Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Re: Tackeling the Cornocopians

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 17:00:11

Its 50 times more from hard rock mining and thats a flat number based on the chemistry of it. It uses 50 times the sulpheric acid.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby bromius » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 17:44:41

Phosphorus Cycle

Phosphorus is contained naturally in a wide variety of soil parent materials. As those parent materials (ie. rock) are chemically weathered, some of that phosphorus becomes available. Phosphorus is a renewable resource, we are just removing it from the soil too quickly without replacing it.

On a different note, does anyone have any idea why sewage contains such a high proportion of heavy metals?
User avatar
bromius
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 18:46:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$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.


Pure cargoism. Get real.

Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the past 14 months, the price of the raw material - phosphate rock - has surged by more than 700 per cent to more than $367 (£185) per tonne. As well as putting pressure on food prices, some researchers believe that the risk of a future phosphorus shortage blows a hole in the concept of biofuels as a “renewable” source of energy. Ethanol is not truly renewable if the essential fundamental element is, in reality, growing more scarce, researchers say. Within a few decades, according to forecasts used by scientists at Linkoping University, in Sweden, a “peak phosphorus” crunch could represent a serious threat to agriculture as global reserves of high-quality phosphate rock go into terminal decline.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 19:17:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$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.
Course it isn't, just like oil use. Are you going to claim that oil isn't being used right now because it's not sustainable? C'mon... You're trying to paint everything in the worse possible light. According to your reasoning, any rate of use that isn't sustainable is apparently, not occurring at all. ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'A')s 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.
Not according to this, but even assuming your "optimistic" scenario that assumes much higher costs than what's been shown, food prices would only rise ~30% for staples like corn, and less for processed foods. Oh, the horror of paying more for much more sustainable P-fertilizer. ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '[')i]"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.
Sheesh, I know, a 30% increase in the price of food staples. How horrible! Surely we'll all be bankrupt. ;)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'F')or that reason you will not have simple correlation, which you are implying in your post.I never implied that, but feel free to stick whatever you want into my posts! Perhaps I implied that we'll all turn into zombies and feast on the brains of the living! Don'tcha think it would be a good idea to ask what I've implied if I've implied anything before assuming you know what I was thinking? :roll:

As you've mentioned, the increase in Sulfuric acid production correlates w/ the decrease in Phosphorous content in minerals, so the question is, over the last ten years, how much did Phosphorous content decrease in order to see the increase in Sulfuric acid used? Furthermore, how much would the processing costs via Sulfuric acid/decreasing Phosphorous content have to increase to be equivalent to the costs of the pilot study from the Netherlands and your assumption of ten times the current cost?
Last edited by yesplease on Fri 08 Aug 2008, 19:22:00, edited 1 time in total.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 19:20:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')here is not plenty left. All the rocks have already been mined for their phosphorus and that's why we seem to have hit peak phosphorus. You can't recycle what washes into the ocean. It might cost 50 times more to extract if from seawater. Or 100 or 10,000,000,000 more.
Quick pstarr, correct the USGS before it's too late. Only you know the true reserve and reserve base values of Phosphate rock! :lol:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 08 Aug 2008, 20:21:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nicholai', '')$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.


Pure cargoism. Get real.

You still address nothing, and throw up the continual non argument 'cargoism.'

If phosphate prices rise, economic viability of phosphate recycling rises along with alternative phosphate sources. Oh I forgot that this is pure cargoism. Oops.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 03:52:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'C')ourse it isn't, just like oil use. Are you going to claim that oil isn't being used right now because it's not sustainable? C'mon... You're trying to paint everything in the worse possible light. According to your reasoning, any rate of use that isn't sustainable is apparently, not occurring at all. ;)

You are completely missing a point.

It is moronic to deliberately contaminate farmland and make it useless for food production in misguided attempt to supplement it with recycled phosphates contaminated with toxic elements.

Within few years or decades (that depends of source of sludge) your land will be useless for food production altogether.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot according to this, but even assuming your "optimistic" scenario that assumes much higher costs than what's been shown, food prices would only rise ~30% for staples like corn, and less for processed foods. Oh, the horror of paying more for much more sustainable P-fertilizer. ;)

1. Most of promising pilot plant experiments do not deliver a scalable technology, so better wait until first installation is made before jumping to silly conclusions.

2. Reprocessing sludge will not deliver you sufficient phosphorus to meet demand, so its cost will bear only marginal impact on cost of phosphorus fertilizer.
Instead it is supply/demand balance, what will dictate your price and demand will exceed available supply leading to substantial price increases.
Most phosphorus fertilizer from farmlands is going directly into rivers and high seas causing various troubles there or ending up permanently binded deep under the soil in form of highly insoluble calcium phosphate of very low bioavailability, not into human bodies and city sludges.
Further down, it is only certain proportion of such sludges, what may be reprocessed with ca 50-70% recovery yields and at substantial cost.

