75 comments on And some (natural gas) answers are expensive
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
75 comments on And some (natural gas) answers are expensive
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack.”
—George Monbiot
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Hello HO,
Thxs for the keypost. Natgas is arguably more valuable than crude when one's considers the Haber-Bosch process to make Nitrogen fertilizers [urea & ammonia], plus as a feedstock for other essential industrial chem-products. The sulfur extracted from sour natgas is critical for beneficiating raw phosphate ores, too.
We can always substitute human & animal energy [poorly, of course] for the transportation function of crude powered ICE engines, but there are No Substitutes for the Elements of NPK and sulfur to leverage photosynthesis above a Liebig Minimum.
The sooner we globally move to full-on O-NPK recycling and regular crop rotation for natural Nitrogen soil-fixation, the more remaining Natgas that can be used for other essential needs. The early stockpiling of I-NPK, but then using it very sparingly, to help us bridge over during the transition period to a full organic system is very important, too.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Natgas is arguably more valuable than crude when one's considers the Haber-Bosch process to make Nitrogen fertilizers [urea & ammonia], plus as a feedstock for other essential industrial chem-products...
You say arguably, so I'll argue -- here goes: Oil-based transport cannot possibly be replaced by human and animal energy on the scale necessary to sustain the global industrial economy. Without it there is no Haber-Bosch or much else. So while nat-gas is certainly critical, I would still put it second to oil.
Except for that, what you say makes a great deal of sense and will therefore be ignored.
I seem to be having a rough day. I've just been stabbed through the heart, shot in the neck and hit by a large truck.
1) How would you rank these events in order of importance to my future?
2) Who is to blame for the entire situation?
3) (extra credit) How could a candidate for public office use my misfortunes so as to derive the greatest electoral benefit?
Well pardner since yer in a arguin mood, I will venture to say that when you say to sustain the global industrial economy I would say that sustaining the global industrial economy is not essential and in fact quite deleterious to life as we knew it. How do you say in law "who benefits?"?
As I am sure you well know, the Haber-Bosh process is not dependent on the sort of global ind. economy we now have, it was invented In the very early 20th century and I am also sure you realize that oil may be going but it will be around for quite a while yet, I imagine there should be enough left to enable us to process the last of the natural gas into fertilizer, unless us Canadians burn all thet natural gas melting the prairies. So follow the bouncing market ticker and lets all sing: Oh bury me not on the lone prairie, it stinks of such things as nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds and particulate matter, don't you agree. ( BTW, anyone know how to import musical notation ?)
I think this from Bob Shaw bears repeating:
The sooner we globally move to full-on O-NPK recycling and regular crop rotation for natural Nitrogen soil-fixation, the more remaining Natgas that can be used for other essential needs. The early stockpiling of I-NPK, but then using it very sparingly, to help us bridge over during the transition period to a full organic system is very important, too.
... and Bob have you bought a duck yet? Mine seems to be self replicating and is in brood mode right now. Great little composter and NPK producer. I can see it now, a world covered in ducks!
Ducks do not fix nitrogen. The nitrogen in their waste is from plants and is less than you would get by plowing the plants into your land. Ditto the K and P.
Not that I have a problem with ducks, especially over rice.
If we want to fix nitrogen, we can. Natgas is just the cheapest source of fixed nitrogen. Now if we could just get our fertilizer plants started up again so we don't have to indirectly import half our food supplies from overseas.
Siwmae (Hiya) WK!
Actually my white-clover undersowings, growing strongly as ground cover in my no-till food plots beneath my positively BURGEONING food-plants (see! mine's bigger'n yourn! Nyah!) do seem to be fixing atmospheric nitrogen pretty effectively, just as the experts say.
Also, the plots get composting-john output, once it's been well composted in the holding bins. And the free-ranging Muscovey ducklings (with their Turkish [Anatolian, Kangal, Karabash, Akbash, take your pick of these names and do a Youtube search] Shepherd Dog bodyguard) are taking up a lot of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other goodies, in the form of slugs, snails, etc., and passing them along to the beds in the form of their collected night-droppings. Collected and spread by me, that is. The duckling don't go up on the raised beds. You can multiply detailed local tactics of food-growning like this endlessly, using the permaculture methods.
