Another Peak (Phosphorus)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
rhoenix
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 2006-04-22 07:52pm

Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by rhoenix »

Times Online UK wrote:Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand

Battered by soaring fertiliser prices and rioting rice farmers, the global food industry may also have to deal with a potentially catastrophic future shortage of phosphorus, scientists say.

Researchers in Australia, Europe and the United States have given warning that the element, which is essential to all living things, is at the heart of modern farming and has no synthetic alternative, is being mined, used and wasted as never before.

Massive inefficiencies in the “farm-to-fork” processing of food and the soaring appetite for meat and dairy produce across Asia is stoking demand for phosphorus faster and further than anyone had predicted. “Peak phosphorus”, say scientists, could hit the world in just 30 years. Crop-based biofuels, whose production methods and usage suck phosphorus out of the agricultural system in unprecedented volumes, have, researchers in Brazil say, made the problem many times worse. Already, India is running low on matches as factories run short of phosphorus; the Brazilian Government has spoken of a need to nationalise privately held mines that supply the fertiliser industry and Swedish scientists are busily redesigning toilets to separate and collect urine in an attempt to conserve the precious element.

Dana Cordell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney, said: “Quite simply, without phosphorus we cannot produce food. At current rates, reserves will be depleted in the next 50 to 100 years.

She added: “Phosphorus is as critical for all modern economies as water. If global water supply were as concentrated as global phosphorus supply, there would be much, much deeper concern. It is amazing that more attention is not being paid to ensuring phosphorus security.”


In the past 14 months, the price of the raw material - phosphate rock - has surged by more than 700 per cent to more than $367 (£185) per tonne. As well as putting pressure on food prices, some researchers believe that the risk of a future phosphorus shortage blows a hole in the concept of biofuels as a “renewable” source of energy. Ethanol is not truly renewable if the essential fundamental element is, in reality, growing more scarce, researchers say. Within a few decades, according to forecasts used by scientists at Linköping University, in Sweden, a “peak phosphorus” crunch could represent a serious threat to agriculture as global reserves of high-quality phosphate rock go into terminal decline.

Because supplies of phosphates suitable for mining are so limited, a new geopolitical map may be drawn around the remaining reserves - a dynamic that would give a sudden boost to the global importance of Morocco, which holds 32 per cent of the world's proven reserves. Beyond Morocco, the world's chief phosphorus reserves for export are concentrated in Western Sahara, South Africa, Jordan, Syria and Russia.

Natural distribution of phosphorus could create a small number of new “resource superpowers” with a pricing control over fertilisers that some suspect could end up rivalling Opec's control over crude oil. The economic battle to secure phosphorus supply may already have begun. China, according to US Geological Survey estimates, has 13 billion tonnes of phosphate rock reserves and has started to guard them more carefully. Beijing has just imposed a 135 per cent tariff on phosphate rock exports to try to secure enough for its own farmers, alarming the fertiliser industry, as well as Western Europe and India, which are both entirely reliant on phosphorus imports. With America's own phosphorus production down 20 per cent over the past three years, it has begun to ship phosphorus in from Morocco.

American projections suggest that global phosphorus demand could grow at 2.3 per cent annually just to feed the growing world population, an estimate that was made before the growth of biofuels.

Few observers hold out hope of a discovery of phosphorus large enough to meet the continued growth in demand. The ore itself takes millions of years to form, and the prospect of extracting phosphorus from the sea bed presents massive technological and financial challenges.

The answer, say crop scientists, lies in better husbandry of phosphorus reserves: an effort that may require the creation of an international body to monitor the use and recycling of phosphorus.
Well now. This could certainly get ugly.

Not to mention it'll be a nail in the coffin for biofuels, it seems.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

The funny part is that it is possible, even theoretically very easy to recycle phosphorus. Catch the run-off from industrial farming in algae tanks. The algae incorporate the phosphorus and you can extract the algae and use it as a mulch. Hell, it will even catch nitrogen run off as well. Hell, we can bubble exhaust from industrial power-generation facilities through a maze of algae-containing menbranes and use that for carbon sequestration...

But no one ever listens to me...
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
Sikon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 705
Joined: 2006-10-08 01:22am

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Sikon »

Phosphorus is the eleventh-most abundant mineral in earth's crust, about 0.1% of the average crustal rock. It comprises 0.2% of the mass of plants, accordingly with a relatively small amount needed in fertilizer in cases where the local soil is otherwise short on it.

It's cheaper to mine phosphorus from where there is ore with much higher concentrations than the 0.1% of the average rock. What is counted as reserves at current cost of production amounts to about 18 billion tons worldwide, which is 120 times current world annual production of 0.147 billion tons (2007).

At a moderately increased cost, there is a reserve base of 50 billion tons or 340 times current annual production as estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (Mineral Commodity Summaries). (Actually, historically, improving technology and advancements over time often mean something eventually gets mined from lesser quality ore with little or no cost increase, though the default assumption is somewhat increased expense). At more increased expense would be ores of intermediate quality between those and the around 30000 billion tons of phosphorus total in the first kilometer of earth's crust.

Phosphorus production expense amounts to around $6 billion per year worldwide, 1 part in 11000 of world GDP. Hence, for example, if phosphorus production expense were to rise by X%, the result would be X * 0.00009% additional portion of the economy being used for such.
Quite simply, without phosphorus we cannot produce food. At current rates, reserves will be depleted in the next 50 to 100 years.
Of course the news article mentions none of the preceding, trying to give the impression that phosphorus would run out, doom food production, and cause starvation in a few decades. But I wouldn't expect otherwise, especially not from most U.K. news media which are frequently pretty careful about what information to which they expose their populace.
Image
[/url]
Image
[/url]Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

― Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

I'm not all that worried about phosphorus. As I've mentioned, and no doubt Sikon too, in previous threads, the problem with immediate supply is a lower quantity of easily accessible reserves like guano from years gone by. The product can be recycled if the will is there and better agricultural practices will improve efficiency.

What concerns me more are water shortages and energy ones from lack of investment, political wrangling and other factors that would gang up and curtail any development out of such a pitfall.
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Doubtless any recycling process would also be more energy intensive than simply mining the phosphorus, bringing the real focus of the crisis back to peak oil once again.
Image
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

True, however, funding for any such projects is a bigger problem now. While there may not be able lack of oil, phosphorus or water just yet, they will manifest if we can't afford to act on them. The Credit Crunch is already killing off various climate change related programmes for reducing emissions and producing green energy in the EU.
User avatar
Winston Blake
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2529
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:58am
Location: Australia

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Winston Blake »

Sikon wrote:Phosphorus production expense amounts to around $6 billion per year worldwide, 1 part in 11000 of world GDP. Hence, for example, if phosphorus production expense were to rise by X%, the result would be X * 0.00009% additional portion of the economy being used for such.
Actually, the article states that the cost of phosphate rock has increased 700% in the last 14 months to $367/tonne, although the article here states it's gone from ~$50/tonne to ~$350/tonne, which I would call a ~600% increase. In any case, the $5.8B from the 2007 figures you linked is obsolete - current cost would be about ($367/t*147 Mt) $54B.
Sikon wrote:
Quite simply, without phosphorus we cannot produce food. At current rates, reserves will be depleted in the next 50 to 100 years.
Of course the news article mentions none of the preceding, trying to give the impression that phosphorus would run out, doom food production, and cause starvation in a few decades. But I wouldn't expect otherwise, especially not from most U.K. news media which are frequently pretty careful about what information to which they expose their populace.
Well, they are accurately conveying the position of the 'GPRI'. Note these people aren't saying it's going to run out in a few decades, they're saying they expect a peak in production at around 2040, and expect reserves to 'run out' in 50 - 100 years. The problem being not 'Is there any left?' but rather 'Does production meet demand?'.

However, I honestly can't understand how they're getting their figures for this plot. (Which for some reason I can't see in Preview mode, but is apparent that article I linked above.)
Image

The USGS links they reference show that 1900-2006 total world production of phosphate is only 6.4 Gt. Maybe this is naive math, but with 50 Gt of reserve base, wouldn't we be only 23% of the way to the peak? [(6.4/(50+6.4))*2]. That would put the peak 354 years away. [(2006-1900)/23% - (2006-1900)]. (I'm assuming that the peak would occur when the sum of all past production is half of the sum of production for all time.) I have no idea how they're getting a peak year of ~2040.
Robert Gilruth to Max Faget on the Apollo program: “Max, we’re going to go back there one day, and when we do, they’re going to find out how tough it is.”
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Kanastrous »

What about pulling inorganic orthophosphates out of seawater, and extracting phosphorus from them?

Maybe as an addition to desalination for making drinking or irrigation water.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Sikon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 705
Joined: 2006-10-08 01:22am

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Sikon »

Winston Blake wrote:
Sikon wrote:At a moderately increased cost, there is a reserve base of 50 billion tons or 340 times current annual production as estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey (Mineral Commodity Summaries). (Actually, historically, improving technology and advancements over time often mean something eventually gets mined from lesser quality ore with little or no cost increase, though the default assumption is somewhat increased expense). At more increased expense would be ores of intermediate quality between those and the around 30000 billion tons of phosphorus total in the first kilometer of earth's crust.

Phosphorus production expense amounts to around $6 billion per year worldwide, 1 part in 11000 of world GDP. Hence, for example, if phosphorus production expense were to rise by X%, the result would be X * 0.00009% additional portion of the economy being used for such.
Actually, the article states that the cost of phosphate rock has increased 700% in the last 14 months to $367/tonne, although the article here states it's gone from ~$50/tonne to ~$350/tonne, which I would call a ~600% increase. In any case, the $5.8B from the 2007 figures you linked is obsolete - current cost would be about ($367/t*147 Mt) $54B.
Your article link is like a giant circular reference, since its outdated price figure is based on its "(Lewis, 2008)" reference which turns out to be the very same reporter's article of the opening post:

Lewis, L. (2008) Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand, The Times Online, 23rd June, 2008

Anyway, first of all, the opening post article was published on June 23rd, the height of the commodities boom. A lot of things went up in price then. While the most well-known is oil going up to $147/barrel back in early July while having gone down to $78/barrel today, aluminum went up to $1.50 per pound before dropping below $1.10 a pound now; gold rose up and then dropped; etc.

Even wheat at one point was briefly $19.80 a bushel before dropping to about $6 per bushel now. A temporary rise is different from a permanent rise.

Secondly, it doesn't matter anyway for the point. One could pretend 1000% more than average historical phosphate prices, and the cost *still* would be <= 1/1000th of world economic output.

Enough cost rise would encourage more recycling of phosphate, although the element is not destroyed either way and would always be available at least from the 0.105% concentration of trillions of tons of it among the quadrillions of tons of earth's crust, aside from better sources of ores which will be used instead in the foreseeable future.

Your article is just typical down to their imagined production curve:

Image
Figure 1: Peak phosphorus ‘Hubbert’ curve, indicating that production will eventually reach a maximum, after which it will decline (based on Cordell, Drangert and White, submitted)
Winston Blake wrote:
Sikon wrote:
Quite simply, without phosphorus we cannot produce food. At current rates, reserves will be depleted in the next 50 to 100 years.
Of course the news article mentions none of the preceding, trying to give the impression that phosphorus would run out, doom food production, and cause starvation in a few decades. But I wouldn't expect otherwise, especially not from most U.K. news media which are frequently pretty careful about what information to which they expose their populace.
Well, they are accurately conveying the position of the 'GPRI'. Note these people aren't saying it's going to run out in a few decades, they're saying they expect a peak in production at around 2040, and expect reserves to 'run out' in 50 - 100 years. The problem being not 'Is there any left?' but rather 'Does production meet demand?'
Production meeting demand?

As an illustration, about 90% of U.S. phosphate production comes from domestic sources, and guess how many workers we have employed to do that at mines and beneficiation plants as the USGS illustrates:? There is a grand total of about 2350 such workers out of a population of 300,000,000.

Will those 300,000,000 people run out of food because fertilizer production failed to meet demand? Hell no! If we needed a lot more mine production, we could send 23,500 instead of 2,350 workers to mine phosphate from slightly lower grade ore and still have it take only a tiny portion of the workforce, not that such a large change will be necessary.

What did the opening post article say in contrast? "Quite simply, without phosphorus we cannot produce food. At current rates, reserves will be depleted in the next 50 to 100 years."

It's obvious enough what they were trying to imply about future food production to the average trusting reader, few of whom would even know that "reserves" are not the same thing as the total amount of something in existence. It would never even occur to the average person to look at geological data for elemental crustal abundances or to look at raw quantitative data from the USGS rather than tidbits screened through layers of ideological filters.
Image
[/url]
Image
[/url]Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

― Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
User avatar
Sikon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 705
Joined: 2006-10-08 01:22am

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Sikon »

Kanastrous wrote:What about pulling inorganic orthophosphates out of seawater, and extracting phosphorus from them?
Technically one could, but, although phosphorus is 1050 ppm or 0.1% of the average rock on land and well above that concentration in some ores, it is a mere 3 parts per million of the salts dissolved in seawater, reducing the likelihood of going to the trouble of the latter as opposed to just getting it on land. "Mining" seawater for some other elements like magnesium (a kilogram of the metal for every 23 kg of regular salt in seawater) has been considered sometimes though.
Image
[/url]
Image
[/url]Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in the cradle forever.

― Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
User avatar
Winston Blake
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2529
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:58am
Location: Australia

Re: Another Peak (Phosphorus)

Post by Winston Blake »

Sikon wrote:Your article link is like a giant circular reference, since its outdated price figure is based on its "(Lewis, 2008)" reference which turns out to be the very same reporter's article of the opening post:
Huh - that is pretty damning. Anyway, I was merely making a minor correction to one of your figures, not disputing your conclusion.
Production meeting demand?

[snip rant]
Yes, that is what the group is saying. Your exaggeration of their position as 'doom 2040' and comment on the superior accuracy of the U.K. media remain unfounded.

As for the rest, I showed in my own post that their own references disprove their claims. You're lashing out at me for nothing.
Robert Gilruth to Max Faget on the Apollo program: “Max, we’re going to go back there one day, and when we do, they’re going to find out how tough it is.”
Post Reply