3 ms·

Bye plastic, bye modern goods, bye technology, bye datacentres, bye freedom of transport. People really don't understand what they're wishing for.

pfdietz 3y ago
Plastic doesn't need oil. It doesn't even need fossil fuels.
- mikrl 3y ago
  My university chemistry prof told us in 2013 that the portion of oil used for non-energy applications was only about 10% so if we stopped using oil for energy it would essentially become an ‘unlimited’ resource again.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Meh, not really. Using fossil fuels 10x more slowly just reduces the rate at which temperatures increase, it doesn't eliminate the temperature increase.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      "Non energy applications", like using it as the starting material for plastic, is not using it as a fossil fuel, so isn't contributing to the temperature increase.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        You think processing of oil (or natural gas) for plastics doesn't involve CO2 emission? Let me introduce you to ethylene crackers.
        AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Go back upthread clear to mikrl's comment (and I know you saw it, because you replied directly to it). mikrl said that the amount of oil used in "non energy applications" (plastic feedstock, but also lubrication, and probably other uses) was only 10%, and that if we stopped using oil for energy, then oil would essentially become an unlimited resource - demand would be nowhere near available supply. You replied that using fossil fuels 10x more slowly would just reduce the rate that the temperature increased. You totally missed mikrl's point - if you had understood it, you would not have replied as though the 10% was being used as a fossil fuel, contributing to global warming. I pointed out that the use being discussed wasn't as a fossil fuel (and therefore that you were missing the point). You replied that there is still some use of fossil fuel to make petroleum usable as plastic. Um, I never said there wasn't. And that still isn't the point under discussion.
    - sohex 3y ago
      Using fossil fuels for plastics has to be better environmentally speaking than using them for energy. Simply by virtue of the fact that the carbon is trapped as a constituent of the plastic, not binding off as CO2 and floating away. That aside though, even if it was ‘just’ a 10x reduction in usage for energy that would still be a huge win because that becomes massively easier to mitigate and offset in effective ways. Every time you increase or decrease the scale of a problem by an order of magnitude it changes the dynamics of approaching it significantly.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Then what do you use for a feedstock?
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Biomass. It's just a small matter of chemistry. Of course this will be more expensive or we'd already be doing it.

pfdietz 3y ago

Plastic doesn't need oil. It doesn't even need fossil fuels.

mikrl 3y ago
My university chemistry prof told us in 2013 that the portion of oil used for non-energy applications was only about 10% so if we stopped using oil for energy it would essentially become an ‘unlimited’ resource again.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Meh, not really. Using fossil fuels 10x more slowly just reduces the rate at which temperatures increase, it doesn't eliminate the temperature increase.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    "Non energy applications", like using it as the starting material for plastic, is not using it as a fossil fuel, so isn't contributing to the temperature increase.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      You think processing of oil (or natural gas) for plastics doesn't involve CO2 emission? Let me introduce you to ethylene crackers.
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
        Go back upthread clear to mikrl's comment (and I know you saw it, because you replied directly to it). mikrl said that the amount of oil used in "non energy applications" (plastic feedstock, but also lubrication, and probably other uses) was only 10%, and that if we stopped using oil for energy, then oil would essentially become an unlimited resource - demand would be nowhere near available supply. You replied that using fossil fuels 10x more slowly would just reduce the rate that the temperature increased. You totally missed mikrl's point - if you had understood it, you would not have replied as though the 10% was being used as a fossil fuel, contributing to global warming. I pointed out that the use being discussed wasn't as a fossil fuel (and therefore that you were missing the point). You replied that there is still some use of fossil fuel to make petroleum usable as plastic. Um, I never said there wasn't. And that still isn't the point under discussion.
  - sohex 3y ago
    Using fossil fuels for plastics has to be better environmentally speaking than using them for energy. Simply by virtue of the fact that the carbon is trapped as a constituent of the plastic, not binding off as CO2 and floating away. That aside though, even if it was ‘just’ a 10x reduction in usage for energy that would still be a huge win because that becomes massively easier to mitigate and offset in effective ways. Every time you increase or decrease the scale of a problem by an order of magnitude it changes the dynamics of approaching it significantly.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Then what do you use for a feedstock?
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Biomass. It's just a small matter of chemistry. Of course this will be more expensive or we'd already be doing it.