Interesting tie to this - On the watt podcast #75 they discuss how the coal power plant reduction happened.

Lower heat content, lower sulfur coal was shipped in VS using 'local' higher heat, higher sulfur coal.

Thus lower sulfur emitted, higher CO2 emissions.

WHEEE!

Hello Rainsong,

Good points--I agree, but also without FFs, there additionally won't be much recovered sulfur for processing I-NPK and all the other critical uses of sulfur and sulfuric acid [not much is mined anymore]:

Powerpoint PDF on Sulphur:

http://www.choa.ab.ca/documents/Apr12TL-ppt.ppt

Recall that Gazprom wants to raise sulfur prices Sevenfold in 2008:

http://www.meed.com/petrochemicals/news/2008/02/maaden_to_dominate_ferti...
-------------------------
...Costs in Russia, a key rival, are set to escalate dramatically, with Gazprom set to raise sulphur prices more than sevenfold in 2008. Maaden, in contrast, will have access to cheap local sulphur.

"Maaden's sulphur will be cheaper than most," says Barrie Bain, director of Fertecon, a UK-based fertiliser consultancy. "But the phosphate rock will be expensive compared with Morocco and US producers who have their own rock. It depends on how Maaden accounts for the capital cost."
----------------------------
The postPeak battle to be a price-maker vs a price-taker is on! If I was an FF-exporter: I could further juice my profits by removing the sulphur first to later sell to constrained importers at a high profit. Why let the importing refineries make the sulfur bucks$$ when they refine the crude?

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?