Organic chemistry (chemistry involving carbon) is fascinating. It's not always economically feasible, but you can basically transform any carbon based molecule into any other carbon based molecule. It was always very suspicious to me that because of some grand coincidence the refiners were producing exactly what the market demanded. Its clear that they have an ability to adjust output based on demand. Bottom line is that any statement from the oil industry has to be taken with a big grain of salt. Their creativity in finding ways to justify their existence is boundless.
@hyndscsAfter the invention of Rayon/Viscose, Hemp is mostly obsolete. I am still looking into what the most efficient Cellulosic Biomass is, but short of pre semi-synthetic fiber production fiber for rope (flax linen, and maybe cotton (although LCAs needed, water usage for cotton is bad) probably has it beat for textiles), and Cannabis Products (Perfumery, Pharmaceuticals, Recreational Drug Use) hemp is obsolete. I am no war on drugs lover, but at the same time to say hemp is that useful is uninformed and probably coming moreso from a stance of wanting to “stick it to the man” (rightfully so given the outcome of the war on drugs although that is a whole other rant) rather than wanting to make the best and/or most Eco Friendly cellulosic fiber possible. That’s my take at least, I’d love to hear what you think. (Edit: Fixed a Typo)
The birthplace of organic chemistry was the German speaking lands in the 19th century. Not having access to overseas natural rescources like Britain, they invented ways to manufacture Dyes, Medicines, explosives, etc. From carbon rich industrial byproducts. Back in their day that was Coal Tar. Organic Chemistry can work on literally ANY carbon rich feedstock. Economists and Bankers are ultimately the ones that decide which those are.
Unfortunately, oil brought forth the Industrial Age. What sort of lives would we have had without the means to make progress? 😕 Back in the Dark Ages?😢
Mendeleev, the father of the periodic table of the elements, was asked once what he thought about burning petroleum. He said he supposed you could also keep warm by burning banknotes in the kitchen stove...That's the point I make constantly- that petroleum's highest value uses are NOT as fuels. And if we waste less petroleum by burning it, we'll have MORE of this precious, finite resource available to future generations to use for truly high value applications.
@@utubesprot A few products are made from coal oil, but very few. Pretty confident that coal will just stay in the ground in a decarbonized future, once we no longer need it for making coke for steel production.
If you've got unlimited clean energy - which we will if the green transition is done right - then we can just synthesize as much hydrocarbons out of thin air as we need (while also getting CO2 out of it). It's all a question of energy.
I heard Conference of the Parties will be renamed from COP to Keep on Polluting KOP to better reflect the progress being made. By KOP 32 they hope to reach the target of doubling our CO2 emissions in just 50 years.
While I get the humour here- this is a pretty pessimistic outlook. If you look at where we were 5 years ago vs where we are today, there are genuine advances we're making globally that wouldn't have happened without govt support. Personally I'm about to buy an EV with a govt loan, and am actively looking at a heatpump using another govt incentive. The COP summits don't have to fix problems overnight, they just have to keep some pressure up between nations to do better.
That was a pretty good overview of a modern petroleum refinery. I worked at the Conoco Refinery in Westlake, LA back in the 1980s as a plant engineer once I got my BS in Chemical Engineering. BTW, the gunk at the very bottom is used as asphalt to pave roads!
You do know what that BS means don't you? Edit: I gave you a thumbs up. I'm sad because many of my friends children went into petro engineering and now they are mad because they can't find a decent job. I hope you were taught the realities of life because the petro education is based on lies.
Asphalt is *kind of neat too*. Granted i want to read up on Leaching Behavior, and Occupational Hydrocarbon exposure for the workers, BUT: - Unlike Portland Cement based Concrete Pavement it is Infinitely Recyclable (within reason) - Rubberized Asphalt Concrete uses Waste Tires and reduces road noise (although the usage in it, vs use in a Blast Furnace with Emissions Control, or in a W2E Plant is debatable pending a LCA i guess) - To an extent, although especially if Sustainable Biomass such as Algae HTL derived “Bio-Crude”, it can act as “Carbon Sequestration in Construction” to an extent. “Reverse Coal Mining”, but instead of a pile of Charcoal/Petcoke, you have useful roads (impacts of Mass Motorization and the need for less car dependency notwithstanding of course, but roads will be needed in some respect regardless) (Also urban heat island notwithstanding, although novel Cooling Paint layers over the asphalt pavement can reverse this (Granted more complexity and thus LCA’s needed with that) ) (Also Enhanced Weathering Based Concrete Pavement adds more complexity to the Cement vs Asphalt Concrete Paving Debate in an LCA) That’s my rambling take at least, I’d love to hear what you think!
Resid is used for basically four things: 1) feeding to delayed cokers to make more fuels, plus petroleum coke 2) road and roofing tar 3) shipping fuel- when the source is low enough in sulphur to permit this and 4) feeding to extinction hydrocrackers to make more fuels and an even nastier heavy material called "cracker bottoms".
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Yeah, the refinery in Westlake actually feeds it to a delayed coker which produces premium petroleum coke, which at least when I worked there was used to make electrodes for electric arc steel production.