Bob's right: if we can just drag ourselves into being slightly brighter than yeast, and get sophisticated organinc growing going bigtime, in the form of the many already-proven tactics of permaculture, we should be able to replace the horrendously inefficient, abysmally low productivity of industag (see here: http://www.permaculture.com/drupal/node/141 for more vindication of that assertion) with an organic agriculture that could, realistically, feed everyone -- whilst we do something humane but effective about our current population overshoot.
But WILL humans behave more wisely than yeast......? What do you reckon! --RhG
Just curious, how do you keep the ducks off the raised beds? And what do you feed the dog with?
Damn fox got my duck. Bit through the wire to get a grip and then ripped the wire netting off the night cage. Poor duck didn't stand a chance :(
Too bad about your duck.
After my ducks went and ravaged my bed of broad beans, I got hold of some plastic fencing that one can get at hardware and agriculture stores cut it into halves about 2 feet high and that seems to have done it for my Indian runners and Khacki Campbells which don't fly even that high and are not much in the jumping department either, (I wonder how they survived long enough to become domesticated). That fencing is easy to move and set up using a stick pushed into the ground every so often to make it stand.
Thanks Crystal. Yes, I used something similar, but to keep the duck on the bed prior to planting. The trouble I find with some Organic/Permaculture methods is that they're difficult to scale. I'm currently looking to extend my area of cultivation to 5000 m2 (1.25 acres) per year. Fencing becomes a headache in the end and try finding enough mulch to cover an acre.
Interesting about the Khacki Campbells. One of the reasons I had to cage my duck was due to it flying over the fences. Otherwise it would have been in a different area and safe from the fox. I should have clipped her wings, but she seemed so proud of them I didn't have the heart :(
When dealing with nature (or reality) then I guess sentiment has to be replaced with pragmatism.
5ooo m2? Well Burgandy, that's more energy than I have.
My vegetable garden is about 3500 sq feet and the rest of a quarter acre in fruit nuts and berries.
I am going to try using a mustard cover crop this fall as it is supposed to die away nicely. I plant in intensive beds (no dig) so that there is no room for mulch. If I had more land I would likely be spreading things out and undersowing as Rhisiart Gwilym (above) is doing. On mulch I think that what might be a passing thought is paper mulch, there is just do much paper about. My wife shreads just what comes through the mail and that gives bags more than enough, for the carbon layers, in the kitchen compost. Would need a pretty heavy duty industrial shredder though I guess:(
Never said it fixes nitrogen, said it produces it, and I hope you are ploughing with a horse as you will never get a horse egg from a tractor ... hmm then again, maybe you should think about getting a duck and forget that horse, as I remember, their eggs have a distinctly fishy taste:)
yes it can. hybrid cars and electric cars are moving forward very fast. GM is trying to the volt out ASAP. many mining machines can go electric. international shipping is slowing down and adding sail power!
Detroit 3 race to build fun, fuel-frugal cars
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080706/BUSINESS01/8070...
John15, you crack me up.
Do you mean the same Volt that is now projected to cost $45,000? (As far as I know, Tesla has always projected its electric sedan to cost $60k so the price may go higher still.)
And the same General Motors that will be looking for a bailout soon because in inflation-adjusted dollars its stock is worth the equivalent of $1.50 per share back in 1950? (That's an indication that investors generally don't think its prospects are good, by the way.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495482307421193.html
It must be fun to live in your world.
-Andre'
"Do you mean the same Volt that is now projected to cost $45,000? (As far as I know, Tesla has always projected its electric sedan to cost $60k so the price may go higher still.)"
The prices WILL go very high. But even they won't be able to overcome absolute shortages of multiple commodities, as Peak Everything arrives progressively. Ramping prices aren't doing anything to alleviate the energy crisis, are they?
Geology trumps economics, eventually.
I live in a apartment so where am I supposed to plug my volt in ?
My favorite is that the new EV's are aimed at city/apt dwellers the one group that has
no place to plug one in and has alternative public transport. Pets.com all over again.
My job is far enough away that I don't have enough charge to do a round trip where do I plug in my volt ?
We just lost our house because of a subprime loan and we bought this shiny new volt but we don't have a place to plug it in and are short of cash but they are hard to sell around here few people can afford them. The value has dropped so we are just going to let it get repossed.
GMAC announces a mandatory 50% down payment on all volts. GMAC because of severe credit problems and delinquent accounts caused by people stopping payment on gasoline cars now worthless in the switch to the volt have announced a 50% downpayment minimum on all volt loans. GMAC was forced into this move to stop hemmoraging losses on most of its existing loans for gasoline powered cars.
