rdf,

The U.S has large reserves of phosphate, and potassium is available en-masse from Canada. So that is the "P" and "K" in the N-P-K part of fertilizer coding (where, for example, pure ammonia would be 82-0-0, since it is 82 wt% nitrogen, or Potassium Nitrate would be 14-0-39.

There are probably also lots of places where P and K can be obtained, though not in such concentrated forms, but sufficient to use.

The real kicker in fixed nitrogen. But, when in doubt, copy what the Norwegians and Icelanders did, or what was done in Niagara Falls from the mid 1920's through WW2, or what they did in trail, British Columbia from WW2 until they discovered natural gas in a big way in Alberta. Use electricity to make H2 from water, then react that H2 with N2 to make ammonia. No need for coal or Ngas to make ammonia, whatsoever. And since those are pricey and getting pricier, and CO2 burial is also not going to be cheap, well, the electrically derived ammonia gets around that problem (CO2 garbage disposal) just fine. And there may be some ways to make NH3 directly from electricity, water and N2 in high temperature electrolytic cells, with the promise of slightly better energy efficiency.

With lots of electricity, lots of H2 can be made - about 22 to 25 kw-hr/lb of H2, or about 44 to 50 MW-hr/ton (2000 lbs, not the 2200 lbs in a metric tonne), depending on how hard the cells are run. This also eliminates the largest part of conventional (coal or Ngas based) ammonia plants, which is the purification of the H2 from the water-shift reaction. the H2 coming from electrolysis, once dried of any water, tends to be very pure, simplifies downstream operations, too.

Anyway, this NH3 made from renewable energy won't be cheap, but it will be less expensive than NH3 made from Ngas at current prices (which do not include CO2 trash disposal). And since those prices will rise, as will imported NH3 prices (due to the devaluation of the dollar and rising world prices of Ngas), the renewable approach has the added effect of stabilizing prices, potentially, of this valuable farm input. Plus, it helps take more of the hydrocarbon inputs out of the farm cost equation.

Nb41

wonderful diary, thanks.

it cuts to the moral core of trade in the first place, and whether its additions are mutually beneficial across the board (or state line).

put clearly like you do here, it's obvious that though the coercion is much less overt than in the last centuries, (except in iraq), robber brigandry is still occurring to sustain our way of life.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

European Tribune - Comments - Can the US/EU be Self-Sufficient?

By this I mean that it can produce everything it needs to survive using only its own resources. If you can't grow bananas then eat pears instead. What I'm really asking is are the advanced countries maintaining their standard of living by extracting more from trading partners than they are returning in trade? If they are then they are international brigands and trade is just a cover for this.

Ah, but it is a win-win situation for those countries whose minerals are extracted and whose rivers are polluted, because they get some of the shiny stuff they want in return (well, their corrupt leaders, anyway).

To answer this questions, there are statistics. For instance, eurostat tells me that the EU imports about 1.8 trillion kilos, and exports about 0.5 trillion.

In money terms, on the other hand, imports total € 1.4 trillion, exports €1.2 trillion.

But: why would the EU and US be the appropriate geographical units to organise self-sufficiency for, instead of Luxembourg and Rhode Island?

You're going to need to incorporate a factor related to standard of living. For example, a big fraction of our electronic equipment is imported, including stuff like TVs that might be considered optional, but also including much of our computer and communication infrastructure. Bringing that back to our shores would be expensive. Cars and clothing are also largely imported. We COULD make this stuff ourselves--and did up until maybe 20 years ago--but it would be quite a change if we closed the borders...

From a subsistence level, the U.S. still has tremendous resources and could easily be self-sustaining. I'm not so sure about Europe, but then it depends on where the eastern edge of "Europe" is defined.

Since the first "oil shock" in the early 70s I have believed that the eventual solution to hydrocarbon requirements, such as for plastics, would be by providing "photo-synthetic front ends" to refineries, now referred to as bio-mass. Nitrogen fixation could eventually be provided by bacteria similar to those that fix nitrogen inside the roots of legumes. The balance of output products should change given the present awareness of the problems of global warming.

We at least could have the demonstrated technology to provide all of our ground transportation technology via electric vehicles with batteries and ultracapacitors, with a means for either quick recharge or "on the go" recharge from inductive pick-ups or alternative means. A political hurdle would be agreeing to standards to which manufacturers could build compliant vehicles. If you have ever been involved with a "standards committee" you will be familiar with the problem.

We could also greatly increase the speed and efficiency while decreasing the cost and polution of long distance transportation for both people and freight, possibly combining rights of way for both energy transmission and freight and personal transportation into a rebuilt  infrastructure.  In relative terms this should be less expensive and less technically challenging than the moon shot in the 60s.  The biggest obstacles are political.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

... but it does not directly imply a conclusion with respect to:

What I'm really asking is are the advanced countries maintaining their standard of living by extracting more from trading partners than they are returning in trade? If they are then they are international brigands and trade is just a cover for this.

It is quite possible for trading partners to each extract more in trade than they are returning trade, when evaluated from a baseline of their self-sufficiency. So a trading partner extracting more in trade than they are returning in trade evaluated from the baseline of self-sufficiency is not in and of itself proof of international brigandage.

I would argue, in other words, that a different baseline is required to detect the international brigandage.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.