So your "recycling" will give you 20 or 30% phosphorus back per cycle of use/recycling.
Price of phosphorus fertilizer will be dictated by its decreasing availability in such circumstances.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')heesh, I know, a 30% increase in the price of food staples. How horrible! Surely we'll all be bankrupt. ;)

What about 500% increase of food prices?
What about 500% increases of energy prices?

Not much will be left in your pocket after paying for that...
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 04:44:41

Fairly new here, but this seems to break the second law. Losses at each conversion need to be taken into account.

Standard vehicles Fossil Fuel -> Motion (some heat and other Loss)
EV Fossil Fuel -> Electric (losses) -> Distribution (losses) -> Motion (losses)

I cannot see how its possible for an EV to be more Energy Efficient taking into account whole system.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', '
')So, at a superficial level, an EV is approx 67% more energy efficient than an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle. What should be added in each case, is the energy needed to produce a 36,000kW energy by the extraction, refining and delivery process for gasoline and to produce 21,500kW by the generation process for electrical power. This would give a more complete statement of the overall power consumed to drive one mile down the hiway. I do not have access to those numbers unfortunately.

The underlying assumption is that 'normal' driving speeds are being achieved. 100kWh per mile will get you there, just at 15mph, not 65mph.


I was just being lazy. A few minutes search found these two references which I think can be taken to summarize both the gasoline and electrical energy production overhead.

www.vihrealiitto.fi/yleviarkisto/11...

It's in Finnish! Here's a summary:
This was meant to account for the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline).. According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.805. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 19.5 percent energy loss.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rn/1 ... 99rn21.htm

This is a comprehensive Australian study, showing that with the proper design, efficiencies of up to 80% can be achieved in the conversion of fossil fuel to electrical energy.


Hydro and nuclear generation plants would show significantly higher efficiencies. I’m estimating at say 95%.

For the purposes of my posts, I will ignore hydro and nuclear, and say that the energy overhead for the production of both gasoline and electrical power is 20%.

Thus the total energy required for one US gall of gasoline is 45,000kW
The total energy consumed for an equivalent battery charge to operate an equivalent auto at 50mpg is 27,000kW

The gross energy per mile for gasoline is 900kW and could well be higher
The gross energy per mile for electrical is 538kW and could go lower.

Electrical power turns out to be 67% more energy efficient overall than gasoline and could go higher on average. All in rounded numbers and generalized assumptions.
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 06:55:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', '
')I cannot see how its possible for an EV to be more Energy Efficient taking into account whole system.

Easy.

Efficiency of power plant turbines is approaching 80%.
Efficiency of transmission lines is often in range of 90%.
Efficiency of battery charging/discharging cycle is in range of 80%
Efficiency of electric motor is in range 90%.

That gives us 0.8 X 0.9 X 0.8 X 0.9 = 51.8%

That is far better than efficiency of 25% as per petrol driven ICE or 30% of Diesel ICE. :)
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby VMarcHart » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 08:13:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'I') cannot see how its possible for an EV to be more Energy Efficient taking into account whole system.
You're not wrong. You're right. Until someone invents a true perpetual motion system, all systems will be inefficient, including EV. Regardless of how advanced and efficient the technology is, the planet cannot support billions and billions of individuals, pets, etc.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 08:41:48

Energyunlimited I don't think you are comparing like with like. I haven't got the figures to hand (i'll try to find it), but purely from a thermodynamic point of view I cannot see a power plant working at 80% efficiency. ie transforming 80% of fuel energy into electrical energy. The temperature differential between external environment and fuel ignition would lead to large losses. OK they could e captured in district heating system or something, but we are looking at motive power.

When I was looking into implementing an electric tram system years ago, (much more efficient than battery systems). We found that they were actually less efficient than a diesel bus from an energy per distance travelled point of view. Much cleaner at point of consumption, but more pollution at power station.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', '
')I cannot see how its possible for an EV to be more Energy Efficient taking into account whole system.

Easy.

Efficiency of power plant turbines is approaching 80%.
Efficiency of transmission lines is often in range of 90%.
Efficiency of battery charging/discharging cycle is in range of 80%
Efficiency of electric motor is in range 90%.

