[MonteQuest]

Monte, it is convenient to use coke/charcole as your reductant but not nessecery. You could use for instance, hydrogen gas, or you can capture CO2 and reform it to CO and O2, then use the CO as your reductant. We don't do either much now because they are very energy intensive rather the same way refining Alumina into Aluminum is, they make 'gongealed electricity' in the form of metal from ore.

I understand that, but the cost to do otherwise is prohibitive as you pointed out. C02 is C02.

[MonteQuest]

I had a brilliant post based on LINK

but the server ate it. I don't have time to rebuild the whole thing, suffice it to say the world carrying capacity without fossil fuels was about 3 billion IMO minimum and the web page linked above will give you a taste of why I think so. Without fossil but with fission I think we can handle a world population of 9 billion, but many people think I am too optimistic.

If you read my Liebig's Law thread or the Montequest Scenario, you will find that most studies show it to be around 2 billion with any energy form. Unlimited energy does not equate to an unlimited environmental capacity to absorb it's side-effects.

[Tanada]

I had a brilliant post based on LINK

but the server ate it. I don't have time to rebuild the whole thing, suffice it to say the world carrying capacity without fossil fuels was about 3 billion IMO minimum and the web page linked above will give you a taste of why I think so. Without fossil but with fission I think we can handle a world population of 9 billion, but many people think I am too optimistic.

If you read my Liebig's Law thread or the Montequest Scenario, you will find that most studies show it to be around 2 billion with any energy form. Unlimited energy does not equate to an unlimited environmental capacity to absorb it's side-effects.

I have tried on several occasions, but unfortuanately the world view expressed in the Leibig's Law thread is well, totally unrealistic in my opinion. I know it is close to your heart and I mean no personal attack, but to trot out statements like 'nothing can match oil' as if it is a law of nature is just off the chart. Lots of things can match oil, just not at the price level we now pay for oil. This will cause a world of hurt, so to speak, when the oil goes up in price to the new level. I don't beleive coal will replace oil for any substantial time frame simply because it causes too much environmental damage to be worth using, but Coal is only one source of energy.

When we eliminate all the consumer junk in the grand depression to come we won't need to consume so much energy to live comfortable happy lives, this is my view of the future. If we had only had coal and not oil we probably wouldn't have dug ourselves such a deep hole, which is really the point of this whole thread isn't it? We got here because it was sooooooo easy to get here. Now that we are inheriting the place as it is we must take responsibility for what has come before and guide ourselves to a sustainible existance. You firmly beleive we can only sustain 2 Billion humans on Earth, I strongly disagree and think we can sustain 9 Billion humans on Earth. No matter which of us is right it is our responsibillity as humans to do the best we can with the gifts we are given personally, and as a species.

If Energy isn't the limiting factor then something else will be, the question we should be asking is, where would the mark be without fossil fuels. You studied the issue over many years and concluded 2 Billion is a top limit, I studied the issue and concluded we can easily support 9 Billion, and 12 Billion if we have too before the natural declines that follow the demographic pyramid of human reproductivity. We probably read a lot of the same sources over the last 20 years, but the take I absorbed is the opposite of yours. Maybe it comes from upbringing, with my home life what it was I would have suicided out if I had not had a basically optimistic view of the future. In my life things have gotten better, and worse, and better.....because life is a roller coaster with ups and downs. Civilization itself is a roller coaster of ups and downs, if you read history broadly you have to come away an optimist, all the failures of the past happenned and we still got here and now with the power to look back and see how many things went wrong, but were overcome.

[Tanada]

Monte, it is convenient to use coke/charcole as your reductant but not nessecery. You could use for instance, hydrogen gas, or you can capture CO2 and reform it to CO and O2, then use the CO as your reductant. We don't do either much now because they are very energy intensive rather the same way refining Alumina into Aluminum is, they make 'gongealed electricity' in the form of metal from ore.

I understand that, but the cost to do otherwise is prohibitive as you pointed out. C02 is C02.

But my point was not that the cost is PROHIBITIVE at all, my point is we currently have a cheap way of reducing oxides to metals so nobody seriously uses any of the alternatives. As far as that goes without fossil fuel you could use an arc furnace with charcole as your reduction agent, it would use a lot less carbon than the blast furnace and have a net zero CO2 emission.

BTW Brazil seems to be expanding their charcole base for iron smelting, perhaps the question we need to ask is how much iron could we reasonably reduce to metal each year based on a charcole economy?

[MonteQuest]

I have tried on several occasions, but unfortuanately the world view expressed in the Leibig's Law thread is well, totally unrealistic in my opinion.

That world view is based upon the empirical evidence amassed by ecologists and biologists. You don't believe in the Law of the Minimum?

