3 ms·

> Now we are running out of phosphorous Phosphorus is the 11th most common element in the earth's crust. Let that sink in for a while. It running out makes abo

> Now we are running out of phosphorous Phosphorus is the 11th most common element in the earth's crust. Let that sink in for a while. It running out makes about as much sense as the humanity running out of hydrogen. Deposits economically extractable at present market prices will run out within a few decades. This doesn't mean we run out of phosphorus, it just means that the market price will rise until other extraction methods provide enough supply. It will not have to rise far, given just how common the element is. > Now we are running out of ... energy We are not running out of energy. Nuclear and solar each provides the capability to run for effectively forever -- fracking provides the short-term supply to build them out. The idea of resource depletion is completely anachronistic. Today, we can produce or substitute absolutely everything we need, given input of common elements and energy. And we have sources of energy that do not depend on scarce resources. The time when the economy was based on extraction of limited resources has passed.

speeder 14y ago
You are nit-picking my post. Like I said, we are reached peak phosphorous as we mine it currently, and reaching peak energy as we currently use mostly fossil fuels. And like I said, I believe we can use new technologies (like, solar power... or underwater phosphorous mining) to fix it.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  I read Tuna's comment as disagreement with your claims, not nitpicking. Do you have any reasoning to support your claims that we'll run out of phosphorus or energy?
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    Phosphorous mining is incredibly energy intensive. It's relative proportion in the Earth's crust is not pertinent - what matters is its availability in extractable forms. Google phosphorous mining and you'll see the parent's claim that Phoshoprous production rates have peaked is well supported.
- omegaham 14y ago
  I think what's he's saying is that "peaking" is meaningless. There's a book that was written back in the early 90s called The Ultimate Resource, by Julian Simon. A fair amount of it is typical libertarian wishful thinking, but he very strongly makes the point that in a free society, there is no such thing as a peak. There are always alternatives, and if a resource becomes more expensive, we will start switching to them. If need be, we will also change our behavior to accommodate these alternatives. To take a great example, look at gasoline prices. There is no shortage of gasoline in the United States. The price goes up, and suddenly fuel efficiency becomes much more important. As a result, economy cars are much more common, as are hybrids and electric cars. Consumption then goes down. This would be the case even if gasoline were ten dollars or even twenty dollars a gallon. People would simply take the alternative options, which become more and more attractive as the "default" becomes more expensive.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    Just because a book makes a claim doesn't make it so. It is ridiculous to claim that you cannot have peaks or shortages because there's always a replacement - this is nonsense. The physics and chemistry involved is fixed. As a famous Scotsman once said, you cannee change the laws of Physics Jim. Economics and physics are not interchangeable. Sure, with certain kinds of economic utility you can interchange the underlying mechanisms used to achieve it, but with chemical reactions necessary to sustain life, as one example, you cannot just swap on a cheaper element. Likewise you cannot change the energy density characteristics and EROEI of supply on one material because petroleum is priced out. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the science behind the problem.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

speeder 14y ago

You are nit-picking my post. Like I said, we are reached peak phosphorous as we mine it currently, and reaching peak energy as we currently use mostly fossil fuels. And like I said, I believe we can use new technologies (like, solar power... or underwater phosphorous mining) to fix it.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
I read Tuna's comment as disagreement with your claims, not nitpicking. Do you have any reasoning to support your claims that we'll run out of phosphorus or energy?
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Phosphorous mining is incredibly energy intensive. It's relative proportion in the Earth's crust is not pertinent - what matters is its availability in extractable forms. Google phosphorous mining and you'll see the parent's claim that Phoshoprous production rates have peaked is well supported.
omegaham 14y ago
I think what's he's saying is that "peaking" is meaningless. There's a book that was written back in the early 90s called The Ultimate Resource, by Julian Simon. A fair amount of it is typical libertarian wishful thinking, but he very strongly makes the point that in a free society, there is no such thing as a peak. There are always alternatives, and if a resource becomes more expensive, we will start switching to them. If need be, we will also change our behavior to accommodate these alternatives. To take a great example, look at gasoline prices. There is no shortage of gasoline in the United States. The price goes up, and suddenly fuel efficiency becomes much more important. As a result, economy cars are much more common, as are hybrids and electric cars. Consumption then goes down. This would be the case even if gasoline were ten dollars or even twenty dollars a gallon. People would simply take the alternative options, which become more and more attractive as the "default" becomes more expensive.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Just because a book makes a claim doesn't make it so. It is ridiculous to claim that you cannot have peaks or shortages because there's always a replacement - this is nonsense. The physics and chemistry involved is fixed. As a famous Scotsman once said, you cannee change the laws of Physics Jim. Economics and physics are not interchangeable. Sure, with certain kinds of economic utility you can interchange the underlying mechanisms used to achieve it, but with chemical reactions necessary to sustain life, as one example, you cannot just swap on a cheaper element. Likewise you cannot change the energy density characteristics and EROEI of supply on one material because petroleum is priced out. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the science behind the problem.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]