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"
roman on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 7:37 am
When oil peaks everything else peaks.
MSN Fanboy on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 7:43 am
Don’t worry, civilisation wont collapse, there will just be famine in Africa.
These morally superior authors lol
State a couple of numbers, confuse the reader with reserve numbers, unproven technologies that would need to be implemented 20 years ago without stating who would pay…
and if that fails,
Africa will starve which is not a collapse of civilisation. LOL
Of course a great deal of phosphate comes from Africa, but we must gloss over that.
And the masses of immigrants the west would have to take.
Im starting to find many faults with this article lol
Makati1 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 8:00 am
MSN. most articles today are full of ‘faults’ which used to be called lies. Now they are just BAU. If anything has passed it’s peak, it is Truth and it is rarer every day.
Rodster on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 8:17 am
“When oil peaks everything else peaks.”
QFT !
Plantagenet on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 8:21 am
Good to know the threat from peak phosphorus is non existent
viewcrafters on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 9:10 am
Food shortages start wars. Always did and always will.
viewcrafters
Plantagenet on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 9:54 am
There has never been a famine caused by a lack of phosphorus. Phosphorus is cheap and abundant
Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 10:27 am
Same mis-characterization, misunderstanding and lame debating points for peak phosphorus as for peak oil. Not even a mention of the energy required to extract, refine, or transport the stuff. No mention of the industry itself; just the same old peak oil argument that there is so much of the stuff that we will never use it all. Another corn/denier trick he uses is to provide links to “Doomsday authors” (a commenter here and xraymike79’s blog) and suggest that they are the one’s who came up with the concept of peak phosphorus or whatever piece of bad news bursts their world view. Of course these people are passing along the work of many scientists and honest industry people (often retired). Corn/denier’s go to great length to divert anyone away from original material and the scientists who produce it. They are also well aware that corn/denier’s do not want facts, do not want to do the lengthy reading to get a basic understanding of a particular subject. This person is not arguing the facts; he’s arguing his emotions.
Hey Plant, did you go to the link to xraymike’s blog (most thorough doomer blog out there imo) and read the many links to the source material he provided before you commented? If your so convinced that “… the threat from peak phosphorus is non existent” please break it down for us with all the relevant numbers.
Tom S on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 10:31 am
Hi MSN Fanboy,
“State a couple of numbers, confuse the reader with reserve numbers,”
The reader is not being “confused” with reserve numbers. The numbers and calculations in the article are straightforward.
“unproven technologies that would need to be implemented 20 years ago”
No unproven technologies are required to mine phosphorous from lesser concentrations. The technology did not need to be implemented 20 years ago since peak phosphorous is so far away.
“Of course a great deal of phosphate comes from Africa, but we must gloss over that.”
The article says that famine would occur in SUB-SAHARAN Africa. The phosphate rock comes from Morocco which is on the other side of the Sahara, thousands of miles away.
“And the masses of immigrants the west would have to take.”
The west doesn’t take starving people from Africa right now. The generosity of the west is actually fairly limited. I doubt the west would suddenly be overcome with charity if they needed the fertilizer for themselves.
“These morally superior authors”
There is no moral superiority in the article. You are badly misreading the article and attributing bad motives.
“Don’t worry, civilisation wont collapse, there will just be famine in Africa.”
That’s not what the article claims. The article claims there won’t be any shortage of phosphorous, but even if there WERE, it still wouldn’t cause collapse.
-Tom S
Plantagenet on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 10:38 am
Hey Apneaman
Your poor reading comprehension is showing again. Every question you asked me is covered in the article under discussion.
Did you fail to read it or did you read it but didn’t understand it?
Plantagenet on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 10:41 am
@ Tom S
Congrats on Your intelligent and cogent discussion of this article.
+1
ghung on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 10:57 am
Hi Tom. I always enjoy your optimistic perspective (if this is indeed your work), though am frustrated by your lack of systemic thinking. None of these issues can be compartmentalised or solved on their own merits. The efficiencies of our supply chains; the interconnected nature of our just-in-time systems; the fiat nature of our economies; the unknowns such as natural disruptions, conflicts, climate change; excessive capital claims on know resources, etc., all make our global systems more hyper-complex and fragile. Humans have increased their vulnerability via the loss of resiliency born of “efficiency’.
