Sulfur

Who knew?

Sulfur: A potential resource crisis that could stifle green technology and threaten food security as the world decarbonises
Maslin et al.
https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geoj.124…
Abstract:
Sulfur in the form of sulfuric acid is a crucial part of our modern industrial society. It is required for the production of phosphorus fertiliser and manufacturing lightweight electric motors and high-performance lithium-ion batteries. Over 246 million tonnes of sulfuric acid are used annually. Rapid growth in the green economy and intensive agriculture could see demand increase to over 400 million tonnes by 2040.

Today over 80% of the global sulfur supply comes from desulfurisation of fossil fuels to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas. Decarbonisation of the global economy to deal with climate change will greatly reduce the production of fossil fuels. This will create a shortfall in the annual supply of sulfuric acid of between 100 and 320 million tonnes by 2040, depending on how quickly decarbonisation occurs. Unless action is taken to reduce the need for sulfuric acid, a massive increase in environmentally damaging mining will be required to fill this resource demand.

DB2

5 Likes

Who knew?

Have you never seen the yellow mountains next to refineries?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sulfur+mountains+at+refineri…

“Sour crude” means high sulfur, “sweet crude,” low or no sulfur.

The Captain

There are sulfur deposits and we do know how to mine it. Also some minerals occur as sulfides. Chattanooga has scorched mountains where sulfur was burned off to get copper from the ore.

The industry may require new investment to adapt, but shortages seem unlikely.

4 Likes

There are sulfur deposits and we do know how to mine it. Also some minerals occur as sulfides. Chattanooga has scorched mountains where sulfur was burned off to get copper from the ore. The industry may require new investment to adapt, but shortages seem unlikely.

The focus was more on environmental impacts rather than shortages. From the article:

"The USGS estimates there is almost limitless supply of elemental sulfur and sulfate minerals in evaporites, volcanic deposits, gypsum, and anhydrite, but new industries will be required to reduce sulfates to sulfur in order to exploit most of these resources. China already subsidizes carbothermal reduction of gypsum to produce sulfuric acid directly in integrated industrial eco-parks with co-located acid-using industries but at the environmental cost of large CO2 emissions.

"More immediately, the sulfur shortfall could be offset by expanding mining of sulfides and elemental sulfur, but at large environmental costs. This could include both conventional mining of sulfur deposits and the Frasch mining process that extracts elemental sulfur from salt domes or bedded evaporite deposits by injecting super-heated water into the deposits. This will create environmental problems, such as air, soil, and water pollution, and human rights issues associated with intensive mining. Sulfide mining operations also have their own issues. Of particular concern is mining wastes containing sulfide minerals that can acidify local surface and ground waters and increase the levels of numerous toxic elements (As, Bi, Co, Hg, Ni, Tl, Sb, Se, etc.). At the same time, in South China, direct generation of sulfuric acid continues not only by roasting of copper and other sulfide ores to produce valuable metals with sulfuric acid as a byproduct but also by roasting pyrite to produce sulfur dioxide and hence sulfuric acid as the primary product, at the cost of substantial heavy metal and especially thallium pollution of the region.

“Research is urgently needed to develop low-cost, low environmental impact methods of extracting large quantities of elemental sulfur from the very abundant deposits of sulfate minerals such as gypsum and anhydrite.”

DB2

Chattanooga has scorched mountains where sulfur was burned off to get copper from the ore.

Same for nickel in Sudbury, Canada moonscape…

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sudbury,+Canada+moonscape&am…

Burning off the sulfur is what caused acid rain!

The Captain

1 Like

The scientists knew. None of this is a surprise. And if they didn’t, what are they for? I remember hearing the fertilizer impact almost 20 years ago. And of course as usual it’s going to “hit developing countries hardest.” This is exactly what “modeling” is for. This does that… that does this… that impacts that… this changes this… the whole idea is to not get caught in a Rubic’s cube or Gordian knot of some kind.

1 Like

The scientists knew. None of this is a surprise. And if they didn’t, what are they for?

Fossil Fuel Industry Disinformation?

The Captain

2 Likes

Fossil Fuel Industry Disinformation?
--------
The Captain

Possibly. But whom can you really trust? I see no more tendency towards righteousness (except the chest thumping self-kind) among scientists than I see in the business community. Or the clergy, or the police, or politicians et al. All sides have an agenda. Yes, even the “Science industry.” Don’t kid yourself. They are all capable of: A) Lying. B) Telling the truth. And, C) Finding the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, insufficiently self-serving. And they are all capable of being incompetent. (Latest studies show…) Any countervailing statements by a non-fossil-fuels connected spokesperson could also be accused of being mis/disinformation. Sorry, but I see no heroes here.

More on topic: I suppose it’s possible to extract the sulfur we need for fertilizer and all that other stuff without actually having to burn fossil fuel. But as it is already a by-product and just sort of gleaned off the larger process, it would almost certainly be more expensive. Oh joy! That’ll be great! Especially for “developing countries”! And can we do that process with batteries and windmills? Or do you have to actually burn it to extract it? Gordian knot?

I’m always careful before I pick sides because I know they’re all lying to me. Science is especially oily. (heh heh) They insist we believe them because “it’s science!” (Called fetishization) but always reserve the right to move the goalposts later because “we didn’t have all the data”. (As if now we do and how would they know?) Or offer some glib quasi-religious tap-dance like “Well, science is a journey, not a destination. We’re learning all the time.” Well Duh!, Doc! At what point can we believe you and not be left holding the bag for you? Business and politicians are much easier to smell but for some reason they still have huge adherents.

Stridency and what I call (“STFU-ism”)on an issue from any corner is a reason for suspicion in my book.

1 Like

“Research is urgently needed to develop low-cost, low environmental impact methods of extracting large quantities of elemental sulfur from the very abundant deposits of sulfate minerals such as gypsum and anhydrite.”

Gypsum is the by-product when phosphate rock is treated with sulfuric acid to make phosphoric acid for fertilizer use. The sulfuric acid is made on site from burning sulfur. The heat from burning sulfur (a good fuel) is used for processing.

In essence this comes down to an energy problem. You will need plenty of cheap energy to reverse the sulfate process. It won’t be cheap.

3 Likes