That gives us 0.8 X 0.9 X 0.8 X 0.9 = 51.8%

That is far better than efficiency of 25% as per petrol driven ICE or 30% of Diesel ICE. :)
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 09:37:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'E')nergyunlimited I don't think you are comparing like with like. I haven't got the figures to hand (i'll try to find it), but purely from a thermodynamic point of view I cannot see a power plant working at 80% efficiency.

Apparently they do.
Current gas turbines have more than 45% electric efficiency and more than 80% total (electric + thermal), if you count use of additional "waste" heat produced.

45% electric efficiency would still deliver better efficiency of EV than current petrol ICE can provide.

NB.
From pure thermodynamical considerations efficiency of Carnot engine (n) equals:

n= T(h) - T(c)/T(h)
where:
n is efficiency
T(h) is temperature of heater (in Kelvins)
T(c) is temperature of cooler (in Kelvins)

So if T(c) is an absolute zero, Carnot engine has 100% efficiency regardless of T(h).

In practice it means that greater temperature difference implies greater efficiency.
Last edited by EnergyUnlimited on Sat 09 Aug 2008, 15:43:16, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 15:38:29

Already down to 29.16% on your figures (and this assumes the most efficient turbines).

but.... then how do you heat the car in winter, and recharge the electrics, or cool in hot weather?
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 15:48:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', 'A')lready down to 29.16% on your figures (and this assumes the most efficient turbines).

but.... then how do you heat the car in winter, and recharge the electrics, or cool in hot weather?

Recharging of ignition electrics is included in calculations of ICE efficiency and additional expenditures like cooling or electric windows are nonessential gizmos.

Heating can be provided for free via air circulation over engine block and it doesn't impair overall efficiency (waste entropic heat is used for that).
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Quinny » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 17:20:25

Who produces batteries that give 80% of the input energy. Typical battery chargers use between 5 and 20 times the actual stored energy ie between 5 and 20% efficient even advanced ones are supposed to be a bout 35% more efficient ie 7 and 27%.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Quinny', '
')I cannot see how its possible for an EV to be more Energy Efficient taking into account whole system.

Easy.

Efficiency of power plant turbines is approaching 80%.
Efficiency of transmission lines is often in range of 90%.
Efficiency of battery charging/discharging cycle is in range of 80%
Efficiency of electric motor is in range 90%.

That gives us 0.8 X 0.9 X 0.8 X 0.9 = 51.8%

That is far better than efficiency of 25% as per petrol driven ICE or 30% of Diesel ICE. :)
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby lper100km » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 18:31:24

http://tinyurl.com/6mm3ls

The referenced paper shows that typical charging efficiencies for EV batteries is in the range of 75% to 85%. I believe that some Li I batteries are charging at 90% or higher.

It is correct that at every energy conversion stage there is a power loss, but the conversion loss within electrical systems is considerably less than that lost in the ICE fuel chain. Not as much as one might expect and hope for, but enough to make a difference. The best would be to start from a hydro generated base and gain another 20% over electrical power generated from fossil fuels.
User avatar
lper100km
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Dezakin » Sat 09 Aug 2008, 23:35:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'W')hat about 500% increase of food prices?
What about 500% increases of energy prices?

Not much will be left in your pocket after paying for that...

Only if per capita income growth came to a halt.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby cube » Sun 10 Aug 2008, 01:18:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'W')hat about 500% increase of food prices?
What about 500% increases of energy prices?

Not much will be left in your pocket after paying for that...

Only if per capita income growth came to a halt.
This explains why Starbucks is letting go of so many employees.
Something has to be given the ax.
cube
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Nicholai » Sun 10 Aug 2008, 02:22:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'W')hat about 500% increase of food prices?
What about 500% increases of energy prices?

Not much will be left in your pocket after paying for that...

Only if per capita income growth came to a halt.


Some people just can't see past Econ 101.

American Standard of Living on the Decline

A pretty poor place to start from if prices accelerate with any rate of speed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lthough the US ranks second in the world in per capita annual income (behind only Luxembourg), one in five children are living in poverty, the report found.
User avatar
Nicholai
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: St.Albert, AB
Top

Re: Tackling the Cornucopians

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 10 Aug 2008, 03:23:13

seems to be about the efficiency of the charger itself ie in converting AC to DC.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', 'h')ttp://tinyurl.com/6mm3ls

The referenced paper shows that typical charging efficiencies for EV batteries is in the range of 75% to 85%. I believe that some Li I batteries are charging at 90% or higher.

It is correct that at every energy conversion stage there is a power loss, but the conversion loss within electrical systems is considerably less than that lost in the ICE fuel chain. Not as much as one might expect and hope for, but enough to make a difference. The best would be to start from a hydro generated base and gain another 20% over electrical power generated from fossil fuels.
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests