Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 17, 2015
Peak phosphorous is not happening
Phosphorous is an essential ingredient of fertilizer and is a basic building block of all life. Without phosphorous, it’s impossible to grow crops or plants of any kind. Phosphorous has no substitutes, because phosphorous specifically is required for plant DNA, and it would take hundreds of millions of years (if ever) for life to evolve to use something else.
At present, the world uses about 140 million tonnes of rock phosphate, for fertilizer production. The total world reserve of rock phosphate is 8,000 MT. At current rates of usage, we will reach “peak phosphorous” in 2033 according to this Hubbert analysis. After which, extraction of phosphorous would gradually decline, and so would fertilizer production and food production, if that analysis were correct.
This point is repeatedly raised within “peak oil” type doomsday circles, and is provided as another reason for the imminent collapse of civilization. Bear in mind that this point is raised by precisely the people who have made a very long string of badly failed doomsday predictions. Obviously, they could be right this time, however their opinions on this matter should not be confused with scientific consensus.
In fact, the doomsday authors are entirely wrong about phosphorous. As usual, the doomsday group’s point is totally wrong and is based upon a series of misunderstandings. We do not face declines of phosphorous in the foreseeable future. Quite the opposite, we have vastly more phosphorous available than we could ever use.
In my opinion, the idea of “peak phosphorous” is vastly less serious and more obviously wrong than the theories of peak oil were, and even those were wrong.
Analysis of “Peak Phosphorous” claims.
The doomsday advocates in this case are making a severe error which invalidates their analysis. They are confusing reserves of phosphate rock, with the total amount of phosphorous available in the Earth’s crust. Reserves of phosphate rock refers to the amount of phosphorous which is found in a particular form and has already been discovered. The total amount of phosphorous available, however, is vastly greater than that.
It bears repeating here that published reserve figures of phosphate rock do not represent the total amount of phosphorous available. Instead, reserve figures only represent the very small amount of phosphorous which is found in highly concentrated form and so would be extracted first. Reserve figures of phosphate rock are only a very small fraction of the total phosphorous available.
As with many elements in the Earth’s crust, phosphorous is distributed according to a resource pyramid. There is only very small amount of phosphorous available in a very concentrated form (the “tip of the pyramid”). In more dilute concentrations, there is vastly more phosphorous available. The greater the dilution, the more is available. Published reserve figures refer only to the very tip of the pyramid–the very small amount of resource which is highly concentrated and easily extracted. There is far more resource available in more dilute forms.
Mineral resources are very different from oil or gas. Whereas oil is found in underground reservoirs which are “depleted” at some point, mineral resources are found in gradations, and are available in vastly greater quantities at lower dilutions.
When current reserves are exhausted, prices for phosphorous will rise, and it will become economical to extract phosphorous from more dilute sources. In other words, we will take a step down the “resource pyramid” and start to exploit more dilute sources which are found in far greater amounts. The technology to extract phosphorous from more dilute sources is straightforward and already exists. Thus, the exhaustion of current reserves, does not mean we are out of phosphorous. It means only that we must start extracting phosphorous from more dilute sources.
If we wish to find out how much phosphorous is available to us overall, we must determine how much could ever be extracted. Please note that the total amount which could ever be extracted is completely different and far higher than published reserve figures of phosphate rock.
So how much phosphorous is there?
Phosphorous is a fairly common element. Phosphorous constitutes about 0.1% of the Earth’s crust. It’s the 11th most common element and is far more common than all sources of carbon in the Earth’s crust. This figure was determined by statistical sampling and can be looked up in the wikipedia article about elemental abundance in the Earth’s crust.
We can easily calculate the total amount of phosphorous in the Earth’s crust:
1025 g total mass of the Earth’s crust
1019 tonnes total mass of the Earth’s crust (unit conversion)
1016 tonnes of phosphorous (1 part per 1,000, derived from wikipedia article)
1010 tonnes of phosporous in phosphate rock reserves
Thus, we have 10,000,000,000,000,000 TONNES of phosphorous available in the Earth’s crust. That amount is approximately 1 million times higher than published reserve figures of phosphate rock.
Of course, most of the phosphorous in the Earth’s crust will never be extracted. Much of it lies beneath Oceans, or deep underground. However, if we are ultimately able to extract even 0.1% of the total phosphorous in the Earth’s crust then we will have 1,000x more phosphorous available to us than the reserve figures indicate. In which case, phosphorous will not “peak” for centuries or millenia.
Since phosphorous is crucial, it would become far more expensive if it were ever scarce, which would justify extracting it even from very dilute sources. It’s entirely plausible that phosphorous could be extracted from 1% ore concentration, which would provide vastly more than figures of phosphate rock reserves would indicate.
Phosphorous recycling
Even if phosphorous extraction peaked and started declining, it would not be particularly worrying. Although phosphorous is used to grow food, it’s not being “used up” at any rate. Humans excrete all the phosphorous they consume from food, in their feces and urine. The average human excretes about 1kg of phosphorous per year. In other words, phosphorous is not really being used up at any rate, because as much of it exists on Earth after we’ve used it as existed beforehand. If phorphorous became significantly more expensive, then sewage and food scraps would have monetary value and would become additional sources of phosphorous. It would become profitable to “mine” sewage and garbage for phosphorous, and sewage utilities and transh utilities would begin doing just that. In so doing, we would “recycle” the phosphorous we had mined from the ground. If we managed to “recycle” 90% of our phosphorous by using it judiciously and extracting it from sewage and garbage, then the amount we’d need to mine from the ground would obviously decline by 90%, in which case, actual declines in phosphorous available to us would be perhaps 10,000 years away (just eyeball estimating how long a 90% depletion would take on a Hubbert curve with 1,000x more phosphorous than published estimates of phosphate rock reserves). These adjustments and recycling programs would happen automatically, the result of basic market mechanisms, as phosphorous becomes more expensive. It would become profitable to extract phosphorous from sewage and garbage, and so would be done by companies which would never leave any obvious profit opportunities unexploited.
We may never reach peak phosphorous
Even if we have 1,000x more phosphorous available to us, and we also start recycling (“mining sewage”), won’t we reach peak phosphorous eventually? In 10,000 years, perhaps?
Not necessarily. That depends upon demographic trends.
At present, fertility is declining everywhere. In almost all advanced nations, fertility is below replacement rate meaining their populations are shrinking, or would shrink without immigration. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that fertility rates will also decline below replacement in poorer countries as they develop (in fact, their fertility rates are already declining fairly rapidly). As a result, it’s probable that the human population will start declining absolutely at some point during the next century. As a result, we will probably reach peak phosphorous DEMAND long before we encounter peak production.
If the human population declines below 1 billion people over the next few thousand years, then no phosphorous extraction would be required for agriculture at that point, because phosphorous is recycled in the soil and environment (by natural means) more quickly than would be necessary. In which case, we would never reach peak phosphorous, or at least not in the sense that doomsday believers are claiming. We would reach a peak of phosphorous extraction because of reduced need, not because of any kind of shortage. We may never face a shortage of phosphorous.
Whether we face a shortage of phosphorous in the future depends upon demographic factors over the next few thousand years. It’s impossible to predict. However, there is no inevitable shortage of phosphorous, over any time scale, just from current trends.
If current trends reverse themselves, and the human population starts growing again and keeps growing, then we will face shortages of something at some point. The growth of the human population would eventually be limited by some factor. However, it is not just inevitable and is not imminent.
Civilization is definitely not collapsing because of peak phosphorous
Some of the doomsday believers have claimed that peak phosphorous will cause the collapse of industrial civilization. As phosphorous declines, industrial agriculture will decline, and with it, industrial civilization. This concern was raised here and here, and has been raised repeatedly over the years within doomsday prepper groups.
The theory that peak phosphorous will cause the collapse of civilization, is entirely wrong and is based upon severe misconceptions of how the world economy works. Even if we assume that phosphorous extraction will soon start declining (which it obviously won’t; see above) it still would pose no risk of the collapse of civilization. Instead, it would cause FAMINE in the poorest countries of the world, probably those of sub-saharan Africa, because citizens of the first world can easily outbid them for gradually declining amounts of fertilizer.
Of course, every effort must be made to prevent famine in Africa. However, it’s counter-productive to engage in doomsday prepper activities like hoarding ammunition, relocating to rural locations, or growing their own food, because doing so is preparing for an event (collapse of civilization) which is not happening. It would do nothing to prevent famine in Africa to engage in activities like that. Thus, doomsday prepping is just counter-productive in this case and would do nothing to ameliorate the effects of phosphorous shortages even if they occurred.
Conclusion
The whole notion of the collapse of civilization because of “peak phosphorous” is just totally wrong, for many different reasons. As follows:
- Doomsday authors are confusing reserves of phosphate rock, with the total amount of phosphorous available. They are under-stating the total amount of phosphorous available to us by at least a factor of 1,000.
- Doomsday authors are failing to account for obvious recycling opportunities which would become profitable and would happen automatically as a result of basic market mechanisms.
- Doomsday authors are conflating a fertilizer shortage with the collapse of civilization, when the two have nothing to do with each other. A shortage of fertilizer would cause starvation in sub-saharan Africa, but not the collapse of industrial civilization. Any such problems would be better addressed by birth control programs in Africa, and not doomsday prepping.
- Doomsday authors are ignoring demographic trends which will reduce the demand for phosphorous long before any shortages occur.
Each one of the above errors is fatal to the doomsday thesis. Thus, the doomsday idea of collapse because of “peak phosphorous”, is refuted four times over.
If the above errors are avoided, then it’s not clear that phosphorous shortages will ever occur, over any time scale. Whether there will be phosphorous shortages ever, is something which can’t be predicted at present. However, there are definitely no imminent shortages of phosphorous, and there won’t be shortages for a very long time.
In closing, I should point out that these doomsday theories are NOT SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. These doomsday theories and speculations are filled with so many severe errors that their conclusions are just not supported.
84 Comments on "Peak phosphorous is not happening"
toms2 on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 5:27 am
GregT,
“I don’t believe that Ghung was asking you to answer a question for him. I believe that he was trying to get you to think.”
If there’s anyone who needs to do some thinking, it’s you. You’re an unending fount of hysterical name-calling, petty remarks, ad hominem errors, silly pop psychoanalyses, and very little else. You’re just not thinking at all.
-Tom S
toms2 on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 5:48 am
Hi Apneaman,
You’re changing the topic. We were discussing peak phosphorous, and the collapse of civilization because of resource limitations.
Apneaman, I definitely sympathize with your environmental concerns. I’m not trying to downplay the importance of the ecosphere. However, this issue of the collapse of civilization is just a different issue entirely.
It’s not helpful for environmental awareness if you guys say “the world will end by 2018” and then it doesn’t happen. If anything, that reduces environmental awareness because it makes people dismiss all these concerns as overblown.
It’s possible to care about the environment, without believing that civilization will collapse from peak phosphorus. The two are separate issues.
“Your position is delusional.”
I don’t think you’re responding to my position. You’re responding to something else.
-Tom S
toms2 on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 6:12 am
Hi GregT,
“I believe that he was trying to get you to think… what you write is complete and utter nonsense… etc”
GregT, you’re provoking the kind of argument that I don’t wish to have. I’m not always good at turning the other cheek. If you have some objection to the content of my blog, then I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, you should give it a rest.
-Tom S
Davy on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 7:39 am
Farm, I am doing much the same with my intensive grazing management system. Animals properly applied to pasture is the key for that segment of agriculture involving grazing. Too often today with meat and fiber production we see the intensive agricultural system forcing its ugly ways. It is when we return to the synergistic ways of pre-industrial AG that we see many of these resource issues go away.
Yet, with 7BIL people and the absolute need for industrial AG we are stuck with critical resource issues with modern AG one of which is phosphorus. Monocultures are required now to support 7BIL people but we must now plant the seed of a transition back to pre-modern Ag practices. It is part of the 1000 points of adaptation and mitigation that are needed to confront a collapsing BAU. Nothing by itself or even together will allow us to negotiate this process without pain and ugly. We do have a chance to make some kind of difference regionally and locally. Intensive grazing in a permaculture managed way has proven cost effective with industrial AG.
Davy on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 8:09 am
Cat Piss, TomTom, These issues are not exclusive as you would like to preach as a greenie. The collapse of civilization is potentially very near. Maybe not complete collapse but a break to a much lower economic level with a large loss of life globally. If anything the doom scream should be more. The issue of collapse must be a part of the message or people will not take the issue seriously. The nearness of a collapse event should be made clear.
I have come to a conclusion the best way forward is a BAU ending crisis that begins relatively gentle and progressively strengthens. This crisis ideally would be able to paradoxically draw on BAU to exit BAU. The death rattle of BAU would initiate the end of the worst of attitudes and lifestyles. Mitigation and adaptation policies and practices both top down and bottom up are contingent on BAU’s death process. The best way to initiate this crisis is oil shortages with resulting rationing. The other way in tandem is an end to financial repression and asset purchases. The two of these conditions will end BAU. Both these processes are in progress.
I believe soon we will see voluntary and involuntary reactions to financial and energy issues. So that part of the equation is falling into place. The problem is the reaction at the top are growth based reactions. At the bottom there are some great attitude and lifestyle changes but not nearly enough. I am hoping when the top is faced with society wide crisis issues they will be forced into new thinking.
The key element in collapse is degree and duration of the descent process. If we fall too hard and too fast we have little hope for a reboot at an acceptable economic and social level. The word must get out now that BAU is dead and has no future. People must be forced into a new mentality and that must further move to voluntary preparation changes. It is only through widespread unified and organized efforts that there is any hope of a gentle reboot.
I am increasingly pessimistic for this potential global human revolution yet, if I have optimism it is these thoughts. Descent is dysfunctional, random, and irrational but that does not have to mean total. We still have a chance but time is a nonrenewable resource in this regards.
Apneaman on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 9:39 am
Tom, this is not your blog. I went to your blog and there are zero comments for this story. Maybe if you stopped telling people they are off topic you might get a few friends.
the_ultravixens on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 10:00 am
Tom, it is not sufficient to say “resource pyramid” and hand-wave the argument away. the resource pyramid is a simplistic heuristic which does not adequately describe reality. that is to say, there is not necessarily twice as much phosphorous at half the concentration of deposits which we currently mine. Many minerals follow a bi-model distribution regarding their concentration in the earth’s crust, which distribution is a function of the geochemical processes involving the element. Regardless, the vast majority of your randomly chosen 0.1% figure would still most likely have to come from very diffuse sources.
The energy figure I cited was merely to crush the rock. Extraction would take yet more energy, I just used this as a useful baseline. By the way, the solar energy incident on earth each year is measures in millions of exajoules, so we’re talking 10^24 J. that’s still 2 orders of magnitude SMALLER than the rough figure I derived. I think it’s fairly ludicrous to suggest we’ll ever harness so much energy.
As regards recycling, much phosphorous is lost at every step of the chain, in mining inefficiencies, runoff from farming, etc. Maybe 10% of the phosphorous mined reaches our plates. Even if we were to somehow recapture 50% of the phosphorous from this cycle (that would be a lot!), after 10 cycles 0.5^10 = 0.001, so you end up losing it all to the oceans or wherever. Plus, again, recycling is a very energy intensive process.
Finally you didn’t respond to my main point, which is about rates. You spend all your effort trying to refute the idea that we’re running out of phosphorous. Peak phosphorous has to do exclusively with production rates. So to avoid peaking you have to increase production each year, while at the same time depleting the best resources first, moving to more and more diffuse sources as you go, and thus requiring more energy. This is not a problem which markets can just magically solve.
ghung on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 10:14 am
Tom – what are your thoughts on the long-term viability of economies based on discretionary sectors and largely populated by intermediaries; people who produce either nothing tangible at all, or produce no necessities: pure consumers with their resulting waste streams?
In short, our US economy and its resource base must support perhaps tens of millions of folks who essentially do nothing but consume resources. How long do you think that can continue? How much of our production is nothing more than ‘make-work’, just to give folks something to do, and to move faux capital around? At what point does (did) this paradigm become one of too many claims on too few resources? You seem to think this is impossible.
MSN Fanboy on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 11:31 am
Hi MSN Fanboy,
“I would counter your points, but as you’re an economist in waiting it would be fruitless.
If you argue with a fool you begin to look like the fool.”
I think everything you said was wrong. I provided a point-by-point refutation.
Now you’re just responding with petty insults and name-calling, and nothing else. You would need to provide some kind of reasoning or argumentation if you wish to rebut what I said.
-Tom
LOL So that’s why he is so offended, its his article LOL
Tom, you were wrong when you wrote down the words ‘I think’
Try not to have any ideas, they only lead to complications 😉
Besides, others here, wiser than me have refuted and evidently proved you as a short-sighted palmreader.
Much like an economist.. LOL
GregT on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 1:04 pm
TomS said:
“Obviously the market cares only about human consumption, not the environment, which is a huge problem.”
This right here is the bottom line Tom. There is only one thing that matters to our species sustainability, and your god of economics is destroying it. We can and will survive without an economy, but we will not survive without a healthy natural environment.
Your thought process is flawed, as is the ideology of the modern school of economics.
Epic fail.
toms2 on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 5:07 pm
Hi the_ultravixens,
“it is not sufficient to say “resource pyramid” and hand-wave the argument away.”
I didn’t just say “resource pyramid” and then hand-wave. I responded to your claims.
“there is not necessarily twice as much phosphorous at half the concentration of deposits which we currently mine.”
I never claimed that. The Hubbert analysis would fail if there is almost any kind of resource pyramid. The amount of phosphorus available in the Earth’s crust is VASTLY higher than currently stated reserves. As a result, the Hubbert analysis would be incorrect if there is almost any kind of resource pyramid.
“Regardless, the vast majority of your randomly chosen 0.1% figure would still most likely have to come from very diffuse sources.”
Granted, the 0.1% figure was just a guesstimate. However, I’m making a conservative guess here. I’m assuming here that only a VERY SMALL fraction of phosphorus in the Earth’s crust is found in high enough concentration to EVER be mined. Even then, peak phosphorous is at least tens of thousands of years away, or possibly never, depending upon demographic trends.
Obviously, I don’t know if the real figure is 0.1%. It could be lower, or higher.
“Many minerals follow a bi-model distribution regarding their concentration in the earth’s crust, which distribution is a function of the geochemical processes involving the element. Regardless, the vast majority of your randomly chosen 0.1% figure would still most likely have to come from very diffuse sources.”
Phosphorus does not follow a bi-modal distribution. First, there is another 50 MT of phosphate rock which is not presently counted as reserves, and some of which could be mined. Second, phosphorus is constantly being bio-accumulated over billions of years and deposited in various places as organisms travel or are transported, and then die. There are many areas of the continental crust which are very rich is phosphorus. I’m not saying how much of that could be mined. However, phosphorus is not just evenly distributed throughout the Earth’s crust after current reserves are depleted.
“By the way, the solar energy incident on earth each year is measures in millions of exajoules, so we’re talking 10^24 J. that’s still 2 orders of magnitude SMALLER than the rough figure I derived.”
Fine, but that’s not the point. You’re comparing the amount of energy we get EVERY YEAR, with the TOTAL amount of energy that would be needed over TENS OF THOUSANDS of years to mine phosphorus.
We do not need to mine all the phosphorous in a single year.
“I think it’s fairly ludicrous to suggest we’ll ever harness so much energy.”
That’s not what I claimed. It’s not even necessary to harness that much energy.
“As regards recycling, much phosphorous is lost at every step of the chain, in mining inefficiencies, runoff from farming, etc. Maybe 10% of the phosphorous mined reaches our plates.”
That’s true. However, that’s because phosphorus is so cheap that the vast majority of it is simply wasted by farmers and allowed to run off into the ocean. At present, farmers are using far more than is necessary to provide nutrients to crops. In fact, there are laws being passed in many locations to prevent the excessive use of phosphorus, because it runs off into oceans and then creates “algal blooms” which kill all the fish.
If phosphorus started becoming much more expensive, why wouldn’t farmers use it more judiciously? Bear in mind that this factor BY ITSELF could delay declining food supplies form peak phosphorus for a very long time.
Also, phosphorus which “runs off” into rivers and then ocean, is not then randomly distributed throughout the Earth’s crust. It’s found in river deltas and (for example) near the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Wouldn’t it be possible to mine those locations at some point in the future if phosphorus became much more expensive?
“Finally you didn’t respond to my main point, which is about rates… So to avoid peaking you have to increase production each year, while at the same time depleting the best resources first, moving to more and more diffuse sources as you go, and thus requiring more energy.”
But I did respond to your main point. I realize that it requires more energy as sources of phosphorus become more diffuse. I said that from the beginning, in my blog article. That was my point. That is why I claimed that only 0.1% phosphorus in the Earth’s crust could EVER be mined.
-Tom S
toms2 on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 5:14 pm
MSN Fanboy,
“Tom, you were wrong when you wrote down the words ‘I think’
Try not to have any ideas, they only lead to complications”
Presumably, that’s why you never do it.
You haven’t produced even a single plausible relevant response. Instead you just post silly personal remarks and say “LOL LOL” over and over.
-Tom S
GregT on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 7:47 pm
Tom,
Just an FYI.
When MSM Fanboy first starting frequenting these boards, he was almost as misguided as you are. If you had of met me 16 years ago, it would have been like looking in a mirror. We have both sucked up our egos Tom, and got our emotions out of the way. Whether or not you do the same, is entirely your choice.
Keith_McClary on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 8:36 pm
TomS:
“There appears not to be a scientific consensus on this topic.”
That doesn’t stop you from having total certainty.
Keith_McClary on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 8:46 pm
Poordogabone:

“If phosphorous prices rise so will food prices. If the bulk of earth population can not afford the high prices of food, they will eat insects or starve and the vast reserves of diluted phosphates will remain in the ground.”
Oh, but free market economics will continually make everyone ever richer, and the magick of the markets and technological advances will provide replacements for anything that runs out. I’m sure TomS can explain this better, with proper Economics terminology and equations.
dubya on Sun, 18th Jan 2015 11:59 pm
M. Vixen: In your order of magnitude energy calculations you fail to consider that phosphorous is only ONE of the finely divided elements in the crust. While grinding up the planet for molecular phosphorous we can also filter out the gigatonnes of aluminium, uranium, thorium – really, everything – making the project economically viable.
If we pull off the top 15,000 ft of the crust for example we could also sponge out the remaining 60% of the conventional oil and of course all the petroleum source rock. The planet is still an economic cornucopia of resources waiting to be exploited by man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGMYdalClU
theultravixens on Mon, 19th Jan 2015 3:14 am
Tom,
“Phosphorus does not follow a bi-modal distribution.”
Unless you can point me to a source which shows the distribution of phosphorous reserves by grade then this statement is nothing more than supposition. Many minerals in the earth’s crust follow bi-modal distributions. You don’t seem to have much background knowledge on phosphorous, mineralogy or indeed geology in general. Here’s a useful primer on phosphorous from the USGS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1252d/report.pdf
As for mining river runoff, you might want to have a chat with someone who works in the mining industry to see what they think of that suggestion. Anyway, I expect that peak phosphorous (which is an inevitability), will be as much an economic as a geological phenomenon, since ultimately people can’t afford to pay arbitrarily high prices for their food, and by extention phosphorous.
toms2 on Mon, 19th Jan 2015 6:32 am
the_ultravixen,
“Unless you can point me to a source which shows the distribution of phosphorous reserves by grade then this statement is nothing more than supposition.”
Well, I don’t need to provide a source, because you provided one. If you bother to read the one-paragraph conclusion from the paper to which you provided a reference, you’ll find the following:
“Moreover, advances in beneficiation and processing technology now make it possible to recover economically many lower grade deposits that were formerly not considered minable. Although they are irregularly distributed, resources of phosphate rock in presently known deposits that are within reach of developed technology are probably on the order of hundreds of billions of tons.”
…which essentially is my point. There are lower-grade resources of phosphorus which are MUCH larger, and which can become mineable.
The figure of “hundreds of billions of tons” from lower grade sources, is perhaps 50x larger than the published phosphorus reserve figures. Of course, that still is not the theoretical maximum.
Let’s do a quick calculation. At present, the world economy uses 140 MT of rock phosphate per year. According the USGS paper you provided, we have available “hundreds of billions” of tons in lower-grade sources, which could be mined using CURRENTLY AVAILABLE technology. In which case, we have more than 1,000 years of phosphorus available.
Even if we do not recycle phosphorus, or use it more judiciously, or mine very diffuse sources, or develop any new mining technologies in the mean time, we have 1,000 years left of it.
Furthermore, if you read the short section entitled “phosphate deposits” from the same paper you referenced, you will find the following:
“Concentrations of nutrients and accompanying organic growths are also found near the mouths of some large rivers… The decaying remains of organisms in such estuaries sink from outflowing surface water, and their decay products are trapped in the system by inflowing sea water; nutrients accumulate as a result of this process”
…which supports what I was saying: “phosphorus is constantly being … deposited in various places as organisms travel or are transported, and then die. There are many areas of the continental crust which are very rich in phosphorus.”
…the_ultravixen, if you are going to provide a reference then it should support what you are saying.
“You don’t seem to have much background knowledge on phosphorous, mineralogy or indeed geology in general.”
You should worry about yourself. You should have read the paper you provided.
“since ultimately people can’t afford to pay arbitrarily high prices for their food, and by extention phosphorous.”
I think you should speak to someone who understands food prices. The price of phosphorus is a trivial fraction of the price of retail food. Even if the price of phosphorus increased by 20x, which would allow mining in far lower concentrations, it would increase the retail price of food by only a trivial amount. Since citizens of first world countries will spend any fraction of their income to avoid starving to death, industrial civilization would expend almost any amount of money possible to avoid that conclusion. As a result, it would be feasible to spend HUNDREDS of times as much on phosphorus mining as we do at present, which could multiply by a considerable factor the 1,000-year supply we already have available.
During the intervening thousands of years, it is entirely possible that new mining technologies will be developed, or population will decline because of demographic transition, or we will start using phosphorus more judiciously, or we will start recycling it. In which case, phosphorus shortages may be very far off, or possibly never.
We can support a population of 2 billion people without mining any phosphorus. Our population could possibly decline below that number (because of demographic transition) long before we exhaust the resources of phosphorus which the USGS paper indicated. As a result, it’s not totally clear that we will EVER reach peak phosphorus, at least not from supply constraints. Of course, that depends upon demographic trends which are impossible to predict far into the future. However, it’s clear that shortages of phosphorus are nowhere near imminent, and they do not threaten the collapse of civilization. That is the original point I was making, and it’s supported by the reference you provided.
-Tom S
GregT on Mon, 19th Jan 2015 10:16 am
Tom,
Peak phosphorus will be reached for any one of a multitude of reasons. None of which will be how much phosphorus is left in the ground.
You will never find truth Tom, if you refuse to be truthful with yourself.
theultravixens on Mon, 19th Jan 2015 12:08 pm
Tom,
I read the paper and, in fact, comprehended it.
The source which I kindly linked you to did categorically NOT show the distribution of phosphate reserves by grade (I know this because I read it), and therefore your assertion that it does not follow a bi-model distribution is not supported by the evidence I linked you to.
As regards the river deposits, I don’t think I really missed that. The onus, however, would be on you to demonstrate that 1) Deposits at river mouths are sufficiently highly concentrated to be worth commercially exploiting and 2) that these deposits would be able to meet a significant fraction of demand.
You then spend the rest of your post tediously retreading the same ground that you did in the article, and conflating reserve sizes with production rates, when since we are discussing a peak we should be focussing on rates. What you are required to demonstrate is that phosphorous can be profitably mined from resources of decreasing grade quality while simultaneously increasing the production rate to match the demand from a world population which is forecast to grow for the next century. To do this would require the following: 1) cite sources showing size and distribution of various phosphate reserves around the world and of various grades 2) cite source/using mathematics to estimate future demand growth 3) cite sources/using mathematics to show that future supply is capable of meeting/exceeding that demand. You singularly failed to do any of these things, and thus your argument is based on nothing more than bluster and rhetoric and is of little to no value.
Let me get this straight, I’m not in the least bit worred about peak phosphorous and am at least in agreement with you in this regard. I just think the way you go about constructing your argument absolutely sucks.
toms2 on Mon, 19th Jan 2015 7:36 pm
Hi the_ultravixens,
“demonstrate [that] phosphorous can be profitably mined from resources of decreasing grade quality while simultaneously increasing the production rate to match the demand from a world population which is forecast to grow for the next century.”
I grant it was a little scanty, but I did provide a calculation using data from the USGS paper, which shows that phosphorus resources are adequate for at least 1,000 years at today’s level.
I’m afraid I can’t provide a precise calculation after that. I don’t know what kinds of mining technologies will be available in 1,000 years, or what demographic trends will be like then. Who predicted a thousand years ago what technology would be like today?
I intended the figure of 0.1% as a guesstimate. I was trying to show that it’s at least _plausible_ that “peak phosphorus” was not in the foreseeable future, at least not because of supply constraints.
“[It would] require the following: 1) cite sources showing size and distribution… 2) cite source/using mathematics … You singularly failed to do any of these things”
If I recall, it was the peak oil community which was originally making claims here. As I pointed out, they ignored 99.9999% of the resource, and also ignored obvious opportunities for more judicious usage.
In order to demonstrate that peak phosphorus is imminent, they would need to show: 1) that we could never exploit any of that 99.9999%, over any time scale, now matter how much money we throw at the problem, or what kinds of technological developments occur; 2) that obvious opportunities for more judicious usage would not be employed, despite increasing prices; and 3) that population would not decline before declines of phosphorus production. I just don’t see anything like that.
I grant that my article was light on the details. I’m sorry if the way I construct my argument “absolutely sucks”. However, I don’t see any objection which would fundamentally alter its conclusions.
-Tom S
GregT on Tue, 20th Jan 2015 12:24 am
TomS,
You are living in a state of complete denial.
peakyeast on Tue, 20th Jan 2015 2:57 am
TomS:
If there is plenty of phosphor. – How does that change anything concerning our collective doom?
1. Does it revive the oceans?
2. Does it revive all the other ecosystems?
3. Does it replenish the phytoplankton?
4. Does it mitigate climate change?
5. Does it provide any protection against new diseases?
6. Does it provide water for farming and consumption?
7. Does it reduce polution? – Incl. the bioaccumulated poisons?
8. Does it prevent wars from happening – due to overpopulation and resource constraints?
9. Does it reduce our ecological footprint?
10. Does it provide more energy?
Just to name a few of our problems.
I am sure you know that solving, delaying or even disproving one out of a host of terminal problems is not the same as everything is just fine. And it does not make all the other problems less serious or disappear.
We are not facing one problem – well yes: overpopulation – but that one problem is host to endless other problems. Where peak phosphor is actually a minor part.
GregT on Tue, 20th Jan 2015 7:53 am
Peaky,
If anything, phosphorus not peaking is actually worse than phosphorus peaking.
Phosphorus production is aiding population overshoot. That will change rapidly though, (from a geological perspective) post peak oil production.
Which brings me back to the title of the article I posted previously:
“Peak Phosphorus: the sequel to Peak Oil”
Davy on Tue, 20th Jan 2015 8:21 am
Greg, a return to pre-industrial AG practices will solve the phosphorus and overpopulation issues if we are lucky enough to have a civilization after BAU dies. Pre-industrial AG, while not totally sustainable and resilient, did have a nutrient cycle that maintained civilization for many centuries when properly applied.
This reunion with our past we face will only support a fraction of the present population. We will most likely require a transition to 3BIL within a generation down eventually to 1BIL within a second generation. These figures and time frames while desperate sounding very well could be worse. The 3BIL by a second generation would be more acceptable allowing for more natural attrition.
The big issue that may limit these population projections is arable land. AGW and global soil/water degradation will surely limit these numbers. Soil/water degradation will take a generational organized and sustained regeneration effort. Animals and human labor will return as the primary driver of this process. It can be done but there must be a degree of stability called civilization. AGW, may reduce man to a few MIL in a small zone that is habitable probably closer to the poles.
GregT on Tue, 20th Jan 2015 11:19 am
Absolutely agree Davy,
‘IF’ business as usual ends soon enough, AND we somehow manage to leave 80% of the remaining fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
If our budding economist TomS and his fellow cult members get their way, we probably won’t number a few million people, life as we know it on the Planet Earth will cease to exist.
toms2 on Wed, 21st Jan 2015 5:54 am
dubya:
“While grinding up the planet for molecular phosphorous we can also filter out the gigatonnes of aluminium, uranium, thorium – really, everything – making the project economically viable.”
That is an excellent point which I don’t touch upon in my post. Maybe I’ll add something about that.
-Tom S
toms2 on Wed, 21st Jan 2015 5:55 am
Hi peakyeast,
No, it does not solve all of those problems at once.
I’m not disputing that we face serious environmental concerns. The purpose of my blog is to disprove the idea that civilization is collapsing because of resource constraints.
-Tom S
toms2 on Wed, 21st Jan 2015 6:14 am
Hi the_ultravixens,
“You singularly failed to do any of these things, and thus your argument is based on nothing more than bluster and rhetoric and is of little to no value.”
