Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
The choices we make about energy, the environment and climate will be limited by The Three Chinas.
The Real China
1. One of the Chinas is very real and familiar. It has a population of 1.4 billion.
2. China is developing quickly, trying to do in 50 years what America did in 100. As a result, they have doubled their energy use since 2000, becoming the largest energy user in the world.
3. China’s energy use may well double again by 2020. (The figures in the report did not match reality, but their estimate of 7.5% annual growth looks fairly okay).
4. Coal currently provides 70% of China’s energy. That may drop to 65% by 2020. It may not.
5. If China doubles its energy use (to 200 quads) and 65% of it comes from coal, that will be 130 quadrillion BTUs generated from burning coal, in China, in 2020.
6. China’s coal plants are much dirtier than those used in the developed world.
The Second China
This very real China will be replicated by the natural growth of the human population to 8.5 billion by 2035, and 9.1 billion at its peak later this century. That’s more than the entire population of China. As many of them will actually be born in China, and many more will form part of our third ‘imaginary’ China, it is appropriate to limit the Second China to the size of the real one.
7. Most of these new humans will be born into developing countries.
8. But these developing countries are, in fact, developing now. Their energy use is increasing dramatically–if not as dramatically as China’s. The Second China will spring forth from countries whose energy use is growing by 3.3% per year.
9. And although their use of coal is not as intense as China’s, their reliance on fossil fuels is fairly close (Fig. 2)
The Third China
While China is developing quickly, so is the rest of the developing world. As countries develop, the people living in them get richer. They buy cars, appliances, computers, and begin to use more energy. Again, to avoid double counting (China will be one of the countries talked about, and many of the new middle class will consist of people not yet born), it is correct to think of this as about the size of the current China.
10. Two billion people may join the middle class by 2030.
11. By 2050, countries which are now developing quickly will be called ‘middle-income’ and may account for 60% of GDP.
12. Goldman Sachs believes that China’s per capita income will be $50,000 in 2050 (p.5), and that their per capita GDP will be $70,000. But they also project that Turkey and Mexico will have higher incomes per capita, and that Brazil will almost match China.
13. Mexico currently consumes 69 million BTUs per person per year (Table 1.8). Their average income is $14,000. If their incomes triple, so will their energy usage. The same is true for Indonesia, Turkey, the Philippines, China, India and more.
Discussion
I have written here frequently that I believe current estimates of future energy consumption are flawed. I hope the information provided above shows why. As I have written before, extending current consumption and development trends over a short period of time shows a doubling and perhaps a tripling of energy use over the medium term. That could see global demand for energy reaching 2,000 quads per year by 2035.
I do not know what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is, and despite pronouncements from partisans on either side of that argument, I don’t think anybody else knows, either.
I do not know what cycles of earth, moon, sun and stars will combine to push or pull global temperatures one way or another, and despite pronouncements from partisans on either side, I don’t think anybody else knows, either.
Recent human history makes it fairly easy to contemplate economic growth and energy usage for the very near future. It is an order of magnitude easier than trying to analyse the factors that influence the climate.
We do not have to guess about the effects of massive coal consumption by developing countries–we have our own history to guide us, from London in 1952 to Manchester a century before, from burning rivers in Ohio to dead lakes nearby.
Commenters to my recent pieces asked why I characterise our situation as an energy crisis. I have tried to provide an answer here. I’m happy to discuss this with any and all. Because I think this is a conversation we can have without referring to magical numbers and thinking, pixie dust or moonbeams.
I personally think that this level of intense development will indeed have an effect on our climate, due not only to CO2, but also deforestation, aquifer depletion and other factors described ably by Roger Pielke Sr. But I don’t know how much and I don’t know what percentages to assign to each.
So let’s talk about energy and why what is described above signals a crisis–or not.
—————
Djozar,
Thank you for your comment.
Yes, Tom’s literary license of 3, as you pointed out, is not a fundamental issue.