I know it is close to your heart and I mean no personal attack, but to trot out statements like 'nothing can match oil' as if it is a law of nature is just off the chart. Lots of things can match oil, just not at the price level we now pay for oil.

Not interms of EROEI, energy density, portability and scale they cannot.
I doubt we will ever see anything to beat the bang for the buck of oil.

You firmly beleive we can only sustain 2 Billion humans on Earth, I strongly disagree and think we can sustain 9 Billion humans on Earth.

No, I firmly believe we cannot know the carrying capacity of the earth, but it is less than now. The majority of the studies done point to 2 billion being in the ballpark.
Carrying Capacity Studies


From what studies do you get your 9 billion figure?

If Energy isn't the limiting factor then something else will be, the question we should be asking is, where would the mark be without fossil fuels.

You just said the Law of the Minimum/Liebig's Law worldview was unrealisitic??? Were you talking about something else?

[MonteQuest]

BTW Brazil seems to be expanding their charcole base for iron smelting, perhaps the question we need to ask is how much iron could we reasonably reduce to metal each year based on a charcole economy?

Well, if history is any indicator, not much, which is why we moved to coke from coal.

We know they had developed metallurgy prior to the Industrial Revolution as is evidenced by the development of bronze and iron. Early iron smelting (as the process is called) used charcoal as both the heat source and the reducing agent. Charcoal, derived from the charring of wood in a kiln, was an excellent source of energy to smelt the iron; however, its widespread use caused a serious depletion of England's forests during the 18th century.

[MonteQuest]

But my point was not that the cost is PROHIBITIVE at all, my point is we currently have a cheap way of reducing oxides to metals so nobody seriously uses any of the alternatives.

According to steelworld.com, there are no alternative coke free iron ore reduction technologies capable of fully replacing the modern high performance blast furnaces.

Not just a matter of cost, it's a lack of available technology to do so as well.

[Ludi]

Where will the trees come from for a charcoal economy of 9 billion?

[DefiledEngine]

I was expecting someone to make that point. Modern economics doesn't cause resource exploitation, but it does make it quicker. All previous civilisations managed to over exploit resources without modern economics. Resource exploitation is a feature of the organism (overshoot applies to all species).

Haven't all previous civilizations had an economy at least somewhat like ours? All promoting growth, competition and waste? Our "modern" economy seems to promote waste in such a manner that I doubt it's effectiveness even short-term. Even so, what really matters is the long term, no? Maybe the free-market is hard-wired into us?

I guess we'll see soon enough.

[Tanada]

I have tried on several occasions, but unfortuanately the world view expressed in the Leibig's Law thread is well, totally unrealistic in my opinion.

That world view is based upon the empirical evidence amassed by ecologists and biologists. You don't believe in the Law of the Minimum?

I know it is close to your heart and I mean no personal attack, but to trot out statements like 'nothing can match oil' as if it is a law of nature is just off the chart. Lots of things can match oil, just not at the price level we now pay for oil.

Not interms of EROEI, energy density, portability and scale they cannot.
I doubt we will ever see anything to beat the bang for the buck of oil.

You firmly beleive we can only sustain 2 Billion humans on Earth, I strongly disagree and think we can sustain 9 Billion humans on Earth.

No, I firmly believe we cannot know the carrying capacity of the earth, but it is less than now. The majority of the studies done point to 2 billion being in the ballpark.
Carrying Capacity Studies


From what studies do you get your 9 billion figure?

If Energy isn't the limiting factor then something else will be, the question we should be asking is, where would the mark be without fossil fuels.

You just said the Law of the Minimum/Liebig's Law worldview was unrealisitic??? Were you talking about something else?

I beleive in the mathmatical concept of limits, but the way the concept is bandied about here does not resemble the law I learned a couple decades ago.

As for the energy density of oil blah blah blah, we used oil because it was cheaper than dirt, to the point we rebuilt our whole culture to depend on it. That does not mean more expensive substitutes don't exist, or won't be availible on a large enough scale just because we don't use them now.
Synfuel are a reality, Ammonia is a reallity, hell even Hydrogen is a reallity. Every fuel used for transport should not be looked at as an energy SOURCE, in reallity it is an energy CARRIER. Oil carries ancient captured solar flux which has been in the ground a very long time, so does coal, wood carries recently captured solar flux as do all the bio-fuels. Ammonia and Hydrogen are synthetic energy carriers made from heat or electricity and the F-T process. Synfuel can be made with F-T from biomass, coal, or any organic waste and with the Thermal Conversion Process waste is the main feedstock. No matter how you slice it oil is an energy dense carrier, which is why it is so addictive, but oil is not an energy source. Because of the 2nd law you loose some energy in every transformation, thermal conversion claims to be able to run transform organic waste into diesel at 85% energy density, F-T to liquids claims between 65% and 80% depending on who is doing the talking.