Will a shortage of phosphorus cause a collapse of civilization? Most assuredly not on it’s own. You do a fine job of distracting readers from the larger question: Can humans sustain all of these interdependent systems as we stress-test virtually all of them at the same time? … as we leverage our claims on the planet far beyond its carrying capacity in just about every way?
What is your Grand Unifying Theory of all the little pieces you present? Knowing that virtually all great civilizations have declined/collapsed/failed (you choose) due to increasingly unsustainable complexification combined with resource depletion, what, pray tell, makes the largest, most consumptive and wasteful civilisation in history immune to that fate?
Perhaps you can comment (with specifics) on some of the more in-depth analyses that tend to counter your conclusions. Start here perhaps:
Trade Off: Financial system supply-chain cross contagion – a study in global systemic collapse
http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/trade-off-financial-system-supply-chain-cross-contagion-a-study-in-global-systemic-collapse/
Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 11:08 am
Fuck off with your kindergarten “reading comprehension” theme.
“It means only that we must start extracting phosphorous from more dilute sources.” Sound like oil, yet he denies
peak oil too, “more obviously wrong than the theories of peak oil were, and even those were wrong.” You on board with that too? What energy source will they use to extract, refine and distribute it?
“Please note that the total amount which could ever be extracted is completely different and far higher than published reserve figures of phosphate rock.”
Then again it could be accurate, but we will just have to take corny’s word for it since he has nothing support this claim. link? Industry links?
No he provides links to “Doomsday authors” who are wrong by default, but the only external evidence he provides to support his claim is a wikipedia link (go no further) with some general information (that may or may not be correct) on, “Abundance of elements in Earth’s crust” as if that proves everything.
These “Devils’s advocate” denier/corn desperate opinion pieces are getting boring. The hour is too late for this shit.
the_ultravixens on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 11:10 am
There are actually a few more in depth studies on phosphorous production, such an example is here:
http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=380
One might perhaps learn more from reading that than from reading a shouty blog which cites wikipedia as it’s sole source, and which talks only about reserve size and not about production rates, when production rates are what defines a peak. I mean, nobody serious denies the model of resource pyramid, the problem comes from the fact that in order to avoid peaking one must continually increase extraction rate while depleting the best resources first, and moving to more diffuse (and thus harder to mine) resources. That’s the dynamic that’s the problem, not running out.
As for the argument about population shrinking this century, I would like to direct the author to the following study which suggests stabilisation is unlikely this century: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/234.full.pdf?keytype=ref&siteid=sci&ijkey=7Lm1ANVr8AJ0M
Poor, overall.
ghung on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 11:23 am
Apneaman – It’s generally good form to address your “fuck-offs” to those who specifically invited them, as in:
“Plantagenet; Fuck off with your kindergarten “reading comprehension” theme”, “, and so forth.
Just a suggestion…
the_ultravixens on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 11:36 am
Just as an addendum, let’s just think about how absurd the “0.1% of this phosphorus” argument actually is.
So of we’ve got 10^10 tons in rock reserves and 10^16 tons pretty much evenly distributed in the undifferentiated crust. If we wanted to mine just 0.1% of that, then by definition we would have to mine 0.1% of the earth’s crust, which would run to a mere 10^16 tons. To crush undifferentiated rock finely enough so that we can extract miniscule proportions of an element from it takes something like 10Mj/kg. Which would in total take around 10^26 joules in total, just for the crushing. By comparison, global annual energy consumption is of the order of 10^20 joules. Hmmmmm.
Plantagenet on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 11:38 am
@Ghung:
hahahah!
Apneaman is so intellectually limited that you even have to coach him on how to use his potty mouth, and you are so intellectually limited that you spend your time teaching internet posters how to use their potty mouth.
Meanwhile the discussion is diverted and the topic goes undiscussed—-which of course is your intent.
Cheers!
ghung on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 11:42 am
Plant, … and you are so intellectually arrogant that you assume to know what motivates others. Makes an ass of you; not me.