Another banger from you Dave. May I suggest something? A video series called 'Climate Forensics'(or something better) where you take a country and take it's climate policies apart and see what they are doing right and wrong, are the policies backed by actions or are they just words. Would be both educational and click-worthy ;)
I remember a conversation I had with a mechanical engineer in Detroit years ago, discussing electromotive products, including my disdain for the Petroleum Industry as a Profit driven, ultimate authority that disregards the health and wellbeing of others. It was he that reminded me that the best avenue to confront our “betters”, was the banking industry directly…. I have come to realize the truth of that, and with your commentary concerning what CAN be done at “great expense”, my faith in the possibility of actually correcting the problems at hand is being renewed… Thank you for that 🤔😎
I think there is a social thing too. How many EV drivers would support a war to protect oil supplies? Or rules forbidding fossil cars from entering city centers? I think a lot depends on whether it affects you. Now consider what happens if in a couple of years, you can buy an EV for the price of a gas car? There have been power purchase agreements signed in the US for both wind and solar at 2 cents. That can be a half a cent a mile if you could buy it for that. At 4x that I could match gas for heating with a couple of my heat pumps. If everybody had access to cheap renewables only when they are overproducing, we could do a lot. Charge cars, batteries, heat a pile of bricks in the basement.
The very money used to fuel the oil business is not mined or drilled for but created out of nothing (as bank credit not cash) by private commercial banks. The Bank of England Q1 2014 Bulletin website explains how this system operates. This is how almost all of what we now use as money is created. My point is twofold. First you have to know this applies to everything being debated but is left out. Secondly this is where the power is, in the ability to create what is in effect money and choose where it goes for the biggest and quickest returns. This is not a force for good.
@@gordonwilson1631 I’m more familiar with the “how” monies are created (fractional reserve, etc.) than the “why”…Although I am aware concerning the effects of volume vs. purchasing authority, market shares, interest rates, I’m certain that there are additional, more critical, less talked about motivations and intent… Thank you for sharing
Thanks for sharing your chat. Good to know that there are options for the fossil fuel industry. Too bad they didn’t start building towards it sooner, but here we are 😒
It’s something I’ve said for a few years now… the petroleum industry *could* have positioned themselves as the leaders in green energy. With their outrageous profits they could have developed the technologies and continued to be very profitable whilst also helping to decarbonize our economy. Instead they have continued to lie, lobby, cheat and steal to protect their existing business model, while their own internal research has shown for at least 5 decades now that the continued use of fossil fuels would have potentially disastrous consequences for the environment. The people who have enabled this have gotten rich, the rest of the world has to figure out how to reverse or mitigate the damage.
With a replacement rate of two live births per woman that should be a target that is heavily promoted. My parents were part of the generation that should have locked the 'two will do' protocol in place in the 1940's. Sadly for the Global South where the typical existence is subsistence farming or artisanal toil more children mean more help with the labour, Only in the urbanised Global North, where children were an expense (liability), has the reduction in population expansion idea found mass appeal. Anticipation would have prevented Desperation; but 'when one has to get through the day there is little time to worry about next weeks problem'.
@@Stan-b3v Making the range of products desired by ‘the market’ from crude oil is not as simple as is sometimes suggested when ‘bunker oil’ is referred to as the ‘bottom of the barrel’. Among the many highly skilled professionals in the oil refining business the 'elite of the elite' are the 'blenders'; they take the fractions that can be extracted from the crude oil that one set of traders buys and after distillation (both atmospheric and vacuum aka thermal cracking) followed by 'cat cracking', chopping the residual longer and more complex chains of hydro carbon up into shorter bits, with the aid of a catalyst, they have a suite of components. They then blend the components into the products that the other set of traders can sell in the market for the most revenue; all at the least cost in time, energy, effort or any other type of expenditure. When it is possible to find any useful revenue stream anywhere in the process they will, thus low sulphur atmospheric residue (LSAR) from the simplest distillation stage might be saleable as 380cSt HFO if it meets the specification for that product. The regulators set some specification parameters; like sulphur content, either at a national or international level, and those pesky consumers buy what they want from what is available.
There are no "Fossils" in Fuel - that’s another one of there untruths. In reality oil is found at depths where no biological material has ever existed. Its made by the earths mantel from abundant hydrogen and carbon using high pressure and heat. In reality its the second most abundant liquid on the planet and won't run out till all the carbon and hydrogen in the earths mantel is consumed in billions of years time.
Dave, no need to apologise. You're one of my favourite ultracrepidarians! At least you admit it; honesty is the best policy. If only those big oil spokespeople could be as honest with the public and with governments. Thanks for this most informative video.
We just dumped our gas heating and installed a heat pump. As we drive electric and don‘t fly at all we are prepared for the desperately needed changes outlined in your excellent video. Politicians, please proceed!!!
I don't know if biomass could completely substitute for petroleum to supply our plastics industry, but I suspect that it could. Perhaps you have already made a video about this?
@@joemccarthy7120 If governments wouldn't invest in people changing their heating systems etc. they would pay much higher prices for the destructive conditions, that climate change causes.