If you convert coal to oil at 65% energy return you still have synthetic energy dense oil when you are done. You would get more energy burning the coal directly in a large electric power plant, but the conveinince of the liquid energy carrier out weighs things like environmental considerations, for most consumers.

[Tanada]

Where will the trees come from for a charcoal economy of 9 billion?

Your mixing apples and oranges again, first this thread is about what we could have done without fossil fuels and in that context I never claimed we could support 9 Billion people with a pure charcole economy. Secondly we won't go from 120 mph to zero with fossil fuels in the real world, we will enter decline and bump along in roller coaster fashion just like we always have.

[Doly]

No matter how you slice it oil is an energy dense carrier, which is why it is so addictive, but oil is not an energy source.

You are confusing the picture here unnecessarily. The difference between an energy source and an energy carrier is not found in physics, but in our usage.

An energy source is something that will provide us with MORE energy than we need to put in it. In other words, anything with EROEI>1

An energy carrier is something that will provide us with LESS energy than we need to put in it, or EROEI<1

Notice the "us" and "we". The sun had to put energy to make oil, but we don't. If we lived in Jupiter, where free hydrogen is everywhere, we wouldn't need to separate it from water or natural gas, and it would be an energy source, not an energy carrier.

[Ludi]

Where will the trees come from for a charcoal economy of 9 billion?

Your mixing apples and oranges again, first this thread is about what we could have done without fossil fuels and in that context I never claimed we could support 9 Billion people with a pure charcole economy. Secondly we won't go from 120 mph to zero with fossil fuels in the real world, we will enter decline and bump along in roller coaster fashion just like we always have.

Maybe, but it also may be tha tyou're just communicating in a confusing way.

So you see charcoal being some kind of bridge between fossil fuels and this mysterious other source of energy?

Personally, I don't see using charcoal a happy outcome without first developing a mindset to avoid depletion, which we havn't done yet and from the evidence on this messageboard, simply won't develop.

[3rensho]

A properly made waterd blade can be folded until the blade tip touches the pommel and will resume its correct shape without a kink in the blade when the pressure is removed. It will also hold so fine an edge that a silk scarf will part without hesitation when dropped on it while held edge upward. That was the whole point in the seduction scene in the movie The Bodyguard when Kevin Costner was demonstrating his samuri sword to Ms. Houston, her silk scarf parted without hestitating under it own weight despite being slowed by air resitence. That's SHARP!

Because of the repeated heatings and weldings it takes a lot more time and fuel to make a watered steel blade than it does a plain steel blade, but in the days of real hand to hand combat they could not be beaten as a weapon.

*Sigh* Where to begin with this Hollywood fantasy land tripe.

Firstly, most "hand to hand" combat was not with the sword in medieval Japan.
More importantly, a properly polished nihonto will not cut a silk scarf dropped over the blade.
A properly heat treated nihonto also will not deflect that much laterally. The cutting edge is brittle and the lateral strength of the blade is not very high at all. An improper cut will bend a sword and leave it permanently kinked. You can restraighten the blade to some degree, but you will be left with something less straight than originally intended.

There is more misinformation about Japanese swords and Japanese steel than other other weapon in the history of man kind.

They are not mythical by any means, although they are quite beautiful.
I've been collecting them and studying nihonto for several years now.

Please don't further spread stories like this around, they only serve to further the misinformation out there among the general public regarding these weapons.

I have some interesting notes from my last visit to Tokyo. I had the rare opportunity to speak with one of my sensei's close friends, who is a togishi (sword polisher.) I got to watch him work as well as see some of his own collection which makes mine look quite amateurish in comparison.

You can expect to pay a minimum of $6k USD for a modern smith made blade. Older blades can go upwards of several hundred thousand depending on the blade and you might not get to take it out of Japan since any blade that has been deemed to be of cultural signifigance can't leave Japan.

But to keep this post on topic, steel has been smithed long before oil was discovered. The earliest nihonto date back to early Yamato. The smithing process has been refined over the years but nihonto are made in Japan the same way they have been made for thousands of years. One minor difference is some smiths will use electric hammers instead of having assistants hammer the steel while the smith moves the stock and adjusts the temperature with clay and hay.

A few good books (in English, most are in Japanese) for anyone interested in Nihonto are:

The Craft of the Japanese Sword, Leon Kapp
The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords, Kokan Nagayama

I've been studying Iaido for several years now and have been using a smith made nihonto for the past 3 years. If they were as sharp as the movies and anime make most people believe there are plenty of people out there who would have a lot worse than a nicked finger from a momentary lapse in concentration. I've never cut myself (knock wood) practicing with a live blade but that is because I received proper instruction from knowledgeable sensei.

