4 ms·

> "Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. If burning it releases carbon which we can't viably recapture, which you acknowledge[0], then saying

> "Needs to stay in the ground" says extraction must stop. If burning it releases carbon which we can't viably recapture, which you acknowledge[0], then saying... > That is not the case. ...is wrong. Unless you mean climate change causes by anthropogenic carbon release isn't happening. [0] "you are correct there is currently no commercially-viable way to make it carbon-neutral" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21325863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21325863)

TeMPOraL 7y ago
As I understand it, GP is essentially saying this: there are two main uses for oil - fuel (burning) and plastics. The former emits carbon to the atmosphere, the latter doesn't. To achieve full success emissions-wise, we need to kill off the first use. Second use is fine from emissions standpoint - but keeping it implies extraction needs to happen. To me, GP is quite precise and also correct. I don't understand why you try to cast them as a climate change denier.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  I can't find figures but I expect the amount of crude used for fuel is very high compared to its other uses. Maybe 99% but that's just a guess. I'll try to find figures tomorrow (it's late here). Let's call it 95% for now. If 95% of energy is not burnt but extracted for other uses then it stays in the ground 20 times longer (ok, not forever). But we have no way of replacing that huge energy source that is crude. So we will not stop because there's no alternative. What he suggests is a counsel of perfection - "precise and also correct", I agree, but it's not going to happen. So it's a useless suggestion AFAICS. Basically I'm confused as to what he's suggesting.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    Some quick digging regarding proportion of use of crude for energy vs chemical products: "This demand for chemical products has a direct impact on energy demand (and consequently CO2 emissions). The sector accounts for approximately 11% and 8% respectively of the global primary demand for oil and natural gas." https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-energy-to-chemicals.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-... So my 99% and 95% estimate was way off, if I'm reading this correctly - which I may not, as it seems to be referring to energy used to create chemical products, not necessarily the proportion of oil used as chemical precursors. Best I can find though.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      It's somewhere between 10% and 15% of the volume: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... It's tough to get more precise, because there are trace fuels, as well as some products like kerosene that are used as fuels and solvents.
vonmoltke 7y ago
Further up I was specifically referring to non-fuel usage and specifically rejecting the notion that extracted == burned.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

As I understand it, GP is essentially saying this: there are two main uses for oil - fuel (burning) and plastics. The former emits carbon to the atmosphere, the latter doesn't. To achieve full success emissions-wise, we need to kill off the first use. Second use is fine from emissions standpoint - but keeping it implies extraction needs to happen. To me, GP is quite precise and also correct. I don't understand why you try to cast them as a climate change denier.

tempguy9999 7y ago
I can't find figures but I expect the amount of crude used for fuel is very high compared to its other uses. Maybe 99% but that's just a guess. I'll try to find figures tomorrow (it's late here). Let's call it 95% for now. If 95% of energy is not burnt but extracted for other uses then it stays in the ground 20 times longer (ok, not forever). But we have no way of replacing that huge energy source that is crude. So we will not stop because there's no alternative. What he suggests is a counsel of perfection - "precise and also correct", I agree, but it's not going to happen. So it's a useless suggestion AFAICS. Basically I'm confused as to what he's suggesting.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Some quick digging regarding proportion of use of crude for energy vs chemical products: "This demand for chemical products has a direct impact on energy demand (and consequently CO2 emissions). The sector accounts for approximately 11% and 8% respectively of the global primary demand for oil and natural gas." https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-energy-to-chemicals.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/june/commentary-from-... So my 99% and 95% estimate was way off, if I'm reading this correctly - which I may not, as it seems to be referring to energy used to create chemical products, not necessarily the proportion of oil used as chemical precursors. Best I can find though.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    It's somewhere between 10% and 15% of the volume: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/refining-crude-oil.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc... It's tough to get more precise, because there are trace fuels, as well as some products like kerosene that are used as fuels and solvents.

vonmoltke 7y ago

Further up I was specifically referring to non-fuel usage and specifically rejecting the notion that extracted == burned.