My problem [ : ) ] is the imagineering of problems to support a desire by some to establish social actions.
To quote from Von Mises [ http://mises.org/quotes.aspx ] :
John
Quote … “I personally think that this level of intense development will indeed have an effect on our climate, due not only to CO2, but also deforestation, aquifer depletion and other factors described ably by Roger Pielke Sr. But I don’t know how much and I don’t know what percentages to assign to each.”
I disagree.
Although we are way past NOx and SOx in the West and tackling ppb ‘mercury abatement’, the pressure to clean up the cities in China as it develops will become enormous and I think with the technology available will largely be mitigated in a decade.
As for the effect on climate, nothing. I only see ‘soot’ playing a roll mitigating the ensuing cooling over the next 30 years in terms of snow accumulation and the extra CO2 will marginally mitigate the loss of agricultural areas in the Russian Steppe and Canada’s marginal ‘ag zones’ (The Peace Region and the ‘skeg lands of Ontario and Quebec) due to the cooling.
As for deforestation and the rest of it, just as seen with population mitigation … the single biggest factor correcting it is wealth. Once the environment becomes an affordable commodity with numerous public activities becoming expectations and the inevitable ‘foundation funded special interests’, the countryside will trend to chaos (go wild) as it has in developed countries. The issue will be if they can preserve regions of habitat for all their fellow organisms during the transition.
As for water … I’m not sure what happened in China 160 years ago in Tibet and Inner Mongolia. I doubt these resource limitations will come into play outside rationalizing development.
In short, I think all is good and given the facts, “How is this different from any other day?” (in the development of mankind).
Djozar says:
October 18, 2010 at 7:55 am
Yes, a few people did. Here is an example based on the assumption that there are no limits to energy availability and affordability, the reasoning in this case being that the figure of 500 billion people is not a limit but essentially open-ended:
Of course, others, e. g.: Paul Ehrlich or Thomas Fuller, strongly feel that we have reached the limits of growth or are very close to them, given that according to them in all likelihood the limits of growth cannot be breached or exceeded through human ingenuity. That is even though experience has shown such fears to be grossly wrong.
Fear and denial are powerful obstacles to the full exploitation of human potential, and, for the media, stories based on fear, catastrophes and any calamities sell. For the media, bad news are good news and constitute profitable vehicles for selling advertising .
John,
Love the quote!
Whatever happened to the attitude that Bosephus (Hank Williams Jr. ) sang about? Country folk can survive. Y’all city slickers just don’t have a clue, thinkin’ all y’all need to do is buy some ‘lectric damn car or “reduce the size of your feet”, when all you need is the wife, dogs, kids, guns and some land you can call your own. Flyover country is more about ‘country’ than flyover.
——————–
Walter Schneider,
I appreciated your wonderful comment.
You mentioned Julian Simon’s work which I respect and agree with.
A week ago I just finished Indur Goklany’s great book, ‘The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet’
It is a comprehensive work. Extremely solid with data and charts. It updates everything, magnificently.
John
Thanks Walter; guess I’m going to have to read the book. I wouldn’t have guessed 500 billion!
It’s kind of funny to me–I really like everything Indur Goklany has written, and am a big fan of Julian Simon.
As I’ve written above, I believe these problems are eminently solveable, and I am actually an optimist about our future. And I intend to stick around and watch as much of it as I can.
Is it just because I don’t think coal is the proper fuel for the future that you guys are yellin’ at me?
————-
thomaswfuller,
Cheer up. I actually respect you for creating a post that allows an opportunity for me to say things that would perhaps otherwise not come out in so focused and energetic form. Thank you sincerely. I could not have created easily (or at all) the stimulation that you did.
It is just that, to me, some of your posts come across as vestiges of arguments from AGW-by-CO2 supporters retreating and defending their retreat with moderation and compromise flung back over their shoulders. Maybe my interpretation of some of your posts is wrong? It is possible.
John
I had to think of the Human Cube from Burt Rutan that fits the volume of 6.8 billion people. The size is 1700 x 1700 x 1700 feet
He also calculated a Biomass Box that contains the entire bio sphere of the planet
Biomass box: 450 miles by 450 miles 1700-ft tall
To supply the resources for 3 China’s I can only say that it will be a blessing for the economy. Regard it as an opportunity and a security instead of a threat.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.pdf
We only have to re establish the connection because the warmist are holding us down (lol).
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/re-establish-connection.html
thomaswfuller says:
October 18, 2010 at 2:41 pm
However, Julian Simon’s message is not coming across in what you write. What comes across is Malthusian thinking, the sort of thinking that Julian Simon castigated all along.
I am glad you explain that the worries you expressed in your piece are in reality declarations of optimism.
In reading all of the comments in this discussion thread, it is not possible to discern anyone yelling at you.
Still, there are some contradictions between the explanation you provide now and what you said in your main posting. Moreover, there are contradictions between some of your statements in your main posting and its conclusion, such as this:
“magical numbers and thinking, pixie dust or moonbeams”? Yet, is that not exactly what you offer? Moreover, no one but you mentioned “magical numbers,” etc.
You state that you “do not know what the sensitivity of the atmosphere is to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is,” and that you do not accept arguments and figures from the other side in the discussion that assert the ostensible energy crisis that you conjure is not a problem. Yet, you demand that we engage in a discussion of an issue about which you declare you don’t know enough and about which, as you declare as well, you disbelieve any arguments that counter your worries.
A similar conflict exists between what you wish for and what others state about cosmic or solar influences on our climate, but if that is so, why discuss anything? Don’t you have your mind already made up and declared openly that no facts will confuse you?
I have followed the discussions on this blog for more than a year now. Others have done so for considerably longer intervals. I am convinced that Julian Simon is right, and that Malthusian thinking is wrong. I am not a fan of his, but may become one, once I have spent more time following his reasoning and research. You are a fan of Julian Simon but appear to ignore what he wrote, mainly and especially with respect to there being no limits to energy sources and to the invention of new ones we have never yet thought about.
Julian Simon stated that the vast majority of the issues we now worry about came into existence within the last hundred years or so and that we have billions of years ahead of us to find solutions to problem that have emerged during the last hundred years, aside from the fact that many of the problems that did emerge were actually solved already (e. g.: no more London Smog and vastly cleaner air in North America than we had become accustomed to not quite a century ago).
Most importantly, Julian Simon illustrates time and again that real problems that had come about were solved through market forces and human ingenuity, and that the vast majority of the problems that we are presently worrying about are imaginary, manufactured or conjured by interest groups, politicians and the media. You seem to follow their tracks.
I thought that this blog was about debunking climate hype and hysteria, not about pouring oil or coal on the fire, so to speak.
Now, to answer your concern about whether what you had “described above signals a crisis–or not,” it doesn’t, for many of the reasons Julian Simon explained in his writings, and for many more of the reasons that many others in many discussion on this blog presented.
The problem is not whether there is an energy crisis or not. The problem is with wrong energy politics and wrong belief systems.
Aside from that, proven coal reserves in Alberta, Canada (where I live), will last for about 1,500 years at the current rate of mining, of which production a substantial portion is being shipped to China and Japan. The CO2 that is being produced by burning that coal will be good for helping agricultural productivity and all plant life on Earth. I recall that about 25 percent of the increase in agricultural productivity in China alone during the past 30 years or so is entirely due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2. I don’t see that as a crisis worth discussing. It is a blessing. As of now you have not explained why that should not be so?
Good work Thomas. Excellent post. I’m optimistic that its not all bad news. Your energy and population numbers are in my opinion quite correct. While greenhouse is less of a problem than the Warmist’s make out we still have a long term energy problem. However I am trained in renewables and solar. While the current batch of technologies pushed by the IPCC and most greens are not able to meet the huge energy demands or provide non- intermittent base load; those of us who are both trained in the field yet sceptical of the current panic know of the technologies that could meet demands. There panic has led to superficial solutions rather than real integrated solution. Bureaucracy, subsidies and quick fixes have failed. Real solutions are often too heard to rush.
Several solutions will dominate.
Low efficiency but cheap solar power integrated into direct energy use such as tropical and desert cooling is one example. Using thermal mass of the structure as the storage from day to night. Solar hot water with bigger storage tanks.
Public places and buildings must be shaded from summers sun in the tropics and desert cities. This is being done cheaply now. These shade sources can be solar. So there’s plenty of space for solar where it works best.
Much of the celluloseic ethanol enzyme work will go open source very quickly after the greenhouse scare ends. Likewise the fall of subsidised big projects will result in smaller scale biofuels plants are being worked on by some. These will allow farm gate biofuel production. Fermentation and distillation does not destroy the protein in the feed stock so we can have food and fuel from the same crop.
Bio-Methane from farm waste and sewerage is the cheapest biofuel. Most new sewerage systems being built are anaerobic systems now not the aerobic system of the 20Th century. New CO2 filter system for CCS will be available cheaply to scrub CO2, the major impurity from bio-methane, making methane that is indistinguishable from natural gas.
Grid storage has been ignored. Grid storage required different pricing than cap and trade and the latter blocks the former. When it was first mooted pumped water to hight, compressed air down a hole and warehouses with big batteries wired up in them were viable and profitable. When superconductors came along the focus shifted to them. When superconductors failed to yield storage the powers that be seem to have shifted the problem into the too hard basket. This, to me, is the greatest proof that the IPCC and its sister organisations were not viable or seeking a real solution. To the storage list we now have Solar thermal with underground heat storage, bulk Hydrogen storage is 80%, efficient, and Ice based air-conditioning (of peak power makes ice). Some country will eventually.
Subsidised wind power will die with the IPCC but not the expertise. Wind farms with integral storage using compressed air or fly wheels are proposed. In both cases there is no electricity generated in the windmill. The current batch of people are taking the bigger is better line when in reality are ignoring and thus blocking the real wind systems. The wild mills may shrink to a more mass producible size.
Hydrogen is 80% efficient in production and new carbon based hydrides have been developed. Thus this technology is emerging as a solution particularly if the hydrogen car is also a light hybrid. The chicken/egg problem of cars and fuelling points can be solved at competitive prices with home hydrogen production.
There are several fusion technologies like Cold fusion, Focus Fusion, Muon fusion, and the perplexing Blacklight Power claims. All have been ignored by the mainstream as the world hits true energy limits we will see some country break from the chains and test them again.
Efficiency gains will remain available and new technology will emerge.
The current political battles, subsidised half solutions and red tape will be erased by the fall of the climate scammers and their schemes. Most of the technologies needed are in development. Some are competitive with coal if properly implemented. The catch is with governments trying to pick winners and overrule the market we are seeing far less progress and needed rationalisation in the energy sector than we are seeing in say communications. The real irony is that when the global warming scare ends only then will the energy the warmists demand emerge.
“The choices we make about energy, the environment and climate will be limited by The Three Chinas.”
I’d like to also add:
I assure any who might doubt the obvious, that the delema of the 21st Century is not about climate anything, it is about integrating China, India, and Brazil into the new world order; perhaps maybe even Europe will ‘Unite’ in this new century;-). Getting all the Super Powers to cooperate on meaningful ‘anything’ is not going to be easy. CO2 reduction, and anything else in this vein, must be a common-sense-high-tech-non-issue-self-interest-national program in each of these giants–or it won’t happen. Now, how that is going to happen is going to be a problem in today’s world. The demise of the UN-level “Global” Pac-man attempt at establishing a New World Order (a’la Marx and George Sornose) via Carbon Credits etc., puts the ball(s) back in the hands of the actual players in this football game. It’s a watch and wait game. Wait and see.
Is it just because I don’t think coal is the proper fuel for the future that you guys are yellin’ at me?
I do not think that anybody was yelling at you Mr Fuller.
As for me , I expressed an unbounded surprise at the observation that you can write about energy and economy over 3 pages and not to use the word price once .
You know why the “energy crisis” you write about is fabricated , made up , a hallucination ?
And it is not necessary to quote Julian Simon .
Because you implicitely suppose that demand can sustainably outpace supply .
IT-CAN-NOT !
As soon as the demand begins to outpace supply , the prices begin to increase .
And if it lasts , the prices explode . Like the traders say – “Sky is the limit” .
And what happens when prices increase ?
Well demand decreases again and adjusts to supply but generally at a higher level .
Of course it also works the other way round when supply is abundant and the demand low .
The existence of this well known self correcting mechanism that some call free market shows that naive extrapolations where people draw straight lines going to infinity are useless word games with no relation to reality .
On top like someone already mentionned , but this is just a detail , the assumption that specific energy consumption (Energy/GDP) is a constant is horribly wrong .
Embrace coal Mr Fuller, embrace oil and natural gas, embrace humanity and enjoy the wonderful civilization we are building, enjoy our beautiful planet and reject the tied ass scare stories from those who hate human kind and who see us rather that than alive.
Is EPA killing the USA?
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-epa-trying-to-murder-usa.html
10. Two billion people may join the middle class by 2030.
That source, aside from trying to sell you a listing of stocks, excludes erosion of middle class in developed countries, uses an arbitrary definition of middle class which is simplistic, chooses a level taxation rate, does not address energy needs for the growth expected, and assumes stable, business-friendly governments.
Again, Tom, your model of antiquated, revisionist idealism does not describe what’s happening in the real world. Better get off the weed.
What’s that about Obama blocking nuclear power?
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-16/politics/obama.nuclear.power_1_nuclear-waste-nuclear-power-tons-of-radioactive-waste?_s=PM:POLITICS
What’s that about Obama blocking shale oil?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2009/0102/p08s01-comv.html
I’m not a big fan of the Obama administration myself, but let’s keep the discussion in reality, shall we?
While we’re on the subject of the future of energy, how about Bill Gates’ nuclear initiative? This could have major implications for my home region, as there’s a great deal of “waste” sitting around here that stands to become a valuable commodity.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-17/tech/bill.gates.nuclear_1_nuclear-reactors-nuclear-power-plant-nuclear-energy?_s=PM:TECH
“PhytyoFarm techniques could feed a hundred times the world’s present population – say 500 billion people – with factory buildings a hundred stories high, on one percent of present farmland. To put it differently, if you raise your bed to triple bunk-bed height, you can grow enough food on the two levels between the floor and your bed to supply your nutritional needs….
________________
The Ultimate Resource II, Chapter 6, What Are The Limits on Food Production?”
Julian Simon was a great mind, but he didn’t know jack about agriculture. In The Ultimate Resource 2 he completely blows over the fact that phosphorus supplies are already known to be limited (Chapter 2: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAQ02A.txt). The quote in Ch. 2 states that phosphorus is one of the “notable exceptions” to substitutability. Either Simon didn’t understand the importance of that, or he chose to ignore it. Peak phosphorus is a known problem that presents an upper limit on agricultural production (http://phosphorusfutures.net/peak-phosphorus).
He also ignores the space requirements for fresh water and fertilizing nutrients in his simple “triple bunk-bed height” statement. I don’t know if this is a magicians trick, or if Simon assumes “Of course the reader will know that all the water and nutrients required will be supplied from a separate, much larger space. And no, I’m not going to calculate the size of that space.”
Speaking of water, Simon glosses over peak water too, although I’ll admit that the “ingenuity” avenue is much more open for this resource. How much capital is needed to construct the desalinization plants required for a population increase of 100 billion people? Simon won’t tell you, but he’s confident it will get done!