A word on safety:

Do not ever try and draw a live sword without proper training and supervision. There is a gentleman on the sword forums website from the UK who attempted to teach himself out of a book and now no longer has the use of his arm, he pierced himself attempting to sheath a live blade wihtout proper instruction. (Most people who do injure themselves do so attempting noto [the sheathing motion] with a live blade without proper instruction.)

This is something that must be taught to you in person. No videos or books can teach you. If you want to learn I suggest you do what everyone else I know who has wanted to has done, move to Japan.

[Ludi]

A properly made waterd blade can be folded until the blade tip touches the pommel and will resume its correct shape without a kink in the blade when the pressure is removed. It will also hold so fine an edge that a silk scarf will part without hesitation when dropped on it while held edge upward. That was the whole point in the seduction scene in the movie The Bodyguard when Kevin Costner was demonstrating his samuri sword to Ms. Houston, her silk scarf parted without hestitating under it own weight despite being slowed by air resitence. That's SHARP!

Because of the repeated heatings and weldings it takes a lot more time and fuel to make a watered steel blade than it does a plain steel blade, but in the days of real hand to hand combat they could not be beaten as a weapon.

*Sigh* Where to begin with this Hollywood fantasy land tripe.

Firstly, most "hand to hand" combat was not with the sword in medieval Japan.
More importantly, a properly polished nihonto will not cut a silk scarf dropped over the blade.
A properly heat treated nihonto also will not deflect that much laterally. The cutting edge is brittle and the lateral strength of the blade is not very high at all. An improper cut will bend a sword and leave it permanently kinked. You can restraighten the blade to some degree, but you will be left with something less straight than originally intended.

There is more misinformation about Japanese swords and Japanese steel than other other weapon in the history of man kind.

They are not mythical by any means, although they are quite beautiful.
I've been collecting them and studying nihonto for several years now.

Please don't further spread stories like this around, they only serve to further the misinformation out there among the general public regarding these weapons.

I have some interesting notes from my last visit to Tokyo. I had the rare opportunity to speak with one of my sensei's close friends, who is a togishi (sword polisher.) I got to watch him work as well as see some of his own collection which makes mine look quite amateurish in comparison.

You can expect to pay a minimum of $6k USD for a modern smith made blade. Older blades can go upwards of several hundred thousand depending on the blade and you might not get to take it out of Japan since any blade that has been deemed to be of cultural signifigance can't leave Japan.

It's astonishing how people can't tell fact from fiction, isn't it, and use a movie as source material for "fact?"

We're so doomed!

You point out this kind of steel is very very expensive, and it probably always was very very expensive! Sure steel can be made without fossil fuels, but not cheaply!

[Dezakin]

Tanada:

I beleive in the mathmatical concept of limits, but the way the concept is bandied about here does not resemble the law I learned a couple decades ago.

Monte likes to abuse principles for his own interpretation. In a closed system you eventually run out of gas, but that closed system is the physical universe and the timescales are hundreds of billions of years.

Ludi:

So you see charcoal being some kind of bridge between fossil fuels and this mysterious other source of energy?

Why do we need charcoal going forward, and whats mysterious about nuclear?

Molten oxide electrolysis currently is done for aluminum refining and is likely to be done for steel. No carbon source needed.

[MonteQuest]

Monte likes to abuse principles for his own interpretation. In a closed system you eventually run out of gas, but that closed system is the physical universe and the timescales are hundreds of billions of years.

And what, pray tell, does this have to do with the Law of the Minimum?

[MonteQuest]

Molten oxide electrolysis currently is done for aluminum refining and is likely to be done for steel. No carbon source needed.

To make steel from iron perhaps, but a carbon source is needed to first make iron from iron ore. You have to have a high carbon "reductant."

[Dezakin]

To make steel from iron perhaps, but a carbon source is needed to first make iron from iron ore. You have to have a high carbon "reductant."

No you dont. This was covered several pages earlier. You can either recycle the carbon with manesium reduction or high temperature CO2 electrolysis for reinjection if you really are addicted to carbon processing.

You can do hydrogen reduction, but then you have to be more clever about it because hydrogen exposure to steel has undesirable metallurgical properties.

Or you can do molten oxide electrolysis where you dont need any chemical reagent at all.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05314/603569.stm
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1 ... way_94.pdf

[MonteQuest]

To make steel from iron perhaps, but a carbon source is needed to first make iron from iron ore. You have to have a high carbon "reductant."

No you dont. This was covered several pages earlier.

Perhaps, some day in the future, but it is not yet technically feasible, which is what steelworld.com said.

Mr. Sadoway has two years to figure out if the process is technically feasible on a small scale. If the results are encouraging, much more work would be needed to determine if it can be commercialized.

"I think we're probably looking at at least a 10-year odyssey," he said.