Davy on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 12:29 pm
G-man, was it not you who a few months ago brought to my attention by a wonderful linked pic that Mak was pulling my chain. Could it be someone is pulling your chain G?
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 12:37 pm
This article can be found on TomS’s blog:
http://bountifulenergy.blogspot.cahttp://bountifulenergy.blogspot.ca
“Debunks the arguments of energy decline theorists, peak oil doomers, and others. Argues that energy is abundant.”
Also found on his blog:
“I study economics. I thought my knowledge of economics might be useful in analyzing doomerism and energy decline arguments.”
And this my friends, is exactly the reason for the disconnect from physical reality.
ghung on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 12:37 pm
I got my chain pulled last night, Davy. Other than that, to whom do you refer?
Davy on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 12:58 pm
Planter, gets your hackles up sometimes G. Just poking you back for your poke a few months ago.
Davy on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 1:09 pm
Greg, energy is abundant too bad we are so shitty at harvesting it. Tomtom, is an exceptionalist who worships the pseudo sciences of the modern world. Us doomers are doing a remarkable job of deflating their fantasy. Why else would there be so many cornucopian discussion attacking doom and talking up corn porn. They are loosing the battles and soon the war and they are showing their cognitive dissonance regularly. Reality is like water it finds the path of least resistance without equal. Nothing can stop water or reality.
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 1:20 pm
So we have the perspective above from a self proclaimed economist, who believes that energy is abundant and will not decline.
So what do our scientists say?
“Earth’s phosphorus is being depleted at an alarming rate. At current consumption levels, we will run out of known phosphorus reserves in around 80 years, but consumption will not stay at current levels. Nearly 90% of phosphorus is used in the global food supply chain, most of it in crop fertilizers. If no action is taken to quell fertilizer use, demand is likely to increase exponentially. A simple program of smart demand reduction and increased organic waste recycling, supplemented with mining exploration in probable deposit areas, can delay, if not completely avoid, a peak in phosphorus production for several decades. However, it is imperative to take action now.”
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/phosphorus.html
“The world has enough potassium to last several centuries. But phosphorus is a different story. Readily available global supplies may start running out by the end of this century.”
“Moreover, trouble may surface much sooner. As last year’s oil price swings have shown, markets can tighten long before a given resource is anywhere near its end. And reserves of phosphorus are even less evenly distributed than oil’s, raising additional supply concerns. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest producer of phosphorus (after China), at 19 percent of the total, but 65 percent of that amount comes from a single source: pit mines near Tampa, Fla., which may not last more than a few decades. Meanwhile nearly 40 percent of global reserves are controlled by a single country, Morocco, sometimes referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of phosphorus.” Although Morocco is a stable, friendly nation, the imbalance makes phosphorus a geostrategic ticking time bomb.”
ht tp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phosphorus-a-looming-crisis/
But of course, there really is no point in listening to our scientific community, when all we need to do is write lot’s of stuff in our blogs, to make harsh realities seemingly go away.
Northwest Resident on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 1:22 pm
Hi guys! I haven’t been posting much if any at all lately. Mostly because it is crunch time with launching our two new software products, the pressure is on, the work is technically challenging and the hours are long. To relax, I’ve been practicing a lot with my 50-lb recurve bow, and reading books in-between. But, scanning the articles and comments this morning before diving into more pressing matters, I just wanted to say one thing:
Plantagent, you are the most obnoxious, the most pompous ass and the most foul individual I have been exposed to for quite a long time. You reek of idiocy, which wouldn’t be so bad, except that you assert your idiocy as if it were God’s truth. You are a shit stain on this forum.
That’s all. Keep posting guys. I like to read what you’re all up to and what the current thinking is on these topics.
Plant, just flush yourself, please.
ghung on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 1:23 pm
Understood, Davy. I, for one, will try to not make a habit of it.
Martin Hanson on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 1:35 pm
Pity the author can’t spell ‘phosphorus’.
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 1:42 pm
TomS,
You are doing a great disservice to humanity with your blog. I can only hope that enough people read the comments to your posts, and understand how much of what you write is complete and utter nonsense.
We are facing a multitude of challenges. We need people to become aware of our predicaments in order to come up with solutions. We do not need more of the same thinking that got us into this mess to begin with.