I have the same problem with Julian Simon that I do with Milton Friedman. They are beautiful minds full of optimism, but naive as a 3 year old in the way solutions to problems pan out in reality. It would be wonderful if throwing enough minds (Simon’s “ultimate resource”) at an oncoming agricultural crisis resulted in good ‘ole capitalist ingenuity first. But history shows that the immediate ingenuity tends to be in the military aspect. We will invent better weapons to hold on to our resources long before we invent better ways of sharing what is available.
Dave says:
October 17, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Hi Dave,
Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, and thank you for your thoughts. The environmental degradation of China is appalling. http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/ If you look at the pop distribution, the rivers they are poisoning are the lifeblood of the majority of the population. Their disease rates are skyrocketing. What effect these toxins have on DNA and future fertility…
As for their age pyramid, there are a lot of folks reaching the end of their childbearing years. They also have an imbalance in their male:female ratio, so much so that the CCP banned selective abortion of female fetuses a few years ago and instituted incentives for having and keeping girls. If a young man cannot find a wife, there are few choices short of not marrying (not reproducing) or importing marriageable women. This also could destabilize China’s social order in that there are millions of young men with no wives.
My idle theory of China’s eventual population crash is not based solely on statistics, but also on thousands of years of history and human nature. I think China has a lot more problems than anyone outside the CCP knows. Law of Unintended Consequences. Also keep in mind that, although they have liberalized economically in recent years, China is still a closed Communist society and information from them should be viewed as likely CCP propaganda.
When examining population, regional or global, you must factor in that the world and human societies are not static; they are dynamic. The likelihood of war, new diseases, starvation, etc. do figure prominently. Conditions today can change in an instant and change everything. When in history has any nation seen perpetual population growth? If we don’t kill each other off, nature will find a way. SARS, avian flu and H1N1 are just a warning shot. Eventually, we will see another 1918 Spanish flu, the war of wars, widespread crop failures, a cosmic catastrophe (asteroid, solar events, magnetic reversals, etc) that eradicates entire hemispheres or worse. No one can predict the future, but viewing it as static is dangerously naive. Surprises are in store, always.
Cheers!
As the world’s population becomes wealthier, it will be able to afford things previously unaffordable. Things such as solar power, and the big one, fusion.
Once fusion power is realised, the issue of coal power will fade away.
The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.
Steve says:
October 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm
“Julian Simon was a great mind, but he didn’t know jack about agriculture. In The Ultimate Resource 2 he completely blows over the fact that phosphorus supplies are already known to be limited”
Probably because they’re not. There is ~1e20 kg P in the Earth’s crust alone (~1000ppm). It is readily extractable even from bulk soil or seawater, and can easily be recovered from human, animal and plant waste (the best technique is probably wet oxidation, at elevated temperatures and pressures, which once started is self-maintaining, requires no external energy input and produces an effluent that is completely sterile and, with the addition of ammonia/nitric acid, ideal as the basis of a plant nutrient solution). We can never run out of phosphorus, because unless we burn it up in some nuclear process every atom we use is always available for reuse; and even then we could always make more of it from aluminium, say, by Al(alpha)->P.
The ignorance of Malthusians concerning already known techniques is astounding.
“Probably because they’re not. There is ~1e20 kg P in the Earth’s crust alone (~1000ppm).”
Right, 1,000 ppm estimated as the general composition of the Earth’s crust. So to get 1 kg of nice 0-0-10 NPK fertilizer, we would have to mine how many kg of the Earth’s crust? Answer = 100 kg. Assuming that the 1,000 ppm figure is a statement about a homogenous composition of Earth’s crust. Does it include the phosphate rock mines that are already estimated to be fully depleted long before the human population reaches even 100 billion (1/5 of Simon’s complete guess)?
“It is readily extractable even from bulk soil or seawater.”
