produce fertilizer.
Molecular weight of apatite = 404.5
Molecular weight of calcium carbonate (contaminant of apatite in ores) = 100
molecular weight of phosphorus pentoxide = 142
Molecular weight of sulfuric acid = 98
So to produce 1 mole (142g) P2O5 equivalent from pure apatite (35.1% P2O5 content) as per reaction:
Ca3(PO4)2*CaClF + 4H2SO4 ---> 4CaSO4 + 2H3PO4 + HCl + HF
where 2H3PO4 may be considered as P2O5*3H2O,
4 moles of sulfuric acid (392 g of acid) is needed.
Apatites currently used for the process are of at least 20% P2O5 content, with CaCO3 as a ballast.
This corresponds to formula Ca3(PO4)2*CaClF*3CaCO3
To produce 1 mole (142g) of P2O5 from such a product, as per equation:
Ca3(PO4)2*CaClF*3CaCO3 + 7H2SO4 ---> 7CaSO4 + 2H3PO4 + HCl + HF + 3CO2 + 3H2O.
7 moles of sulfuric acid (686 g of acid) is needed.
If you have used apatites of 10% content of P2O5, which are of composition Ca3(PO4)2*CaClF*10CaCO3 you would need 14 moles (1372 gram) of sulfuric acid.
So if you go down from 20% to 10% P2O5 content you will need about twice as much sulfuric acid to produce the same amount of phosphate fertilizer.
That is due to consuming large amounts of acid for conversion of calcium carbonate impurity into sulfate.
For that reason you will not have simple correlation, which you are implying in your post.
by Dezakin » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 16:25:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'S')ure, but this is a long term problem. Theres still plenty of phosphate resources left for the next century, and ultimately you can recycle phosphorus and produce it from rock with enough energy. It might cost 50 times as much, but how much of our global economy is dedicated to phosphate production today? I bet we could afford the premium.
Probably one of the most ridiculous and impractical schemes I've ever heard on this forum.
If you could actually say why it would be much more useful.