Thank you for the insight Dave, fascinating as always. Might be worth exploring at some stage (or again?) the other myths the industry is using to try to derail the transition we must go through? Those myths such as plant food for CO2, societal collapse will follow the end of fossil fuel combustion etc. etc. ? I know other online sources cover them to some extent, but a good summary might be handy...
@@TRWnan They seem to have not worked out how concise videos most likely appeal to more? Dave is great with videos hovering around 15 mins... There are plenty of 1 hour plus youtube videos that I have ... ... not quite been able to get to yet...
CO2 is plant food though. Greenhouses actually pump extra CO2 in to help grow food quicker. Part of the reason the earth is getting greener is due to CO2 levels going up.
@@pin65371 Straight from the fossil fuel industry obfuscation playbook / training manual. CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth, it comes way after nutrients, light, & water. CO2 in greenhouses is where those other needs are met so CO2 becomes one of the plant growth determining factors, although the results vary with extra CO2 making some plants less nutritious, the picture is not clear but quite nuanced. The greening is also nuanced, improved agricultural practice is a major factor in this greening. Stomata density on the leaves of prehistoric plants is actually a proxy for prehistoric CO2 levels, as CO2 levels gradually climb, then plants reduce stomata density as they need fewer pores to maintain their CO2 consumption, and so reduce water loss with fewer stomata, as CO2 is not one of the key factors in plant growth. Pretty sure Dave could give you chapter & verse of the research documenting this!
Great vid and graphics. Very informative. I worked at a refinery years ago and have limited knowledge of the subject. Oil industry claims you need them. If I was running a scam, that is what I would say. Organic plant based oils work well for all of these things. We would be better off if those oils were used for medicine than popcorn. High temp autoclave can break down these left overs.
The producers supply what the consumers will buy; so first stop focus on what you 'need' not what you 'want'. We the consumers have the power of rejection.
It is possible to make a wide range of products such as jet fuel from vegetable oil. But the global production of vegetable oil, mostly for edible purposes, is only about 200 million tonnes per year compared with aviation fuel ~300 million tonnes per year and total petroleum production of over 4 billion tonnes per year
Occasionally when sitting on the bus you'll see a skinny old lady running for the bus. Now if she drove a car she would be a lot heavier unable to run and need more of that medicine you mentioned.
@@AlanRPaine Fossil fuels are cheap making them accessable thus consumable on large scale that introduced economies of scale further reducing costs and on and on and on. Sadly the real evils over consumption by an overly large population, are the elephants in the room no one talks about. It is fashionable to blame producers when the villans in the piece are really us consumers.
Very good video. By the way I love your dry British humor in the beginning. There was much surprise for me on the petrochemical industry. You also opened up a real can of worms with over consumption and using the earth as an open sewer. I can't say enough about this video , a truly great job.
Excellent as always. Its worth noting that flaring is extremely destructive to air quality and causes cancers in people who live near where this happens. So its definitely something worth investing in.
I’m being a bit snobby here, but *Citation Needed. Granted “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana etc is a VERY real thing, but if i remember correctly (Granted *citation needed for me to lol) it was largely due to improper wastewater treatment, and BTEX pollution (also maybe people working at business there that have poor industrial hygiene programs) Assuming it burns all the stuff there should be CO2 and Water Vapor. As with vehicles it is probably a bit more i complete of combustion, so NOx, CO, and Soot (akin to DPM potentially?) as well. Granted this would mostly cause respiratory issues if I understand correctly. Granted if the unburnt hydrocarbon pollution is enough and of the types required i guess it could cause the various cancers. Either way i hate their pollution and it’s impact on the poor just as much as the next guy, but what specifically causes the cancers is a bit more complex than the Flaring itself. Granted again i do agree this is splitting hairs a bit, Like me going “Did the bullet kill them via Bleeding or Hydrostatic Shock” when the other person is there saying “The killer is right there dumbass”! Either way here’s to making sure the Fossil Fuel companies are forced to clean up their act!
I never understood why instead of flaring that gas, they don't use it in a boiler for process heat or making electricity to power the plant, or export electricity.
@@niconico3907flaring is a waste disposal method. Alternative waste disposal methods are less economic and is less environmentally friendly. (More pipes more leaks, more infrastructure) Yes, industry can sequestrate CO2 and manage pollutants better. That will result in higher prices passed on to users but less CO2 emissions and less pollution. The question is whether this approach leaves us better off compared to the “green transition” that is also dependent on burning fuel, uses resources and have an environmental footprint. If we do not like our chances then there is always demand management…….. Fewer people will require fewer resources….. So, now we have three alternatives to consider. 1. Improved efficiency and effectiveness 2. Green transition that will have a massive initial carbon footprint 3. Manage demand ……. 4. Other? Take your pick. No free lunch, sorry.
@@niconico3907 return on investment is an important concept. If disposing of waste in a sensible way creates better economic and environmental outcomes that is surely the way to go. No action comes without waste and one should therefore always consider your option and do a thorough analysis. But then again, most alarmists choose to ignore the reality of unintended consequences. Some call it known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns! Of course we should use waste products. This podcaster did a really good job to explain how efficient the petroleum industry is. But yes, the industry can be improved.