Cite please regarding the “readily” portion of this comment. If it is so readily extractable, surely a fertilizer supply company is already using this technique.
“and can easily be recovered from human, animal and plant waste”
Again, cite please regarding the “easily”. And no, dropping manure on the crops does not count as “recovered phosphorus”.
“The ignorance of Malthusians concerning already known techniques is astounding.”
Ignorant clichés don’t help your argument. What about my comment made you think that I’m a Malthusian, and how is it that you are so easily astounded? Are you saying that someone has to be a Malthusian to criticize Julian Simon? I’m assuming that you were unable to rustle up any links to support your comment because you were too busy pulling your jaw up off the floor, being as astounded as you were.
Steve says:
October 20, 2010 at 7:40 am
“Right, 1,000 ppm estimated as the general composition of the Earth’s crust. So to get 1 kg of nice 0-0-10 NPK fertilizer, we would have to mine how many kg of the Earth’s crust? Answer = 100 kg. Assuming that the 1,000 ppm figure is a statement about a homogenous composition of Earth’s crust. ”
Actually, answer = 4kg for the zero phosphorus mix specified (read what you wrote). But of course the real answer is that we would only “have” to mine 100kg of crust to get 100g of phosphorus if we needed ~1e20 kg of it. For any lesser amount we have the option of mining more concentrated deposits. For the scenario being discussed the total amount of phosphorus required is only ~1e12 kg; even the silly peak phosphorus theory claims reserves of three times that figure.
“… human population reaches even 100 billion (1/5 of Simon’s complete guess)?”
Not a “guess”, in the sense of a prediction, merely a convenient example for explanatory purposes. With known technology the Earth could support at least a hundred times higher population than this. How high the terrestrial population actually goes will depend on personal choices driving a trade off between centrality and dispersion (like the choice between city centre, suburbs or country, or Hong Kong and Boulder), and that is impossible to predict with any confidence at this time. Though it will almost certainly be only a tiny fraction of the solar system and interstellar populations.
“Cite please regarding the “readily” portion of this comment. If it is so readily extractable, surely a fertilizer supply company is already using this technique.”
Seaweed has been harvested for fertiliser for centuries, concentrating various nutrients (including phosphorus) from seawater. Fish also contribute considerable quantities of phosphorus as human and animal foodstocks (~0.2kg P/person/yr, enough to reach the required total in ~10 yr). The major fertiliser companies do not currently rely on such essentially unlimited background sources for the obvious reason that there are huge reserves of more concentrated ores, which can be extracted even more cheaply.
““and can easily be recovered from human, animal and plant waste”
Again, cite please regarding the “easily”. And no, dropping manure on the crops does not count as “recovered phosphorus”. ”
In fact, dropping manure on crops is recovering and recycling phosphorus. However, I had already addressed that point in the rest of the sentence you quoted from: “the best technique is probably wet oxidation, at elevated temperatures and pressures, which once started is self-maintaining, requires no external energy input and produces an effluent that is completely sterile and, with the addition of ammonia/nitric acid, ideal as the basis of a plant nutrient solution”. It is described in some detail in NASA SP-428 (along with other options such as dry oxidation). Biological methods (composting, aerobic and anaerobic decomposition) are also available, and already in common use for waste treatment.
“What about my comment made you think that I’m a Malthusian”
Possibly the recrudescent Malthusian sophistries you and Tom Fuller come up with. Limits to Growth nonsense like peak phosphorus.
Paul Birch says:
“Actually, answer = 4kg for the zero phosphorus mix specified (read what you wrote). But of course the real answer is that we would only “have” to mine 100kg of crust to get 100g of phosphorus if we needed ~1e20 kg of it. For any lesser amount we have the option of mining more concentrated deposits. For the scenario being discussed the total amount of phosphorus required is only ~1e12 kg; even the silly peak phosphorus theory claims reserves of three times that figure.”
