5 ms·

You are absolutely correct. Supply Chains are primarily fossil based and can NOT be substituted with low density sources like Green Energy or even electricity

You are absolutely correct. Supply Chains are primarily fossil based and can NOT be substituted with low density sources like Green Energy or even electricity at all. For example, you can't efficiently make steel or most other metals with electricity alone. Even primarily electrically refined metals like copper or aluminum REQUIRE inputs that can not be made or refined or extracted with electricity. Often this is about chemical reductions that required carbon or other reductants that can't be effectively or efficiently made with electricity. The most obvious one is silicon - carbon reduction of SiO2 is the only and best efficient refining method (1st stage only - you need further far more energy intensive refining to make semiconductor-grade silicon). Recently brought up in Congress was questions of how petrochemicals are to be produced if the Green goal of eliminating oil is accomplished. Stuff like plastics. All sorts of things depend upon plastics and plastics require petrochemicals. The most obvious one is plastic sterilization aids and sterile materials like syringes, packaging for needles, etc. ALL 20th century medicine is largely destroyed without petrochemicals. Also all pharmaceuticals deeply depend upon petrochemicals. The respondent had no answer and she simply tried to resort to high-intensity angry BS. Clearly she'd never thought ANY of this through and didn't care because she was living off the anger of hating oil but knew nothing about how oil is used or how dependent all supply chains are on oil. You are underestimating the good faith of the political class. In fact, they are borderline psychopathic with high levels Dunning-Kruger delusion about the correctness of their decisions/beliefs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHk7S6prF6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHk7S6prF6M The additional issue: PVs have finite lifespan. Lithium batteries have extremely finite lifespans. So you have to replace them and have ALL the supply chains to do that forever. Which are fossil fuel dependent at fundamental chemical/physical levels. So most of those supply chains can NEVER be made green. Green Energy is primarily a Cargo-Cult Religion not based on facts. That is a major problem because if you shutdown fossil fuels, we will end up with nothing - we will not even manage to have the levels of civilization and technology seen in the last 300-500 years. Basically a dark age.

01100011 4y ago
Jesus it's nice to read an informed comment on here. Yes, it's difficult to try to get these facts across to folks without them thinking you're a shill for big oil. It's especially sad/frustrating when people who claim to be engineers don't understand the engineering involved in the process of transitioning to green energy.
- tricky777 4y ago
  software engineer is not same as civil engineer. (i gues the capacity/abiltiy to learn is there, but still.. there is quite a difference)
  - 01100011 4y ago
    +1000% I'll admit to falling into the trap of thinking I'm smarter than everyone else, including domain experts outside my field of expertise, because I did well in a field very much devoid of actual, uh, engineering.
telchar 4y ago
You’re seemingly unaware that petrochemicals can be synthesized with energy and simple organic feedstocks. The chemistry is pretty well established to bootstrap up from water and CO2 to complex hydrocarbons and from there of course the same petrochemical processes can be applied. Green energy is perfectly capable of this.
- 01100011 4y ago
  They can, but that takes energy. You have to have sufficient green energy to produce it and how do you get to the place where you have sufficient energy? Currently, that means you burn massive amounts of dirty energy to make the transition over, what, decades? Your comment is well intended but it is the same sort of 'one day it will be perfect' thinking that glosses over the messy transition that actually needs to take place first.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Most uses of fossil fuels these days are for fuel, not petrochemicals. The energy needed to get to petrochemicals (and the fraction of carbon currently coming from fossil fuels to get to petrochemicals) are relatively modest.
    - 01100011 4y ago
      Citation needed. Sorry but it takes, more or less, as much energy as that which is stored within the chemical bonds of a petrochemical to make that chemical from raw materials. Also, what? Your comment doesn't seem to fit into the context of our discussion. Where is the energy and raw materials to produce the green energy materials going to come from?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Maybe read more carefully. When renewable energy is abundant, we will find it cheaper to synthesize the hydrocarbons we need than to pump them out of the ground, transport, refine, and transport them again. In the meantime, the overwhelming majority of oil pumped is burned. In the nearer future, only oil that is the absolute cheapest to pump will be, mostly as feedstock for bulk chemistry, because it will not be worth the cost to refine it for fuel. So where will energy to transition come from? Fossil fuels, which are today produced in the trillions of tons annually. As more renewables are built out, some of their output will go into producing new panels. Eventually, panels will be produced from 100% renewable energy. You will not notice any change, except lower power bills.
acallaghan 4y ago
The cargo-cult religion is unfortunately back by science and years of study and agreement amongst scientists - human activity is causing climate change and global warming. You sound like you haven't accepted this fact based reality that we live in and are a part of. Climate change is our fault, and we have to stop it, there is no other alternative that also includes life continuing on earth as we know it. This change is already happening, it's not hypothetical. Global systems are already being affected, extreme weather and drought more common. Global temperature change has to be kept as low as possible, or we risk crop failure, famine and mass immigration at a scale that has never been seen. I understand there are huge logistical issues with shifting off fossil fuels, but we as humans have to. We can get to the moon, we can stop burning old dinosaurs & plants to make stuff work. Even without climate change, these resources are finite. Are you just going to accept waiting for all the oil to run out before making plastic tubes from something else? The clue is in the name fossil, they take millions of years to produce and are non-renewable. You can think of me as a green psychopath all you like, but it doesn't change the cold hard facts. I hope my reply isn't high-intensity BS.
- 01100011 4y ago
  I missed the part where OP denied global warming. You and I both want the same thing. Our shared goals do not negate the laws of chemistry or physics.
- neffy 4y ago
  It's accurate but not complete. The long term (600k year) climatic history of this planet is sobering, and if only climate change was just our fault. Believe me, there is nothing humanity has so far achieved that comes close to matching what nature does to this planet on a pretty regular schedule. We don't know nearly enough about this by the way, and we especially don't know enough about conditions about the end of the last inter-glacial. For the last 20 odd years we can't even discuss it rationally, because to bring up the non-anthromorphic aspects just gets some innocent scientist labelled a denier. That volcano that went off in the pacific this January appears to have increased the amount of water vapour in the entire atmosphere by 10%. Sit back and contemplate that for a moment, because it is pretty awesome, and also the satellite pictures were quite something, and then take another look at what's happened in Pakistan and Italy. All our fault? We can wish. There is so much more to this than shifting away from fossil fuels - that's the easy one, get rid of your car, and get a bicycle. (Added) I have to feel the mindless downvoting on this and similar comments is just proving my point. Link for the volcano, impacts still being assessed... https://www.npr.org/2022/08/03/1115378385/tonga-volcano-stratosphere-water-warming https://www.npr.org/2022/08/03/1115378385/tonga-volcano-stra... https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-517/egusphere-2022-517.pdf https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-20...
kkfx 4y ago
> Basically a dark age. That's the real enormous issue. Beyond the Green New Deal, witch is green in the sense of dollars main color for very few, chemical/radioactive stereotypical waste leaking from abandoned rusty barrels green while being sold as grass green, we have a real issue: oil is consumed FAR faster than natural regeneration and that since many decades so far, witch means that a day perhaps not that far away it will be more and more scarce and finally unavailable. NOT ONLY for fuel, but also for plastic witch happen to be needed for electrical insulation, hydraulic and air insulation, anti-vibration stuff etc etc etc and we do not know how to replace it on scale. So far no other feasible on scale energy solution exists. Nuclear fission and mountain pumped hydro are the most stable and powerful solution we have, but can't work on scale alone and nothing else is there. Without energy no matter climate change or something else: any civilization collapse anyway.
dharma1 4y ago
You can make steel with just electric heating - Swedish steel companies are making a lot of progress here https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/renewables/sweden-leads-charge-green-steel-projects https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/renewables/sweden-l... Oil and petrochemicals have many uses and they will be with us for decades but at some point this century we will get the vast majority of our energy needs from fusion (the sun), hydro, wind and nuclear. It will likely take longer than we think and but might as well start now than keep running a dangerous experiment on the planet
- tricky777 4y ago
  however bad we will handle it, thee planet will be just fine. global warming is problem not for the planet or nature, but for humans. if all humans will die, and 99% of species die, planet will still be ok the nature will still live on. just that our last record of existence for anybody else to find will be "we were stupid".
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> PVs have finite lifespan And your car doesn't? What kind of argument is this? My panels have 25 year warranty, whats the warranty on a diesel generator? > questions of how petrochemicals are to be produced if the Green goal of eliminating oil is accomplished. Petromechicals have no relevance to Climate change and CO2 emissions. You can keep using single-use bags and straws and throwing them into landfill untill you use up all the oil on earth. They have relevance to our health, i.e. microplastics, but thats a separate problem.

01100011 4y ago

Jesus it's nice to read an informed comment on here. Yes, it's difficult to try to get these facts across to folks without them thinking you're a shill for big oil. It's especially sad/frustrating when people who claim to be engineers don't understand the engineering involved in the process of transitioning to green energy.

tricky777 4y ago
software engineer is not same as civil engineer. (i gues the capacity/abiltiy to learn is there, but still.. there is quite a difference)
- 01100011 4y ago
  +1000% I'll admit to falling into the trap of thinking I'm smarter than everyone else, including domain experts outside my field of expertise, because I did well in a field very much devoid of actual, uh, engineering.

telchar 4y ago

You’re seemingly unaware that petrochemicals can be synthesized with energy and simple organic feedstocks. The chemistry is pretty well established to bootstrap up from water and CO2 to complex hydrocarbons and from there of course the same petrochemical processes can be applied. Green energy is perfectly capable of this.

01100011 4y ago
They can, but that takes energy. You have to have sufficient green energy to produce it and how do you get to the place where you have sufficient energy? Currently, that means you burn massive amounts of dirty energy to make the transition over, what, decades? Your comment is well intended but it is the same sort of 'one day it will be perfect' thinking that glosses over the messy transition that actually needs to take place first.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Most uses of fossil fuels these days are for fuel, not petrochemicals. The energy needed to get to petrochemicals (and the fraction of carbon currently coming from fossil fuels to get to petrochemicals) are relatively modest.
  - 01100011 4y ago
    Citation needed. Sorry but it takes, more or less, as much energy as that which is stored within the chemical bonds of a petrochemical to make that chemical from raw materials. Also, what? Your comment doesn't seem to fit into the context of our discussion. Where is the energy and raw materials to produce the green energy materials going to come from?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Maybe read more carefully. When renewable energy is abundant, we will find it cheaper to synthesize the hydrocarbons we need than to pump them out of the ground, transport, refine, and transport them again. In the meantime, the overwhelming majority of oil pumped is burned. In the nearer future, only oil that is the absolute cheapest to pump will be, mostly as feedstock for bulk chemistry, because it will not be worth the cost to refine it for fuel. So where will energy to transition come from? Fossil fuels, which are today produced in the trillions of tons annually. As more renewables are built out, some of their output will go into producing new panels. Eventually, panels will be produced from 100% renewable energy. You will not notice any change, except lower power bills.

acallaghan 4y ago

The cargo-cult religion is unfortunately back by science and years of study and agreement amongst scientists - human activity is causing climate change and global warming. You sound like you haven't accepted this fact based reality that we live in and are a part of. Climate change is our fault, and we have to stop it, there is no other alternative that also includes life continuing on earth as we know it. This change is already happening, it's not hypothetical. Global systems are already being affected, extreme weather and drought more common. Global temperature change has to be kept as low as possible, or we risk crop failure, famine and mass immigration at a scale that has never been seen. I understand there are huge logistical issues with shifting off fossil fuels, but we as humans have to. We can get to the moon, we can stop burning old dinosaurs & plants to make stuff work. Even without climate change, these resources are finite. Are you just going to accept waiting for all the oil to run out before making plastic tubes from something else? The clue is in the name fossil, they take millions of years to produce and are non-renewable. You can think of me as a green psychopath all you like, but it doesn't change the cold hard facts. I hope my reply isn't high-intensity BS.