I’m one of those employed in a down stream fossil fuel business, that would need to be redeployed if the world was to move significantly away from hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon based commodity products. But even though things have been changing, new polyethylene plants have opened up in just the last few years and more are on the drawing boards. We would need an absolutely major and seriously colossal paradigm shift in the way we live life to do away with poly ethylene derived products that a shift to renewable energy simply doesn’t deliver. Ever seen how much plastic is involved in EV’s? Solar PV? Or Irrigation? Medical industry? Clothing? Food? Packaging? Power distribution? Furnishings? Toys? Etc. Society would need to be redesigned. This goes well beyond removing plastic bags from supermarkets. For what it is worth, the little we heard from your guest was genuine and transparent, he wasn’t gilding the Lilly in any way. Excellent video.
Shifting the ENTIRE relationship humankind has with energy is obviously a gargantuan challenge. The materials challenges are just a subset of that much bigger problem. No problem making PE and PP in a decarbonized future. All that light stuff that currently is burned as fuel gas in refineries can be cracked to make ethylene and propylene, to replace the current sources which are ethane and propane from natural gas.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 In my part of the world, it is the natural gas that comes up with the recovered crude oil from which the dominant component Ethane is extracted and value added by being cracked into ethylene and propylene (for downstream polymerisation). What "light stuff" cats and dogs from crude oil distillation can be "cracked" in current tech SRT steam crackers to make Ethylene and Propylene?
A thought that has occurred to me lately, seeing the reduction in fossil fuel industry's investment in renewables, is that many may actually want to go bankrupt. For a while FF companies were showing signs of beginning the switch to renewables - however pathetically small that was. But the problem with remaining viable is they will continue to be on the hook for all the lawsuits and government demands for compensation and cleaning up their mess. It is estimated that the the Tar Sand in Alberta alone have an unfunded liability of over $250 Billion to restore the area into something that doesn't even match the nature it destroyed. Just something that isn't an ongoing environmental catastrophe. And that doesn't even include its contribution to air pollution global warming. I'm concerned that the higher ups will begin quietly divesting leaving dupes and taxpayers with all the costs.
@@lshwadchuck5643 So do I. They'll make off with any remaining value, and leave taxpayers holding the bag to clean up their mess. If we were smart, we'd pass legislation to prevent this outcome. But too much of Congress is bought off by the oil industry.
The expertise oil and gas companies have is often very different to what is needed in renewables. They are already moving towards transforming into chemical companies and similar things. However only offshore wind and geothermal have any sort of real skill transfer. That is not to say those skills are not usefull for other industries then renewables thou.
@@incognitotorpedo42 same in Canada to a somewhat lesser extent. They're bucking the end of their tax breaks by promising carbon capture. Pure greenwashing.
Ya our duped south of that believe that single pipeline extension made us slaves to Saudi Arabia and their brilliance in capitalism never heard of supply and demand after 2020, but then remember it in 2021 despite the numbers.
They really have to get out of the oil shales mining buisness.. its possibly even worse than Germany historically open cast mining brown lignight as a source of pollution and environmental damage.
We didn't care, but we were too puny for our uncaring to result in too much damage. But then we got bigger, and so did our impacts. Petroleum helped with this. But we can use petroleum wisely, if we choose to.
I have noticed an increase in news articles against electric car, battery, and environmental technology lately. It's almost like the oil and auto industry have come to an understanding that they need to work together to keep up the status quo. There was such optimism and hope a year ago. There is still tons of advances and positive news, but if you don't like to dig for it, you would never know it. Thankyou for your informative and entertaining show. Carl from Washington state, usa
To quote the famous philosopher, Pogo, “we have met the enemy, and he is us”. If we wouldn’t buy stuff, then they wouldn’t make it. If they didn’t make it, then we wouldn’t have pollution. We cannot continue on the assumption that we can continue to have everything that we do, and also reduce pollution of all kinds to any meaningful extent.
My knowledge of oil refining was at level "I think I've heard something about manipulating the length of carbohydrates" which to me means they can make anything out of everything in oil. Thank you for confirming and deepening this knowledge.
Thanks for another great vlog topic. One thing not mentioned was the use of fossil fuels in agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides & herbicides etc) - agriculture is one of the top users of fossil fuels and emissions sources. In industry, ammonia is a very important chemical product, and heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The top natural alternatives to fossil fuels include fungi, hemp, rattan, algae / seaweed, bamboo & cork - all must be sustainably & ethically harvested of course. Palm oil is also extremely useful, but cultivation, harvesting & distribution is extremely problematic at this time. We do seem to making incremental progress in the industries producing the most emissions (except for agriculture - unsure what progress is being made here if any) - electricity & heating (moving to clean tech and energy & thermal storage) - fuels for transportation & freight including shipping (moving towards electrification & battery storage) - steel (new processes) - cement (new processes) - industrial heating (moving towards electrification and thermal recovery & storage) - producing chemicals, dyes, paper & plastics (use of alternative materials & processes) - waste from landfills & human waste processing (expanding the circular economy) - clothing & fashion (???) - agriculture (???) Scientists, engineers & academics are working very hard to decarbonise these sectors, despite the incredible push back from governments, dirty industries, vested interests, economic oligarchs and the misinformed. Hopefully it won't be a case of too little too late - we certainly are leaving it to the last last last minute. Agriculture is the only sector that seems to have fallen through the cracks. We must also remember that the climate crisis isn't solely about the increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere (most notedly CO2 which is at 420 ppm (vs the safe 350 ppm), methane & nitrous oxide (mainly from agriculture)) - which is very serious & needs to be reduced very quickly very very soon. The flip side of the climate breakdown coin is the destruction & degradation of GHG sinks, such as the oceans, kelp & mangrove forests, seagrass meadows, tropical forests & soils etc. All these critical GHG sinks might have reached their max capacity for GHG drawdown so any increase in GHG concentrations from now on is going to exacerbate the climate crisis very very significantly going forward.