The massive drop in demand for existing gasoline cars has also put most potential volt buyers off.
I'd like to buy a new volt but my current car is worth far less than I owe so I'm going to have to drive it for a while. Luckily enough people bought volts that gasoline prices are down so it does not matter now.
I can come up with thousands of scenarios.
Bottom line if by some miracle you manage to get the fleet to turn over rapidly to electric you also just made the value of the 17 million cars sold over the last five years close to zero.
EV's not only suffer from the same deflationary effects as rail on existing infrastructure but they also with a little common sense don't work for a lot of car owners.
I will give you that if we has started serious investment in EV's 10-15 years ago before we hit peak oil and put the infrastructure and most importantly developed electric rail for all the people that for numerous reasons did not have the infrastructure to own a EV. Then they fit in.
I actually think they will eventually have a useful niche market for the fairly wealthy i.e top 20% of wage earners.
And smaller runabouts for city use may be popular.
But they only work as secondary transportation options for a few with rail being the primary.
If I can manage to get my dream post peak living conditions and EV's exist I might buy one but I'll also get a 250cc motorcycle but this is only if things work out well for me and if they did I'd not consider myself the average customer but a fortunate person. So I'm convinced they will be around and that as the market develops they will have a important niche. Assuming that rail head parking lots can be electrified which is sensible the biggest use case is getting to the train from your house.
Given the fanatics that have switched from drinking the Corn/Ethanol cool aid to EV's its almost worthless to discuss real markets that might exist for EV's.
And I won't reply anymore to EV's someone who cares can do a keypost on them.
This is a NG thread :)
And NG is not looking good globally.
Good luck burning that NG coking heavy sour crudes.
If gas prices go down, the value of all the cars sold over the last five years will not go to zero.
How high does the price of gasoline have to go before you write off your new car and switch to an econobox diesel with 50MPG? 20$ per gallon? That's what it will take.
Maybe the SUVs wind up in the cities making two mile commutes and the efficient cars wind up in the country making fifty mile commutes. It's the market at work.
Then your stuck back into a partial substitution and Tainters collapse.
You have dropped demand just like we did with the NG/Oil substitutions of the 1980's resulting in a short term collapse of prices. In the case of oil only 15 years. In the case of the volt if it goes this way at best given the market that can actually use it a few years of slowly rising prices.
Diesel commuter cars are even worse then EV's diesel is what runs are economy wasting it on some jerk driving to the office is even stupider than a EV.
The good news is that because diesel is so critical and demand for diesel to keep the economy going is so inelastic diesel is responding faster than gasoline making econobox diesel not a wise decision.
Every now and then the market does the right thing.
If we succeeded in partial substitutions then we deal with peak oil and having to move to electric rail with even less resources.
The good news is we are so friggin greedy that from my total analysis we won't be able to pull off another partial solution we will be forced to either walk or move to electric rail.
I'm willing to live with another fiasco like corn ethanol if thats what I have to do. It might buy me a few years to save more money and prepare for a post peak lifestyle. So from a purely selfish point of view I hope that EV's have enough success to delay things another year or two.
And more power for diesel econobox's or better gasoline powered ones so I don't have to pay higher food costs for your stupidity. I could use the time and at the end of the day since we are probably going to end up putting the rail in with manual labor it probably does not make a huge difference in the end anyway.
Finally the problem is the market cannot look far enough ahead to see the dangers raised by partial substitution of finite resources to level prices. Its not a calculation the market can perform.
In fact I used the market itself to discover this problem. If you know what your doing the market will tell you that its gotten caught in a partial substitution downward spiral.
Its already signaled that its caught in a spiral your simply ignoring what the market is really telling you.
Its market analysis which scared the living crap out of me not some tree hugging ideal.
Hmm, you are a bright guy, memmel. There are a lot of bright guys around though, and most are still wrong most of the time about most things.
A lot of them would also disagree with you.
Your analysis seems pretty rigid, and makes a lot of assumptions that no unexpected events or breakthroughs will happen.
Take high altitude wind, for instance, if that worked then the power problem would be solved.
Now I am not saying it will work, but there is no way I can determine ahead of time whether it will - and neither can you.
You have moved in recent postings from arguing your case to abusing those who differ from you, and haven't helped your argument by so doing.
You may know a lot, but there is no perfect analysis out there, and you are human not infallible.
