6 ms·

I don’t buy this argument, it sounds too much like the malthusians explaining there wasn’t enough arable land to support the population before nitrogen fertiliz

I don’t buy this argument, it sounds too much like the malthusians explaining there wasn’t enough arable land to support the population before nitrogen fertilizer was invented. I’m not saying we have a “fertilizer for energy” around the corner, but I also wouldn’t rule it out and start asking people to stop building.

falcolas 3y ago
Ironically, we’re getting our fertilizer from the same place we get most of our fuel: exhaustible caches in the ground. They may never run out, but they will only go up in price, raising the price of food.
- defrost 3y ago
  Ahhh, not exactly - we get our fertilizer from the air actually - it's the enormous energy draw required that causes us to use fossil fuels from the ground. That massive carbon footprint exists because although the Haber-Bosch process represents a huge technological advancement, it’s always been an energy-hungry one. The reaction, which runs at temperatures around 500 °C and at pressures up to about 20 MPa, sucks up about 1% of the world’s total energy production. https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24 https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-a... Here in my state we're looking hard at mass production (global scale numbers) of 'green' ammonia. https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green-ammonia https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green...
  - rendang 3y ago
    We get our N that way, not our K and P
    - defrost 3y ago
      Potash salts (for Potassium (K)) are relatively adundant in the crust and if pressed can always be recovered from organics in the traditional manner. High-grade phosphate rock (for Phosphorus (P)) is the declining resource, or perhaps more accurately isn't matched by our ever increasing demand for it in fertilizers as our human population grows. For now at least we're coasting along on increased beneficiation of lower grade ore through washing, flotation and calcining. It's a fair point - I'm personally in the "let's see fewer humans overall camp", I'm not advocating genocide, just in favour of birth rates continuing to decline until we're back between (say) 4 to 6 billion. Unlimited growth in a petri dish has obvious issues, even if the dish is the surface of a relatively large sphere.
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
We do, it's called nuclear power. We could have had unlimited power for effectively no cost if we'd just spammed reactors but we didn't.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I don't know why people just pretend there hasn't been any ultra costly nuclear incidents. Personally, I think nuclear could be fantastic, humans just cannot be trusted to manage it. Fukushima was a case of negligence, it wasn't caused by the Tsunami. The operators did not implement the recommended safety improvements because they didn't respect Murphy's law. So when a case is made like this, "just spam nuclear reactors", you're glossing over the details that we've fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? The cleanup operation hasn't only costed hundreds of billions of dollars, it's severely damaged, and will continue to damage Japans' reputation and desire for exported foods and seafood. I'm not trying to attack you or your views, but if nuclear was easier and cheaper, it would've already proliferated in the same way that solar has. Can you imagine how much solar will exist in 30 years compared to nuclear? it will be absolutely everywhere.
  - katbyte 3y ago
    We’ve fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? At my count it’s 2. 2 out of over 400 over 60? Years. And while solar is great, you still need base-load and for most places in most cases solar + storage can’t do that.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      2, one in the Soviet Union with known-to-be unsafe technology with bad incentives around control. The other happened as the result of the biggest recorded tsunami in Japan and human error, again. With that said, cooling reactors need a bit of rethinking with this warmup, rivers may no longer be fine to use.
      - katbyte 3y ago
        not to mention coal kills more people via radiation yearly then have died from those 2 reactor accidents

falcolas 3y ago

Ironically, we’re getting our fertilizer from the same place we get most of our fuel: exhaustible caches in the ground. They may never run out, but they will only go up in price, raising the price of food.

defrost 3y ago
Ahhh, not exactly - we get our fertilizer from the air actually - it's the enormous energy draw required that causes us to use fossil fuels from the ground. That massive carbon footprint exists because although the Haber-Bosch process represents a huge technological advancement, it’s always been an energy-hungry one. The reaction, which runs at temperatures around 500 °C and at pressures up to about 20 MPa, sucks up about 1% of the world’s total energy production. https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-ammonia-production-emits-CO2/97/i24 https://cen.acs.org/environment/green-chemistry/Industrial-a... Here in my state we're looking hard at mass production (global scale numbers) of 'green' ammonia. https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green-ammonia https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green...
- rendang 3y ago
  We get our N that way, not our K and P
  - defrost 3y ago
    Potash salts (for Potassium (K)) are relatively adundant in the crust and if pressed can always be recovered from organics in the traditional manner. High-grade phosphate rock (for Phosphorus (P)) is the declining resource, or perhaps more accurately isn't matched by our ever increasing demand for it in fertilizers as our human population grows. For now at least we're coasting along on increased beneficiation of lower grade ore through washing, flotation and calcining. It's a fair point - I'm personally in the "let's see fewer humans overall camp", I'm not advocating genocide, just in favour of birth rates continuing to decline until we're back between (say) 4 to 6 billion. Unlimited growth in a petri dish has obvious issues, even if the dish is the surface of a relatively large sphere.

MagicMoonlight 3y ago

We do, it's called nuclear power. We could have had unlimited power for effectively no cost if we'd just spammed reactors but we didn't.

ChatGTP 3y ago
I don't know why people just pretend there hasn't been any ultra costly nuclear incidents. Personally, I think nuclear could be fantastic, humans just cannot be trusted to manage it. Fukushima was a case of negligence, it wasn't caused by the Tsunami. The operators did not implement the recommended safety improvements because they didn't respect Murphy's law. So when a case is made like this, "just spam nuclear reactors", you're glossing over the details that we've fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? The cleanup operation hasn't only costed hundreds of billions of dollars, it's severely damaged, and will continue to damage Japans' reputation and desire for exported foods and seafood. I'm not trying to attack you or your views, but if nuclear was easier and cheaper, it would've already proliferated in the same way that solar has. Can you imagine how much solar will exist in 30 years compared to nuclear? it will be absolutely everywhere.
- katbyte 3y ago
  We’ve fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors? At my count it’s 2. 2 out of over 400 over 60? Years. And while solar is great, you still need base-load and for most places in most cases solar + storage can’t do that.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    2, one in the Soviet Union with known-to-be unsafe technology with bad incentives around control. The other happened as the result of the biggest recorded tsunami in Japan and human error, again. With that said, cooling reactors need a bit of rethinking with this warmup, rivers may no longer be fine to use.
    - katbyte 3y ago
      not to mention coal kills more people via radiation yearly then have died from those 2 reactor accidents