Ag products like fertilizer are the same as other petroleum materials and chemicals mentioned in this video. They are not "fossil fuels", they are products made beside fossil fuels. So the topic of the video was about maintaining fertilizer etc. production when we no longer need to fuel production.
I think “Bio-Petrochemistry” will still have it’s role. Also Semi-Synthetic Textiles such as Rayon/Viscose are good alternatives to many Synthetic Fibers, and Precision Fermentation will allow for (Spider) Silk as well. Chitosan has many promising applications as well. Broader Adoption of Low/No-Till Aggriculte and Applications of Some “Permaculture” Princaples such as Co-Cropping etc, and Genetic Engineering for Nitrogen Fixing etc all will hopefully make Agriculture less dependent on Fertilizer and Pesticides, although their need will still remain in some amount one would think. I have made a few other comments on this video, and would be happy to infodump more later, but i think this is okay for now. I’d love to hear what you think, and maybe even discuss/plan for a video sometime!
The big use of fossils in agriculture, in terms of both mass and importance, is ammonia- which is derived today from hydrogen made from natural gas, not from petroelum.
@@ericlotze7724 There seems to be some awareness among the fashion set about moving towards sustainability & the need to reduce fast fashion waste. Perhaps once the plsstics treaty hss been finalised, the next treaty needs to focus on the export of clothing waste to developing countries etc. In terms of our broken food system, it's really complicated & complex - farmers earn a pittance (high suicide rates in some countries) while food producers & retailers earn mega profits. Food wastage in many places can be as high as 40%. I'm a great fan of permaculture and food forests. The question is can it feed 8 billion people? Project Drawdown likes silvopasture. If 80% of people will eventually live in cities, urban agriculture needs serious attention to ensure food security. Of course agriculture does not only provide food for people, but to feed livestock & pets, ingredients for beverages, medicines, perfumes, fibres for clothing & construction, fuels, commercial flowers, and other industries There is also a huge ethics problem with the privatisation & commercialisation of food, including patenting of genetic code. Modern agriculture is a huge topic with many insersecting issues, challenges, vested interests & shenanigans. And often not discussed as part of the climate crisis. WWF has done an excellent report on food (From Farm to Fork) and the FAO has a report on the food - water - energy nexus (I include land as part of this intersecting challenge), also critical in the climate discussion. There are some excellent doccies on the topic. As a vegetarian (I'm trying to go vegan), animal welfare is also a critical aspect in the agri / climate discussion in that if we are comfortable with cruelty as part of our society, cruelty towards people (esp. women & children) is generally not far behind. In my opinion a disregard for enviro & biodiversity welfare directly links to the climate crisis, and closely related to enviro injustice, crimes against women & children and other social inequality.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 i understand the term "fossil fuels" to include oil, coal & natural gas. Petroleum is only one product of the fossil fuel industry. In many industries fossil fuels can be used directly (heat, electricity, fuels for machinery) or indirectly (using the products of the fossil fuel industry as inputs) - not fogetting all the investment profits made by investors - all producing GHGs & pollutants that's killing our world & ourselves (eg PFASs).
Brilliant video as usual. Your excellent presentation skills, combined with a pinch of dry humour with having to resort to theatrics is so professional. I never thought that I would watch a video explaining the refining of fossil fuels as I am an ardent believer in renewable energy but when I saw that it was Dave questioning the mantra of the fossil fuel industry I knew the answer would not only be possible but good! Thank you!
Interesting education in refinery design. I have heard that German industry had been using natural gas as feedstock for large swaths of industrial products, not just for energy. So I’d be interested in learning more about how that worked as a follow on.
Well, with the sudden slowdown in Russian supplies, lots of processes had to be throttled down or paused until other supplies rejoined the German market (for example: Some North Sea gas fields were in the middle of a major rebuild and couldn't supply gas at the time). Longer term, the chemical engineers at BASF etc. will need to dig into their archives for methods of supplying Germany without access to Crimean and Caucasian oil fields (a problem they also faced last that area was at war) .
USA has been using waste gas from oil wells in Alaska to make Ammonia Nitrate fertilizer since the 1970's. They burn the gas with a catalyst to bond the Nitrogen in the air to the Hydrogen to make to a granular fertilizer.