You have singularly failed to generate even one serious objection to anything I said. You just repeated the same mistaken calculation based upon energy, after it had been definitively rebutted.
“your argument is based on nothing more than bluster and rhetoric”
My argument is based upon a mathematical calculation with sources to support it. It obviously is not just “bluster and rhetoric”.
“and conflating reserve sizes with production rates, when since we are discussing a peak we should be focussing on rates.”
You are repeating an argument from peak oil which is not applicable here. Oil is subject to restraints upon rates of production because it’s usually found in well-defined reservoirs, because the most promising fields are already being depleted, and because the reservoirs could be damaged if they were pumped too quickly.
Phosphorus is a mineral which is vastly more plentiful than oil ever was. We are not mining anywhere near the maximal amount. There is nothing to prevent operating more phosphorus mines in PARALLEL. Furthermore, it’s not clear that mining much more phosphorus in the future would even be required, since many projections of future population indicate that we are already well over half the maximum population.
“I just think the way you go about constructing your argument absolutely sucks.”
The way you construct an argument consists of failing to rebut anything, then throwing out childish personal remarks. It would be one thing if you were responding in kind to that kind of thing, but you started with it from the beginning.
You have not generated any serious objection to anything I said. You provided an incorrect mathematical calculation, a reference which wholly supports what I’m saying, and a series of inappropriate and irrelevant personal remarks.
The point stands. Phosphorus is not peaking, at least not from supply concerns.
-Tom S
toms2 on Wed, 21st Jan 2015 6:19 am
Roman:
“When oil peaks everything else peaks.”
No, because that wrongly assumes that we cannot re-allocate our usage of oil toward more pressing concerns. Also, it wrongly assumes there are no alternatives to oil.
If oil declined by 10% then it would be possible for production of phosphorus to increase anyway. This is because less than 100% of our oil production is devoted to phosphorus mining. We could sacrifice discretionary travel (or use battery-electric cars) and use the oil which would have gone to that, to phosphorus mining (or other uses) instead.
-Tom S
Davy on Wed, 21st Jan 2015 6:21 am
TomTom, you are so far in a cave of denial. Where the hell are you going to get all the energy and infrastructure to filter out gigatons of all the above mentioned resources? What is the waste stream of that activity? That proposal died a long time ago with the idea of mining the ocean by filtration. Tell me how all this infrastructure is going to be built out TomTom? You are stuck in a meme of ever growing energy possibilities through technology and substitution.
You are a cornucopian with exceptionalism tendencies with an agenda. You message is one of denial and distortions that contributes to failed responses at a time when wrong decision could kill. Technology is not the answer it is the problem. It can be used in the descent but not the way it is being used now for progress and growth. We can use it in the descent down in a hybrid and salvage way. Built out technology should not be wasted but utilized where possible. TomTom, forget your shiny new world of techno-happiness. If you stick around here you will convert as the facts and reality smack you upside the head with a bat.
toms2 on Wed, 21st Jan 2015 6:53 am
Hi Davy,
“If you stick around here you will convert as the facts and reality smack you upside the head with a bat.”
I have been observing the peak oil movement, off and on, since about 2005. Back then, everyone was sure that civilization would collapse abruptly within a few years.
All the predictions failed, most of them badly. Since that time, I would say that membership in the peak oil movement (and interest in it) has declined by 95% or more. Most people have moved on. The major peak oil websites (LATOC, TheOilDrum, and so on) have closed.
The peak oil collapse movement was unable to retain even the members it had. As a result, I wouldn’t hold out much hope for many new members.
“as the facts and reality smack you upside the head”
I am already familiar with all the arguments from peak oil collapsitarians. Many of those arguments (such as declining ERoEI) have been around since the 1970s. Almost all the arguments were stated by 2005.
“That proposal died a long time ago with the idea of mining the ocean by filtration.”
Actually, I meant dredging near the coasts.
Just googling it now, I find that offshore phosphorus mining with dredging has already commenced in 2012:
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/environmentally-sensitive-ocean-mining-planned-namibian-marine-phosphate-2012-05-29
http://potashinvestingnews.com/5114-phosphate-mining-goes-deep-sea.html
-Tom S
Davy on Wed, 21st Jan 2015 6:59 am
Poor TomTom, PO is only a part of the greater equation TomTom. Get your head out of the sand and see the storm clouds. Tell me the economy is healthy like Obee sees it. Tell me we are not at macro limits and diminishing returns with multiple predicamants. Tell me we are not seeing ecosystem degradation with localized failures. Tell me overpopulation is OK. I want a good morning corn porn joke to chuckle at.
George A. Morariu on Thu, 16th Mar 2017 1:52 pm
Before this collapse, the Ice Cycle will be upon us, and we will disappear as part of this world. The only consolation we have is that we will no be to witness that.