If people are to prepare and take action, then they're going to have to make working assumptions.
Under current circumstances it is probably better to make preparations based on things that will exist in an imperfect future, rather than what may exist in a perfect future.
I think, for the purpose of preparation, it is better to get rid of the problem rather than try to solve it. Remove the need for personal transportation rather than attempt to substitute it with some inferior product. The transition phase can be covered with existing technology, possibly tweaked to give more fuel efficiency.
Darned if I can understand why it is alleged to be a perfect future rather than one in which most ride not very powerful Chinese style electric bikes, with a lucky few having a modest development from the present Prius car.
I think that these 'If I ruled the world' solutions are non-starters, and usually take no account of the different conditions in different places.
Put simply, as long as personal transport is practicable, people will use it, regardless of some theoretical consideration that they shouldn't want it.
Public transport is greatly stressed during rush hour, and not very efficient when operating at low load factors.
For some reason many who want to dismiss electric powered transport are keen on people bicycling.
At a tiny cost in electricity most for whom bikes are impractical can have electric bikes and trikes at reasonable cost, and attain most of the same benefits, for instance not having to employ a bus driver on a half empty bus.
France for instance has plenty of cheap electricity, so why would they want to walk everywhere when it is totally unnecessary?
The light vehicle production in the States is around 17million per year, not over 5 years.
Countries such as Israel and Denmark which are serious about them are also building fact charging networks, so avoiding charging problems for apartment dwellers.
There is no reason at all why modest electric bikes and trikes should not be usable by city dwellers in most places.
The Volt, just like GM, will not work, but the replacement for the Prius should be fine, and if you accept the limitations pure EV's can be done.
I would agree that EV's will not form a straight replacement for the current fleet, but will take some time and have a relatively low level of sales - but peersonal mobility should remain at a fairly high level if you don't mind getting wet.
The devaluation of the current fleet occurs because of the price of petrol, not the introduction of EV's, which will simply give some level of mobility to those lucky enough to own one.
Nonsense, all you need for haber-bosch is hydrogen gas and air. You can get hydrogen from just about any energy source you can think of; NG, coal, biomass, elecric power(could even be currently near-useless intermittent power like wind) or oil etc.
Natural gas just happens to have the nice property of being very cheap when it is stranded nowhere near a customer you could economically build a pipeline to.
The technology to produce ammonia from water, air and electric power without going via the haber-bosch process(quite a bit more efficient) is in the testing stage.
You not need any new artificial fertilizers if you recycle human and animal wastes.
Non green revolution seeds need much less fertilizers of which the micro nutrients are already in soil, of the macro nutrients 4 kg of nitrogen per acre come from rain and snow, 1 kg phosphorus come from river sediments that are spread in floods in rivers that happen every few years. You can have those floods if you use non green revolution seeds that our ancestors were using since 12,000 years, since they require less water per kg yield more water is spared so you start having river floods again.
Doing the non green revolution / traditional agriculture you can easily support 2.5 people from every average arable land, 20 inches rain or 2 acre-ft water or 10 inches rain and 1 acre-ft water etc. The key is to settle down at a diet with less meat, 62.5 gm per day per person in a 2000 calories per day diet, half of that meat must come from "white" sources chicken and fish.
Humans are currently using 6 billion acres out of 15 billion arable acres on planet. Having a population of 6.5 billion people we can adjust with our current usage of arable land.
Even if we do go for green revolution seed we can recycle human and animal excretions, this solve two problems: we no more polute fresh and sea water with human and animal excretions, we not need artificial fertilizers anymore (this free us from dependency on natural gas).
Hello Bob,
I'm thinking we might go easier on the four letter acronyms and give more play to words that ordinary folk can readily comprehend, such as "humanure."
But seriously, there are of course human and animal sources of O-NPK, if we keep to your terminology.
It would be nice if there were some Oil Drum type number crunching being done on this. Maybe it has been, and I'm just not aware of it.
If all human manure (globally, or in a region such as the U.S.) were composted and then returned to the soil, what percentage of current Haber-Bosch derived nitrogen could be replaced? I know Richard Heinberg has cited the figure that H-B has effectively doubled the amount of nitrogen available to the global ecosystem, and concentrated it specifically on producing food for humans. I don't suppose that humanure recycling could fully replace current levels of H-B fertilizers, but exactly how close could it come?
And your suggestion to stockpile I-NPK is well taken, since it will take time to scale up Organic NPK. This is true in the case of humanure composting, where it is recommended for safety purposes that an active bin attain temperatures of above 120 degrees F during its first year, and then be left to set for another year before it is safely used on crops. Such precautions might be even more important when it becomes a system used by most of the population.
Obviously it would also greatly slow the loss of usable phosphorous. How much? And how much fresh water could it save? And how much energy which is currently used to transport sewage, if the composting were done at a backyard or neighborhood level?
Clearly it's something that we have just got to do if civilization is to survive.
Google Joseph Jenkins and Humanure for more details.
And how much of a difference could more extensive propagation and rotation of leguminous plants, including legume trees, make? The latter can be spaced appropriately in the middle of a wheat field, a la Bonfils, and periodically cut back so as not to give too much shade to the main crop, the trimmings returned to the surface of the soil as additional organic matter.
And for another idea I haven't seen discussed on this forum, what would be the merits of F.H. King's idea to build a canal system in the southeastern U.S., modeled on the Grand Canal of China. His 1911 book Farmers of Forty Centuries is a marvelous read in any case. Basically the main branches of the proposed canal would extend from the Mississippi into Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana and eastern Texas, and a second through Mississippi and Georgia, then branching up through the Carolinas to the DC area, and down through Florida. Not only could this be the centerpiece of a new transportation system in the southeast. From the viewpoint of sustainable agriculture (which was the focus of his studies in China, Japan, and Korea) the main purpose would be to greatly slow the loss of fertile soil and nutrients from the Midwest into the Mississipi Delta. He describes how the extensive canal systems were maintained by peasants themselves, in service of their own interest in making lands as fertile as possible. A major activity was dredging the silt from the canal bottoms to apply to their fields, along with the shells of the large snails that could be found with it. These were just two of the practices that allowed Asian farmers to maintain the fertility of their land through many centuries, whereas, as King saw even then, the U.S. was rapidly in process of depleting its natural heritage.
BTW, if anyone wonders, my active bin reads 130 degrees F this afternoon.
Should have said Gulf of Mexico rather than Mississippi Delta - referring to the point at which valuable nutrients are actually irretrievably lost.
I've been asking the same question myself. Quantitative data are of the essence. Or as Professor David MacKay puts it in his online book on Sustainable Energy:
David MacKay's site is here:
Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air:
http://www.withouthotair.com/
MacKay doesn't discuss agriculture, but his quantitative approach to sustainable energy is absolutely essential and should be applied right across the board.
Hello TODers,
My thxs to all that replied to my posting. Yep, I have posted the weblink to the Humanure info many times before here on TOD and other forums, but it is always good to see other TODers repost it for any recent TOD-newbies.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/06/nitrogen?currentPa...
--------------------
As Food Crisis Looms, Key Research Remains Underfunded
If there was ever a field crying out for innovation, fertilizer is it. Most fertilizer production depends on a 99-year-old industrial method known as the Haber-Bosch process, which produces ammonia, the chemical precursor to nitrogen fertilizers. By one scientist's count, the 87 million tons of ammonia that are produced each year by this process feed 40 percent of the world's population (.pdf).
However, the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process depends on using lots of natural gas, both as a source of hydrogen and for the power needed to cook the chemicals...
-------------------------------
International Fertilizer Assoc charts & graphs:
http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/statistics/indicators/pocket_production.asp
-------------------------
In 1980 the developing countries accounted for 31% of the world nitrogen fertilizer production. By 2000 their share had increased to 57%.
Over a third of the world's production is in just two countries, China and India.
------------------------
Once China & India start running into severe natgas supply problems, or any country for that matter, I would expect their economies to start collapsing as nitrogen, thus food supplies start shrinking. If they cannot afford the long distance, energetic transit cost of I-NPK imports, then things will proceed to get even worse. Again, IMO, rapid ramping of native O-NPK recycling is the best method to smooth the downslope ride.
Regarding my acronyms: I like to use I-NPK & O-NPK because it help simplify and distinguishes the vast differences between the many types of industrial & organic fertilizers, yet also clearly shows the Elemental Commonality across both classes. It also helps promote thinking about the NPK ratio; how topsoil needs a balance of nutrients to promote a healthy plant. Also, since I don't touch-type: these acronyms are easier than banging out the longer words--> 'industrial or synthetic' and 'organic or natural' every time.
Lastly, to those that pose good questions to me in their reply: I wish I could really help answer your valid concerns. I don't have the data-wizard expertise like the TopTODers; I fumble along the best I can. I have posted before asking for some real experts to flog this dog further along with a Peak Everything Analysis Overview. Time will tell.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hi Bob
I am working on some data on hybrid systems in Asia (China), where augmentation with synthetic N coupled with intensive village in situ recycling, doubled yields of grains from 1960s. Internationally traded grains originating from USA, Canada, Australia, depend on much higher annual re-stocking of soil nutrients with synthetic N and mined P & K, and on massive mechanization. Fossil fuel input is very much higher for this latter production.
We need the numbers.
Phil
You provided a useful link.
I note that priority for N fertilizer should be possible in a post-PO world.
Hi Phil,
I thought fertiliser use per acre was relatively low in the countries you name?
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/countries.html
Which countries are best equipped to survive peak oil?
Bangladesh looks in big trouble from this....
Hi Dave
Good question - thanks for link.
Your question perhaps needs to be rephrased as 'how much synthetic fertilizer per tonne of grain'.
Farming is multifactor, each having potential to be a limiting factor.
USA & Canadian wheat is low yield per acre, relatively low NPK fertilizer input per acre, grown on vast mechanized acreages. Moisture (and perhaps related long term soil integrity) is often the limiting factor. Fuel for mechanized cultivation is probably an absolute.
USA corn (maize) is high fertilizer input, high yield, but also highly mechanized.
All of the above relies on soil nutrients being fully restocked annually from external sources.
Other countries traditionally ate most of the grain primary production (e.g. 80%) in situ, and to a large extent still do so. A high proportion of re-cycled nutrient input, plus river muds etc., means these days that augmentation with synthetic N goes a long way (yields can be very high per acre, with relatively low synthetic fertilizer per tonne, and with very little mechanization). For these intensive systems in favorable traditional areas (e.g. Asia), soil N is typically the critical limiting factor.
Previous estimates, Dyson, 1999, http://www.pnas.org/content/96/11/5929.full
have suggested a doubling of synthetic N production to meet 21stC population peak numbers. Natural gas for ammonia could go to 10% of annual NG supply? Post peak natural gas (say 50% lower than now), we could guess 20% of NG being needed for fertilizer at that stage?
Better numbers are needed country by country.
Phil
Figures are awful for fertiliser use.
The Bangladesh figures I assumed were for artificial fertiliser, but if that is not the case then they appear in a more favourable light.
I can't even locate figures on how much of the UK's fertiliser is imported, and how much produced here using UK natural gas, so how much that will use of our depleted resources and how secure it is is unclear.
The population forecasts are not good, as they are relying on Business as usual, and this will not apply in a post peak world.
Here are some initial estimates I have attempted:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4267#comment-376371
4267
And in the posts around it.
Let's hope things are not that grim, but I think the risks are more significant on the downside of UN projections than the upside.
Siwmae Steve,
1) One effective way to short-cut the making safe of humanure, that I'm just ramping up here now, is to feed it, liquids and solids both, to comfrey beds, then harvest the comfrey to feed both plants and animals. It's phenomenal at this. And you can get over a hundred tons an acre per year, sustainably, once you're expert enough. And well established plants can subsoil-mine as well, as much as eight feet deep. This is only a tiny vignette of what comfrey has to offer. Deserves extended study by serious organic food growers. All varieties are good, ridiculously easy to establish and grow, and tough as hell. But Lawrence Hills's famous 'Bocking 14' variety, developed with the help of us earth-grubber members of the HDRA decades back, is the champion, if you can get it.
2) I believe Matt Simmons is getting extensively interested in coastal and inland water transport in N America, putting his carefully-harvested money where his mouth is. That bodes well. He usually seems to know his arse from his elbow when lots of other 'experts' are still manifesting extreme confusion. Good luck with waterways. We still have quite a lot here in Britain, with potential for resurrecting a lot more.
3) The Chinese experience that you describe sounds very like chinampas. Anyone with cultivable ground lying low and near to (unpolluted) water should look into that, together with duck/fish culture. That can offer levels of sustainable, ecologically-benign productivity that makes even permaculturists gasp with delight. Bill Mollison, having started life in Australasia, has always been very hot for comprehensive rain-harvesting, using contour-chasing swales. That can enable this sort of acquaculture, even if your place isn't down in the swamp. Worth a look for anyone worried about sufficient water availability in the near future.