A very useful and comprehensive video giving an insight into the complexity of an effective transition to a non carbon based economy, I am a 92 year chemical engineer who was trained to deal with an oil and coal based world and the production of all its products, however I felt reluctant to burn what had taken millions of years to create. I feel today that no government is able to administer the details of how thousands of necessary products must be sourced, produced and distributed, this has to be left to the markets through the price mechanism where oil and coal is charged and constantly increasing tax at source on an absolutely world wide basis. Thereafter, it is to each individual user, small or large, to decide whether it is worthwhile for themselves to burn it by flaring, or in cars, etc.. or products worth $thousands per kg. This could provide for a gradual transition over the next 25 years . 😊
Raising the price of energy raises the price of everything. Energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services. Raising the price of energy harms the poor the most. They starve, while the rich just buy smaller yachts.
The comment your guest makes at the end of his presentation starting at 10:32, he concludes "right now we have these giant gas networks that distribute gas over hundreds to thousands of kilometers and every pipe leaks a little bit, every joint, every flange, leaks a little bit and that will have to be taken care of, but, again, the gas industry is mostly a self fixing problem because the way we'll fix those problems is by not using natural gas anymore." Which is simply incorrect, as natural gas is often a byproduct of drilling for oil in the first place. Getting rid of the market for natural gas doesn't get rid of natural gas. It just makes it worthless, and if it's worthless it is much more likely to be flared off...
Add to that a reduction in fossil fuel use will mean a reduction in petroleum drilling which will also mean a reduction in incidental gas finds and need for flaring.
Produced Gas can also be run into Generators (for onsite power, or *maybe* power export), or as per a paper i can grab, reformed and made into Dimethyl Ether (DME) which can be used in onsite diesel engines/generators, or exported offsite like Propane.
Most natural gas isn't co-produced with petroleum, but rather is recovered on its own. Small amounts of light hydrocarbons heavier than methane and ethane are recovered as LPG and "natural gasoline" from these gas wells.
I recall my college organic chemistry 🧪 textbook 📕 had “profile of a chemical: carbon monoxide, an industrial feedstock”. It’s all nice juicy reactive carbon-oxygen bond. 👍
It's kind of the reagent of last resort, which I mention in the video in relation to the "lights"- the stuff coming off the top of various process units which contains gases like methane, ethane etc. that are too light to make into useful products. Those you would have to convert in a reformer to CO and H2, i.e. "syngas", and feed to methanol or Fischer Tropsch units to turn them into something useful again. But F-T is quite an energetically wasteful process, so you don't want to do that more than you absolutely need to. Unfortunately, and for fundamental reasons, it's really good at turning that CO and H2 you just made, BACK into methane and water, meaning you have to recycle the methane again.
Here in Queensland Australia we hit a record 200mt of coal production last year and India can't get enough It's just none stop and production is set to exceed 300mt in the next 10 years So apparently Coal is the king of commodities that we just can't do without Coal mining provides wealth, jobs and an incredible amount of disposable income that has for generations built a political system that is a behemoth dedicated to it's own insatiable appetite
Everything you need to know about this IS taught in a typical chemical engineering curriculum. It's just not taught in the context of how you could run a refinery without making gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, because right now we DO make 75-85% of every barrel into fuels. I certainly remember over 30 yrs ago, when we first learned about Fischer Tropsch- and it WAS taught in the context of "...and this is how we could keep making petroleum after we've burned all of it we can find in the earth".
My father, an engineer and mechanic, always reckoned oil is far too valuable to just burn,whether to produce steam or movement. Way too inefficient. Nice video Dave well presented
The Fossil Fools keep telling us that we can't, but… WE CAN. I'll bet the whalers claimed that we couldn't do without whale oil either. Don't drink the Fossil-Fool Aid, folks!
Just like if you went back and time and asked the guys in the 1850s who were drilling for oil where it was seeping out of the ground, how likely it would be that we could find enough to burn 10 million barrels per day...they'd have laughed and laughed at you!
I think your video title should be; Why are we burning this valuable commodity when it is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, electronics, fertilizers, plastics, etc. I think the fact that oil will become scarce and thus force up prices on essential items and we should be burning other less valuable and scarce chemicals.
Interesting video Dave, thanks. I also work(ed) in the industry, and I have never really heard the claim that it's impossible to make the byproducts without burning the fuel. I have only ever heard it said that it's not possible to do so with the current setup, and without changing processes significantly. Of course, that all takes cost, time, and large amounts of energy to do. Fundamentally though, the argument has always been an economic one. Yes, we could produce the other commodities without burning fossil fuels, but all those commodities are currently subsidised by the burning (selling fuels for burning in other words) of fossil fuels. Thus, those commodities are likely to rise significantly in cost, and those commodities also form the building blocks of our entire economic system (with regard to materials flow). If I can be critical of your otherwise excellent work, I think this video failed to get to grips with the economics of the situation, and indeed failed to provide a critique of our economic system. I have to agree with the oil industry with this one, that there is no way to provide the commodities we currently use (read: waste) without burning the fuel. There is a circular issue in play that the economy needs these commodities but cannot accomodate the subsequent rise in price that will be required by taking fossil fuel profits out of the mix. The answer is, of course, to tackle both the fossil fuel issue and the economic system in parallel (which is where I completely differ from my friends in the oil industry, obviously). The answer is, and always has been, to reduce, reduce and reduce again. Less plastics, less fertiliser, less electronics, and so on. The only thing preventing this is the economic system that we're all part of. I think we all know this too, and we all know that there are limits to growth. I do like Paul Martin, your guest also, he's a great thinker and speaker. I'd recommend everyone checks out his (and others') interview with Nate Hagens.