01100011 4y ago
I missed the part where OP denied global warming. You and I both want the same thing. Our shared goals do not negate the laws of chemistry or physics.
neffy 4y ago
It's accurate but not complete. The long term (600k year) climatic history of this planet is sobering, and if only climate change was just our fault. Believe me, there is nothing humanity has so far achieved that comes close to matching what nature does to this planet on a pretty regular schedule. We don't know nearly enough about this by the way, and we especially don't know enough about conditions about the end of the last inter-glacial. For the last 20 odd years we can't even discuss it rationally, because to bring up the non-anthromorphic aspects just gets some innocent scientist labelled a denier. That volcano that went off in the pacific this January appears to have increased the amount of water vapour in the entire atmosphere by 10%. Sit back and contemplate that for a moment, because it is pretty awesome, and also the satellite pictures were quite something, and then take another look at what's happened in Pakistan and Italy. All our fault? We can wish. There is so much more to this than shifting away from fossil fuels - that's the easy one, get rid of your car, and get a bicycle. (Added) I have to feel the mindless downvoting on this and similar comments is just proving my point. Link for the volcano, impacts still being assessed... https://www.npr.org/2022/08/03/1115378385/tonga-volcano-stratosphere-water-warming https://www.npr.org/2022/08/03/1115378385/tonga-volcano-stra... https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-517/egusphere-2022-517.pdf https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-20...

kkfx 4y ago

> Basically a dark age. That's the real enormous issue. Beyond the Green New Deal, witch is green in the sense of dollars main color for very few, chemical/radioactive stereotypical waste leaking from abandoned rusty barrels green while being sold as grass green, we have a real issue: oil is consumed FAR faster than natural regeneration and that since many decades so far, witch means that a day perhaps not that far away it will be more and more scarce and finally unavailable. NOT ONLY for fuel, but also for plastic witch happen to be needed for electrical insulation, hydraulic and air insulation, anti-vibration stuff etc etc etc and we do not know how to replace it on scale. So far no other feasible on scale energy solution exists. Nuclear fission and mountain pumped hydro are the most stable and powerful solution we have, but can't work on scale alone and nothing else is there. Without energy no matter climate change or something else: any civilization collapse anyway.

dharma1 4y ago

You can make steel with just electric heating - Swedish steel companies are making a lot of progress here https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/renewables/sweden-leads-charge-green-steel-projects https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/renewables/sweden-l... Oil and petrochemicals have many uses and they will be with us for decades but at some point this century we will get the vast majority of our energy needs from fusion (the sun), hydro, wind and nuclear. It will likely take longer than we think and but might as well start now than keep running a dangerous experiment on the planet

tricky777 4y ago
however bad we will handle it, thee planet will be just fine. global warming is problem not for the planet or nature, but for humans. if all humans will die, and 99% of species die, planet will still be ok the nature will still live on. just that our last record of existence for anybody else to find will be "we were stupid".

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> PVs have finite lifespan And your car doesn't? What kind of argument is this? My panels have 25 year warranty, whats the warranty on a diesel generator? > questions of how petrochemicals are to be produced if the Green goal of eliminating oil is accomplished. Petromechicals have no relevance to Climate change and CO2 emissions. You can keep using single-use bags and straws and throwing them into landfill untill you use up all the oil on earth. They have relevance to our health, i.e. microplastics, but thats a separate problem.