Well I did make a typo and a conversion error, but your 4 kg answer is complete nonsense – care to show your math? I forgot to take into account that 10% P of NPK corresponds to the phosphate content, so you need a conversion factor of 1.2 to get pure phosphorus. At 1,000 ppm, if I need 1 kg of 0-10-0 NPK fertilizer the answer is: (1 x 10% / 1.2) / (1,000/1,000,000) = 83.3 kg of crust to get 1 kg of 0-10-0 fertilizer.
And yes, I understand that more concentrated sources reduces the amount of crust that needs to be mined. They are called phosphate rock mines – you know, what peak phosphorus is about in the first place? Which is why I asked if your 1,000 ppm figure includes those phosphate rock sources that we are already depleting (mines being considered part of the Earth’s crust). Because once those are gone, the amount of crust mined elsewhere will require much more than 83.3 kg per 1 kg of 0-10-0 fertilizer. And why didn’t you answer my question, by the way? Surely you could have fit a simple “yes/no” somewhere into your five paragraph essay.
And what do you mean by “for the scenario being discussed, the total amount of phosphorus is only ~~1e12 kg?” What scenario, and where is your math? Try to realize that the people reading your comments over the internet cannot also read your mind.
“Not a “guess”, in the sense of a prediction, merely a convenient example for explanatory purposes.”
A “convenient example for explanatory purposes” with absolutely no calculations to back it up is called a “guess” in polite circles. Elsewhere it may be referred to as bu11$hit.
“Seaweed has been harvested for fertiliser for centuries, concentrating various nutrients (including phosphorus) from seawater. Fish also contribute considerable quantities of phosphorus as human and animal foodstocks (~0.2kg P/person/yr, enough to reach the required total in ~10 yr). The major fertiliser companies do not currently rely on such essentially unlimited background sources…In fact, dropping manure on crops is recovering and recycling phosphorus… Biological methods (composting, aerobic and anaerobic decomposition) are also available, and already in common use for waste treatment.”
We know that LIFE extracts phosphorus from all of these sources. That’s a given. Do you really think that the United States imports phosphorus from Morocco but it has a massive pile of unused, cheap detritus that it could be using instead? Peak phosphorus already accounts for the bulk of detritus as a source, and that detritus source already became unable to meet supply. Hence the phosphate rock mining. Which is expected to peak in a few decades.
“Possibly the recrudescent Malthusian sophistries you and Tom Fuller come up with. Limits to Growth nonsense like peak phosphorus.”
Even Julian Simon’s philosophy states that peaks exist! Realizing that a peak is on the horizon is not Malthusian. Simon’s optimistic philosophy trusts that between the hordes of the ignorant individuals who cannot solve the oncoming problem, either because they can’t see it, they don’t want to see it or they don’t have the knowledge to overcome it, there will always be enough shining minds who see the problem and solve it before it becomes a Malthusian catastrophe. Ignoring the approach of a peak that requires a profitable solution doesn’t make you a smart libertarian capitalist, it makes you an idiot.
Pointing out that a peak with a need for a solution is on the horizon is exactly what Julian Simon hopes for. You can’t solve a problem without seeing it first. If I were a Malthusian I would say “There is no solution, the future is doomed!”, which I’m not. I am saying that the “solution” is likely to be military before the capitalist ingenuity that Simon preaches saves the day. Since this results in deaths, technically it does make the peak a limit to growth. Simon completely ignores energy requirements to overcome peaks and the psychological reaction to them. At some point, growth will be limited because people will decide it is simply much easier to have fewer children. As the average number offspring falls to two, growth slows and eventually stops. And what is it that happens as nations become more developed?
Meeting people like you just confirms my personal philosophy. You throw around fantastic solutions that no one happens to be working on (like we can always smash atoms and convert aluminum to phosphorus!). There’s a genre for that – it’s called science fiction. I recommend you read a story alleged to a man named Aesop: http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/aesops_fables_astronomer.htm