Thank you Dave. You have a talent for taking complex subjects and making them easier to understand. I have a suggestion for you. I just finished reading Michael Mann’s new book titled “Our Fragile Moment”. You could take this excellent book on climate science and summarize it for your followers.
Hi John. I've just received my copy of that book. Mann also recently criticised James Hansen's latest paper. I plan to attempt to understand where their differences lie, and which of the two we should regard as more accurate or realistic (neither is a great option, by the way!)
@@JustHaveaThink I suspect that you will find Michael Mann to be well grounded and a little more conservative. We have several excellent geoscientists here in Tucson at the University of Arizona. Michael mentions one of them in the book. Her name is Jessica Tierney. She has given two lectures to the geosciences class that I led at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI-UA). Her department head told me that she is a rock star in her field of paleoclimatology.
Thanks Dave! My brother works revamping the control systems and other requirements for these plants down in Houston. This is the lifeblood of Houston, so something has to be done to keep the jobs and change our ways, away from greenhouse gas emissions and towards renewables. I'm glad you mentioned a bit of the thinking being given to transitioning towards a green future. Your guest is amazingly astute in this area, and I recon that the industry simply has to move towards changes and renewables, which the owners obviously won't like to do, but even they live on planet earth. 🌎. Sure it's expensive to deal with the changes, but planet B is a long ways off, so we'll have to keep planet A in good shape. 😊 These industries have branches that make the ultra pure silicon and on up to modules, so they need to grow those sectors and shift the economic levers in that direction, they could even make more insulation boards and other products to max out the performance of building envelopes. ✉️ 🌄
Blah blah blah! You're wiki- scrapping ESG Given Wisdom 'Renewable Energy!' narrative. Like reading Harry Potter! _"Elixirim probablis notis!"_ Pentagon just looted $33B from Biden's ' Renewable Energy!' slush fund while you were bleating! Documented!
What atmospheric gases have the capacity to generate a genuine greenhouse effect in the free atmosphere? In terms of climatology, water vapour is the only gas that's a powerful temperature regulator. The rest of them are irrelevant, and the physics/associated mathematics can prove it.
They are chemical (process) companies, they could be producing whatever is needed. OPEC thinks demand for oil will keep _increasing_ until 2050, do with that fact whatever you like, but if true, that doesn't sounds good. The industry keeps talking more and more about synthetic fuels, maybe they need it to keep up with demand now that these processes have become more economically. I don't think they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. 🙂
Hi Dave, thanks for this. I didn’t know it was possible to only refine the things you want and leave the rest unrefined. I’m also very happy that you talked about the need to reduce consumption. That often gets left out. The only thing I’m unclear on is what we do with the unrefined oil. Am I misunderstanding something? We have to pump the whole barrel of oil to get the parts we want, so we still have the parts we don’t want out of the ground. Do we pump that part back into the ground or what? Maybe I missed something? Can you please explain? Thanks.
The Catalytic “Cracking” Currently used to make Gasoline and other light Components could be used to only make Gas Fractions for Chemicals, Plastics, and Pharmaceuticals. The gases could also be put into a Pyrolysis unit and turned into Hydrogen and Carbon Black (the “Turquoise Hydrogen” or whatever goofy term was used) Catalytic “Upgrading” could also be used to make lighter fractions into heavier ones for Lubricating Oils, Waxes, and Asphalt. Also as less Fuel is needed, less needs to be extracted, and smaller refineries can exist. Also rather than Refining or simply Flaring, the leftovers could be fed into a Generator such as a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine or Solid Oxide Fuel Cell etc and turned into electricity and central heating. Granted some form of Carbon Capture, or at least MAJOR emissions control would be needed as well. This is a bit more speculative, but “Disposal” of unused fractions in an “Injection Well” (potentially in the exact well the original crude oil/gas was extracted from, pending logistical mess), or as my favorite “Reverse Coal Mining” of the Carbon Black could be done. Making a PILE of Carbon Black and Carbon Fiber, as well as Synthetic Graphite, the latter of which is a fossil resource that will need to be phased out thus a growing market in of itself, are another way to go. All in all What *exactly* will happen (as with most things Fossil Fuel Phaseout / Decentralization of the Economy wise) is a major unknown for now as there are essentially infinite ways to go, but there are various educated guesses such as those mentioned in the video/what I mentioned. Hope this helped!