Poordogabone on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 1:55 pm
“When current reserves are exhausted, prices for phosphorous will rise, and it will become economical to extract phosphorous from more dilute sources.”
Heard that one before usually from economists. The fallacy with this argument is the same with regard to oil.
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.
viewcrafters on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 2:36 pm
No need to worry about phosphorous. People are starving by the 10’s of thousands due to drought.
That is not to mention flooding and
fires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqgsy95bbg0
Davy on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 2:52 pm
NR, I would jump your ass but I took a Christmas sabbatical. Miss your hell raising so get back soon.
Speculawyer on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 3:39 pm
“When oil peaks everything else peaks.”
No, it really doesn’t. It will cause difficulties but it is technical issue that can be dealt with.
If you don’t mind ignoring climate change problems, you can move massively into natural gas and coal. It is not so hard to convert cars to natural gas.
And if you do take climate change seriously (as one should) you can move big into solar PV, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, etc.
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 4:02 pm
“And if you do take climate change seriously (as one should) you can move big into solar PV, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, etc.”
Solar PV, wind, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, etc., are all used to generate electricity. We are not facing an electricity crisis, we are facing a liquid fuels crisis.
I will give you this Spec, if we had of built out alternate energy infrastructure two decades ago, we could have replaced a percentage of fossil fuels used in electric power generation, but most fossil fuels are not used in electric power generation. They are used in resource extraction, transportation, food production, medicine, lubrication, and in the manufacturing of almost every single man made thing that exists in your house right now.
Electricity does not fuel modern industrial society, modern industrial society generates electricity. It really shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. It is actually extremely simple to understand.
If you aren’t willing to look at things realistically, why even bother to pretend to look. Alternate energy infrastructure is a by-product of fossil fuels, as is every, single, thing, that we manufacture to be powered by electricity.
When peak oil peaks, so does everything else, including human population numbers.
MSN Fanboy on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 4:16 pm
TOM S.
About Me
Tom I study economics. I thought my knowledge of economics might be useful in analyzing doomerism and energy decline arguments.
TOM, if I want to hear your arguments I will switch on the T.V.
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.
Plantagenet on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 4:53 pm
Did someone give Nordent a wedgie again?
He seems quite wound up………..
J-Gav on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 5:21 pm
Oh, it’s not happening! Halleluia! At least, not yet … so maybe it never will, right?
Shortsightedness is our trademark after all.
toms2 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 5:32 pm
Hi Appnean,
“Not even a mention of the energy required to extract, refine, or transport the stuff.”
The energy required to transport it is trivial, since it’s transported by ship (very large ore container) which would impose only pennies of all costs put together (including energy) to transport it halfway around the world. The energy required to refine it is approximately the same as now (it’s found as oxides). As for the energy to extract it, I’ll address that in a subsequent comment.
“but the only external evidence he provides to support his claim is a wikipedia link (go no further) with some general information (that may or may not be correct)”
The wikipedia link provides a table with data from three separate studies on elemental abundance. The wikipedia link is a summary of those sources.
“Of course these people are passing along the work of many scientists and honest industry people (often retired)”
There appear to be very few scientists who have ever looked at this topic. There appears not to be a scientific consensus on this topic.
“Corn/denier’s go to great length to divert anyone away from original material and the scientists who produce it.”
How am I “going to great lengths” to divert anyone from the original material? It’s extremely easy to read the original material by clicking on links from the sources I provided.
“This person is not arguing the facts; he’s arguing his emotions.”
The article provides a source for the information followed by a straightforward mathematical calculation. How is that “arguing my emotions”?
“Then again it could be accurate, but we will just have to take corny’s word for it since he has nothing support this claim. ”
I provided a source and a straightforward mathematical calculation. Nowhere do I say that you should just “take my word for it”.
“These … denier/corn desperate opinion pieces are getting boring. The hour is too late for this shit.”
When you say “the hour is too late,” you’re assuming your conclusion which is a logical error. Also, you guys here have been saying that the “hour is too late” and predicting imminent end of civilization, for ten years now. You would need to show why your predictions are right this time.
-Tom S
toms2 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 5:42 pm
Hi the_ultravixens,
“As for the argument about population shrinking this century, I would like to direct the author to the following study which suggests stabilisation is unlikely this century”
There are different estimates for when population will stabilize. Some of them say 2050, some of them say later. The consensus view appears to be about 2050. Even if population stabilizes after 2100, that would still pose no risk of peak phosphorus.
“So of we’ve got 10^10 tons in rock reserves and 10^16 tons pretty much evenly distributed in the undifferentiated crust.”
No! It’s distributed according to a resource pyramid, and not evenly distributed in the crust. The 0.1% figure I indicated would be much easier to extract than if it were evenly distributed.
“To crush undifferentiated rock finely enough so that we can extract miniscule proportions of an element from it takes something like 10Mj/kg. Which would in total take around 10^26 joules in total, just for the crushing. By comparison, global annual energy consumption is of the order of 10^20 joules.”
Even if the phosphorus were evenly distributed (which it’s not), the 10^26 joules you cite is the amount of energy it would take to extract ALL the resource I indicated. That’s the amount of energy it would take to extract 1,000x current worldwide reserves, which would last several hundred thousand years at present rates of production and much longer if population levels off or starts declining, or if we start recycling phosphorous. As a result, only a small fraction of worldwide energy would ever need to be devoted to phosphorus extraction.
Also, who knows, maybe energy production will be higher in thousands of years.
-Tom S
toms2 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 5:45 pm
Hi Martin,
“Pity the author can’t spell ‘phosphorus’.”
Oops, that’s a typo. I corrected it in the article. Sorry; I banged out the article very quickly last night. The spell checker didn’t catch it because “phosphorous” is the spelling of the ADJECTIVE.
-Tom S
toms2 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 5:46 pm
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 S
toms2 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 5:58 pm
Hi GregT,
“So what do our scientists say? [link to mit website]”
That article appears to be written by freshman students as part of a student project. It is not the consensus of “our scientists” as you imply.
Even so, the students point out that phosphorus can be recycled (as I indicated) and that peak phosphorus can therefore be delayed for a long time.
“I can only hope that enough people read the comments to your posts, and understand how much of what you write is complete and utter nonsense.”
I will post some quotations of these responses on my website and will post a link to this discussion.
If what I write is “complete and utter nonsense”, then it should have been easy for you to provide some kind of valid objection. You could point out where my calculation was mistaken, for example. Instead, you provided a link to a freshman project and a magazine, plus name-calling.
If what I wrote is “utter nonsense” then it should have been easy to rebut, which you have not done.
-Tom S
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 6:20 pm
While you are posting your quotations, don’t forget to add the following from the:
Global Phosphorus Research Initiative
The Global Phosphorus Research Initiative (GPRI) is a collaboration between independent research institutes in Europe, Australia and North America. The main objective of the GPRI is to facilitate quality interdisciplinary research on global phosphorus security for future food production. In addition to research, the GPRI also facilitates networking, dialogue and awareness raising among policy makers, industry, scientists and the community on the implications of global phosphorus scarcity and possible solutions.
The GPRI was co-founded in early 2008 by researchers at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), and the Department of Water and Environmental Studies at Linköping University, Sweden. Today, GPRI members also include the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) in Sweden, the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Canada and Wageningen University in The Netherlands.
Peak Phosphorus: the sequel to Peak Oil
by Professor Stuart White1 and Dr Dana Cordell1,2
1 Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) Australia.
2 Research Principal, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) Australia and Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University (LiU) Sweden.
“While the exact timing may be disputed, it is clear that already the quality of remaining phosphate rock reserves is decreasing and cheap fertilizers will be a thing of the past. Like oil in the 1970’s, phosphate rock is experiencing it’s first significant price shock – a 700% increase from US$50/tonne to US$350/tonne in just 14 months (Lewis, 2008).
Yet there are no alternatives to phosphate rock currently on the market that could replace it at any significant scale. While various small-scale trials are being undertaken, commercialization and implementation on a global scale could take decades to develop.”
“In 2007 the Energy Bulletin posted a peak phosphorus article by geologist Patrick Déry and co-author Bart Anderson (Déry and Anderson, 2007). In this article, the authors estimate U.S phosphate rock reserves peaked almost 20 years ago, around 1989. This same article suggests global reserves peaked around the same year. Whilst there was indeed a production peak in this year, like oil peaks in the 70’s, this observed peak was not a true maximum production peak, and was instead a consequence of political factors such as the collapse of the Former Soviet Union and decreased fertilizer demand from Western Europe. According to USGS staff, Moroccan and Western Saharan reserves, which account for a significant proportion of today’s global production, are currently being mined at a relatively constant rate that is less than the maximum production (USGS, pers comm. 5/9/07).”
http://phosphorusfutures.net
toms2 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 6:41 pm
Hi GregT,
“While you are posting your quotations, don’t forget to add the following from the:
Global Phosphorus Research Initiative.
The Global Phosphorus Research Initiative (GPRI) is a collaboration between independent research institutes….”
Those are the same people who produced the original paper I was referring to, and which is referenced by the “Collapse of Civilization” blog I linked to above. You’re repeating the same source here.
I should point out that the source you indicated is an outlier, and produces an estimate of peak phosphate rock which is quite different from most others.
The authors from the website you linked, repeatedly cite a Hubbert analysis which showed world phosphate rock peaking in 1989. That was clearly incorrect.
Only very few researchers have done “Hubbert”-type analysis on phosphate rock. Of those that have, the consensus seems to be a peak of phosphate rock in 2090. Here is a quote from the source provided by the_ultravixen above: “Using the best estimate for the URR it is predicted that demand will be able to be met until around 2090 through a combination of annual production and stockpiled resources.” That source surveys ALL the Hubbert-type analyses that have been done on Phosphate rock and generates a combined estimate of 2090.
Bear in mind, that the year 2090 is the peak of phosphate ROCK RESERVES, and not all phosphorus in the Earth’s crust.
The source you provided acknowledges repeatedly that phosphorous can be recycled indefinitely and that there are other sources of it, but those would take “decades” to scale up. If phosphate rock peaks in 2090, then we actually do have decades.
-Tom S
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 6:48 pm
TomS,
I have read most of your blog and have come to the conclusion that you don’t have the foggiest clue about most of what you type. I do not find that the least bit surprising Tom, when I take into consideration the fact that you say that you are studying economics. It is the failed ideologies of the modern school of economics that is leading our species down the path to our own self destruction. Infinite exponential growth in a finite environment is a mathematical and physical impossibility. While it is one thing to study human greed, it is an entirely different thing to promote both greed and wanton consumerism leading to ecological destruction and planetary extinction. You are a very misguided individual Tom. All the best!
Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 7:21 pm
ghung, good advice will do next time.
Dear Plant, Fuck Off.
MSN Fanboy, too funny. Funny like Tom claiming he is not arguing from emotion. All neo liberal/econ 101 economists practice a secular religion. Religion is 100% emotion/faith. They are apologists for greed. They use numbers like a Druid used goat entrails. They do not seem to realize that their most sacred schools of theology (Chicago & London school of economics) were started/funded by the elite for the express purpose of keeping their boot on the necks of the working class. Made up out of whole cloth. Like all religions it has worked outstandingly to keep most of the sheep in their place. It’s has more followers than all the other religions combined. Many folks claim to be adherents to one of the traditional ones as well, even though they all contradict “every man for himself capitalism”. That’s why America combined the two and created the “Prosperity Gospel” Jesus wants you to be rich. That’s why God created the world and gave us fossil fuels; so we could use them to strip mine the planet and kill millions of his wondrous creations. Could there be a higher purpose to life than MORE?
“You cannot serve both God and money”
Jesus. Mathew something something.
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/05/09/ten-verses-prosperity-gospel-preachers-need-stop-misuising/32019
toms2 on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 7:28 pm
Hi Ghung,
Thanks for your thoughtful remarks.
Your question is much harder to answer. It would take a long time for me to provide an serious answer to that because the question is so complicated.
I can take a brief stab at it, though. Most economists think that the economy _figures things out_. You could consider the economy like a giant learning machine. The learning machine uses prices to communicate relative scarcity between its component parts. As a result, the economy makes adjustments when it’s necessary.
For example, look at oil. When oil peaked in the US in 1970, then we built a huge transportation infrastructure (complete with ships and terminals) to import it from far away. When that started becoming insufficient, then fracking started happening. Electric cars and hybrids entered the market, long before oil started declining.
When something becomes scarcer, then prices increase and various entities try to do something about it.
The market can handle extremely complex problems. That is how the civilization we have now, with all its infrastrcture and vast number of interconnected economic actors, developed in the first place and operates now. Bear in mind that the economy consists of millions of individual actors who are all trying to solve the various sub-problems.
There is an entire industry around phosphorus. They know more about it than you or I. They are not just total idiots. When phosphorus becomes more expensive, they will have a LOT more money at their disposal.
All of these things are adjustments the economy makes as circumstances develop. The economy EVOLVES as circumstances develop.
As a result, civilization won’t collapse until the LAST option available to us is exhausted, not when the first option is exhausted. Sure, there will be all kinds of environmental degradation and disasters, but not collapse. We will only face collapse when there is nothing obvious the economy could do to prevent it.
If you can figure out something (off the top of your head) for the economy to avoid collapse, then the economy will do that or something better. How many of us even anticipated fracking? How many people were saying a decade ago that almost all car manufacturers would be introducing electric cars, long before petroleum declines? That Tesla would pop out of nowhere and start building a Giga-factory? Not ONE person here anticipated those things, and neither did I. Frankly, what actually happened was far more optimistic than what I had anticipated.
I’m not saying that the market is some kind of perfect mechanism. Obviously the market cares only about human consumption, not the environment, which is a huge problem. Furthermore, the market has other problems, like externalities and huge income inequality. However, the market manages allocation problems well. The market does not persistently mis-allocate resources. As a result, if you can come up with a solution like “why don’t we just recycle phosphorous” then the market economy will FIGURE THAT OUT or something better. It would take only one company to realize that sewage is worth money when phosphorus becomes expensive. Only ONE company would need to realize that, and a bunch of people “do phosphorus” for a living.
It does not appear to me that there are unsolvable issues which would lead to the collapse of civilization. There are re-allocations of resources and capital required, but that is something which the market economy DOES WELL.
Anyway, I don’t want to prattle on for too long here. I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.
-Tom S
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 8:31 pm
TomS,
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.
Apneaman on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 8:53 pm
What the the market economy does not do well, not at all in fact, is realize that without functioning ecosystems, we are dead. There is no substitute for clean air, water and a stable climate and there is no way to re-allocate species to fill in for the one’s we have extincted. Of course it does not appear there are unsolvable issues. How can there be when you ignore the laws of physics and biology. Many scientists have come out and said we have already gone too far. Many more said we are walking a knifes edge and have only a decade or two left before it is too late. Why should or why would anyone believe neo liberal economists over scientists of many disciplines who understand how the web of life works based on 300 years of ever advancing knowledge? Your position is delusional.
farmlad on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 10:23 pm
The dynamics of soluble Phosphorus peaking are a major problem for the chemical and oil demanding, monocrop, system of raising food and fiber. Organic,diverse, farming systems that incorporate livestock etc. have little reason to worry. Most soils contain enough phosphorus but it takes soil biology to release it and make it available to the plants. and to have plenty of biology you need to take care of them.
A properly managed pasture is a great place for soil biology. You have the perennial grasses and forbs feeding the biology with sugars in exchange for nutrients (phosphorus for example). The grass also acts as an insulator in the summer(by keeping the soil cooler) and in winter(keeps soil warmer) giving the biology a longer season where they can thrive. The livestock dung and urine are more food for earthworms, dung beetles, bacteria and fungi.
I have not used Phosphorus fertilizer on my farm in the last 3 years and do not expect any need to do so in the future.In 2014 I estimated 3.5 tons of forage harvested per acre by my sheep. and most every year it gets better.
Another reason that additional phosphorus fertilizer is not needed on my farm is because I’m not sending it off my farm and into the Mississippi or lake Erie.
GregT on Sat, 17th Jan 2015 10:33 pm
Very concise, and to the point Apnea.