The Modern World Can’t Exist Without These Four Ingredients. They All Require Fossil Fuels https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/
Four materials rank highest on the scale of necessity, forming what I have called the four pillars of modern civilization: cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia are needed in larger quantities than are other essential inputs. The world now produces annually about 4.5 billion tons of cement, 1.8 billion tons of steel, nearly 400 million tons of plastics, and 180 million tons of ammonia.
But it is ammonia that deserves the top position as our most important material: its synthesis is the basis of all nitrogen fertilizers, and without their applications it would be impossible to feed, at current levels, nearly half of today’s nearly 8 billion people.
But it is ammonia that deserves the top position as our most important material: its synthesis is the basis of all nitrogen fertilizers, and without their applications it would be impossible to feed, at current levels, nearly half of today’s nearly 8 billion people.
We do not need fossil fuels for producing ammonia. There is green ammonia using renewable energy.
Iberdrola and fertilizer producer Fertiberia will launch a 100 MW green ammonia project in Puertollano, Spain. Estimated at $175 million, the 100 MW photovoltaic plant will produce green hydrogen, which Fertiberia will then combine with nitrogen at its existing fertilizer plant to produce ammonia – despite the scale of the project, Fertiberia estimates that it will reduce its natural gas consumption by only 10%. As an existing market for hydrogen, fertilizer plants offer ideal opportunities for near-term deployment of electrolysis projects. There is still a lack of financial incentives for low-carbon fertilizers, but fertilizer companies – especially in Europe – will be swept up by the momentum in decarbonization and will have to adapt.
Also we do not need fossil fuels are for cement or steel. They can be made using renewable energy.
“can be” is different than "being made " from renewable energy.
How do you build a new factory to make renewable fertilizer, for example, if you have to use fossil fuels to make the steel and cement for the factory?
The answer is that the transition takes a long long time.
Thanks for the extract and link. The Time story is basically one chapter from a new book that came out last week. It’s called How The World Really Works by Vaclav Smil - a prof in Canada.
I pre-ordered the Kindle edition of the book which came out last week. I’m about 80% through it now. A lot of it is pretty interesting, but it’s not the easiest read.
At the Berkshire annual meeting, there was an anecdote about a Washington Post editor advising Buffett that “You don’t have to tell all you know.” This author too often gets into too much detail when trying to make his point about how deeply fossil fuels are ingrained in all of modern civilization. Less would be more.
But his overall point is valid. Our way of life is basically built on the cheap energy available from fossil fuels. And it’s going to be very difficult to replace them - not only in the time frame from now to 2050, but at all. Electricity can’t do it. And the materials and massive investments required to even make a major step are vastly misunderstood.
Worth a read for those seriously interested in what will really be required to move on from fossil fuels.
Facts are stubborn things - even if they’re unwelcome.
And it’s going to be very difficult to replace them - not only in the time frame from now to 2050, but at all. Electricity can’t do it. And the materials and massive investments required to even make a major step are vastly misunderstood.
True - but not by everyone. Smil’s point is basically the reason why we have the “blah blah blah” climate policies that are in place through most of the western developed economies: grand rhetoric paired with actual measures that are far too small to make a real dent in emissions. Policy-makers are well aware of the scale involved with decarbonizing, and they know that there’s no practical way to make sufficient changes at that scale. They also know their voters don’t want to hear that.
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.
Thanks for the extract and link. The Time story is basically one chapter from a new book that came out last week. It’s called How The World Really Works by Vaclav Smil - a prof in Canada.
…
But his overall point is valid. Our way of life is basically built on the cheap energy available from fossil fuels. And it’s going to be very difficult to replace them - not only in the time frame from now to 2050, but at all. Electricity can’t do it. And the materials and massive investments required to even make a major step are vastly misunderstood.
…
Facts are stubborn things - even if they’re unwelcome.
Thanks Tex, I think at least some are starting to see the lights (still fueled by Nat gas and coal) come on.
It is easy to predict the future for the next 30 years … unless you want to live in the real world? I’ve listened to the massive BS propaganda about how the Germans were only months away from all clean energy while watching Coal, Lignite, Russian Nat gas and even burning trees from their forests for many years. Absolutely none of it was true but … well it’s coming … someday.
Angela Merkel played her part in the fraud perfectly and chose her exit with equal perfect timing. Rare with so many fringe parties involved.
How do you build a new factory to make renewable fertilizer, for example, if you have to use fossil fuels to make the steel and cement for the factory?
The answer is that the transition takes a long long time.
Just like the transition to EVs is taking a long time. In CA you will not be able to purchase a new ICE car in 2030. But it will happen that EVs is replace ICE cars, SAF and batteries will replace jet fuel, renewable energy will replace fossil fuel energy for electricity, and so many more modern innovations will replace the old way of making ammonia, cement and steel.
I’ve listened to the massive BS propaganda about how the Germans were only months away from all clean energy while watching Coal, Lignite, Russian Nat gas and even burning trees from their forests for many years. Absolutely none of it was true but … well it’s coming … someday.
I think you are the one that is making up stories about Germany while your own Canada is doing a worse job then Germany.
Canada has sky high CO2 emissions per capita. It has no real plans for reducing CO2 emissions. Nova Scotia is still burning coal for electricity after years of promises to not continue burning coal.
Policy-makers are well aware of the scale involved with decarbonizing, and they know that there’s no practical way to make sufficient changes at that scale. They also know their voters don’t want to hear that.
Albaby
================================================
Some policy-makers are aware of the scale and have proposed big changes to decarbonize. For example, President Biden wanted BBB passed to really make a dent into the CO2 emissions by transportation, industry, commercial and government facilities, and utilities. We know the people who did not want BBB passed. These people ignorantly think climate change will not impact them or our economy. It is already happening.
Policy-makers are well aware of the scale involved with decarbonizing, and they know that there’s no practical way to make sufficient changes at that scale. They also know their voters don’t want to hear that.
Or about costs. From last month…
As sticker shock for solar power looms, Maine lawmakers consider options www.pressherald.com/2022/04/12/costs-of-solar-policy-under-s…
Two bills now before the Legislature are aimed at reducing future sticker shock for electricity customers, without completely eroding the incentives that have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars in solar investment from across the world in the past few years.
If passed, the bills, L.D. 634 and L.D. 1026, would amend Maine’s net energy billing rules, which dictate how certain classes of solar developers are paid for the power generated by their projects…
One estimate from the Public Utilities Commission calculated that delivery rates could rise more than 44% by 2025, if projects totaling 1,667 megawatts of capacity come online. But if solar reimbursements are trimmed as proposed in L.D. 634 and all proposed projects are built, delivery rates could still rise 35% or so, according to Harwood’s estimates.
How do you build a new factory to make renewable fertilizer, for example, if you have to use fossil fuels to make the steel and cement for the factory?
From the linked article:
“A typical lithium car battery weighing about 450 kilograms contains about 11 kilograms of lithium, nearly 14 kilograms of cobalt, 27 kilograms of nickel, more than 40 kilograms of copper, and 50 kilograms of graphite—as well as about 181 kilograms of steel, aluminum, and plastics. Supplying these materials for a single vehicle requires processing about 40 tons of ores, and given the low concentration of many elements in their ores it necessitates extracting and processing about 225 tons of raw materials.”
Energy density is certainly a critical factor where payload is concerned. It was lead/acid batteries that were holding back EVs but not all application are hindered by low energy density. Most uses of electricity are ‘stationary’ where cost is much more relevant than energy density. They are already experimenting with electric airplanes and electric drones are now flying everywhere. Don’t bet against progress!!!
It was over 100 years ago that Winston Churchill wanted to transition the Royal Navy from coal to petrol and declared that petrol was a legitimate war aim (to grab Mesopotamian oil fields). We still use coal. Eliminating the use of fossil fuels is a pipe dream but I see the increase of renewables as a given.
"A typical lithium car battery weighing about 450 kilograms contains about 11 kilograms of lithium, nearly 14 kilograms of cobalt, 27 kilograms of nickel…
The author needs an ‘over-the-air’ update!
Typical lithium car batteries are transitioning to LFP with ZERO cobalt and ZERO nickel. Iron happens to be quite common and much cheaper than Nickel.
We live in a world of increasingly faster progress while Luddites live at least a century in the past. They write articles. Do they still use quill pens?
Most uses of electricity are ‘stationary’ where cost is much more relevant than energy density.
Costs are always important.
Costs and the ease of transition you were asking about are both related to energy density. Density here means both the amount of energy per mass and how concentrated the supply is.
Thinking about the British navy, the energy available per mass in coal or oil is much greater than found in the wind. Local concentration is also important. Taking advantage of a large resource, say the Powder River coal deposits, is easier that finding the same amount of coal in a million back yards. (Think about Mao encouraging backyard steel furnaces during the Great Leap Forward.)
Back to your transition question. The industrial revolution was helped along by using concentrated energy. It is more difficult to collect, concentrate and store diffuse wind and solar energy.
We live in a world of increasingly faster progress while Luddites live at least a century in the past.
Yeap.
The transition requires technical VISION and KNOWLEDGE which are not common traits across individuals but rather require a coherent society that is capable of finding and empowering knowledgable technical visionaries – a difficult but doable result that first requires political and cultural wisdoms, much more difficult to achieve.Thge USA still has a lot of this (Musk, Jobs, Rickover…) but not enough. Most of the world and much of the populace and political powers of the USA still do not have a clue.
Einstein, Bucky Fuller, and some other visionaries of the last 100 years were emphatic that due to the speed of technical advancement humanity would soon face a “final exam” that we were all too likely to fail. We are currently failing.