You don't "refine what you need and leave the rest unrefined"- you take the suite of molecules you start with, separate them, and then convert the ones you don't want, into the ones you do. The ones that are too small, you convert to synthesis gas in a reformer and use a process like Fischer Tropsch or methanol synthesis to make into bigger molecules or other valuable products. You crack lights to make olefins for plastics, and to polymerize into bigger molecules if needed. You "plat-form" straight chain molecules to make them into aromatics. And you crack and desulphurize heavy hydrocarbons to make stuff to feed the other processes. Only those molecules you need, are removed. You recycle the rest internal to the refinery. It's a bit more complex than that, but that more or less describes how we run refineries today- except refineries today are optimized to turn 75-85% of each barrel (after 20% is used as fuel gas) into molecules that we burn.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 I’ve only read a little on the Fischer Troph Process, how commonly is that used (especially in plants not specifically designed for Coal or Gas to Liquids)? Also what all do you know about that other process, what was it “Methanol to Olefins” or something, was Syngas->Methanol if i remember correctly, then either to DME and stuff from that (which I somewhat understand), then some full on organic chemistry / catalyst dark magic to make more complex hydrocarbons? I am VERY interested in the whole Bio-Petrochemisry / “Power-to-Chemicals” / “Power-to-Fuels” type ecosystem so I’d love to hear what all you know!
@@ericlotze7724 Fischer Tropsch is a process where any carbonaceous material can be gasified, with water as needed, to produce CO and H2, which are then reacted with one another to make long hydrocarbon chains, generally straight chains. Coal and natural gas have been used in past. Biomass can also be used. But when fossil petroleum is permitted to be made into fuels to be burned instead, F-T is an economic disaster. It is energy inefficient and requires a huge capital investment. It can't make money except at GIANT scale, even when fed FREE natural gas as a source of both feedstock and energy. There are many syngas processes. Syngas can be used to make methanol, acetic acid etc. A F-T type catalyst can be used to make olefins directly from syngas. Methanol can also be reacted to make olefins, and methanol can be reacted over a zeolite catalyst in the old Mobil "Methanol to Gasoline" process, producing aromatics. Two methanol molecules can also be reacted with one another to produce DME and water, but DME is more or less useless other than as a diesel replacement- so it's of no use if the source carbon is of fossil origin. It makes far more sense to make -(CH2)- from petroleum than to try to make it from CO2 or C6 H10 O5 (the generic approximate formula for biomass). Biomass is hydrogen deficient plus it requires huge additional amounts of hydrogen to remove the oxygens as water. But if we use fossil sources like petroleum, we MUST NOT burn the products, either on purpose as fuels, or at end of life. Power to X (where X is fuels) is best understood as "power to excrement", i.e. you take pure thermodynamic work, waste most of it, and the product is a small amount of chemical energy- a proxy for heat. Bad, wasteful idea. Something to do out of desperation, not choice.
Eliminating methane use is hard because of civilian use. Way too many people rely on it for home heating. Even if electric or heat pump is much cheaper to run. Most simply do not have the money to swap. Even if gov paid 2/3 of it.
Electrified heater is the same price or cheaper than gas furnace. So it could easily happen with new home builds or replacements in old homes as gas furnaces wear out. It is called "transition" not "snap your fingers and no one uses gas any more". And it easily could have started decades ago when it would have been less urgent.
Bio-Methane (from Anaerobic Digestion of Manure and/or Sewage, as well as potentially stuff like compostable waste or dedicated sustainable biomass), or my personal Favorite *Dimethyl Ether* (DME) both exist currently at some scale, and can easily be scaled up. Biogas can even be done yourself with the various DIY / Open Source designs for a “Biodigester”, granted these smaller Anaerobic Digesters are a bit more finicky, and produce “Biogas” which has sulfur impurities as well as water and carbon dioxide, BUT it can be used as is, or upgraded with some small devices to decently pure methane. DME is my favorite though as it can be made from Electricity or Biomass, and stores like propane. Also makes an AMAZING diesel fuel due to it’s high cetane value and inability to produce Diesel Particulate Matter (aka soot) (Granted might be some issues with seals, probably have to use more Fluropolymers like Vitron etc, or even metal gaskets, although I haven’t found as much information as i want on all this, but this is the only real concern i have found on dme) It’s usually used as a more portable/easier to use form of Coal, rather than being made sustainably, but SE Asia is investing quite a bit in DME if i remember correctly. I’m rambling, but despite the fact that i do like heat pumps (especially ground source heat pumps!) more, i do agree things like CNG and/or Propane have their uses, but i think there are plenty of replacements. I’d love to hear your thoughts on all that though!
Mendeleev, the father of the periodic table of the elements, was asked once what he thought about burning petroleum. He said he supposed you could also keep warm by burning banknotes in the kitchen stove...That's the point I make constantly- that petroleum's highest value uses are NOT as fuels.
@@incognitotorpedo42 From 'it' I mean petroleum products. And yes, its not economically viable yet. But the cost of Precision fermentation is decreasing and sometime in the future it will become viable.
So your expert answered very Clearly the first, best thing we can do today. Methane is not CO2, & "equivalent" (not) is that methane is 80x stronger than CO2. He clearly said and glossed over, could be captured, reused, eliminate flaring, etc. Plus methane quickly degrades in the atmosphere unlike CO2 (permenant). Quick fixes all without dealing with the larger problems you ran rough-shod over and each should be a topic. Not least, the title. By confusing different terms /gasses and a whole different topic/video (extinction of gas or us) only a few viewers likely followed much. I know you complain about people like me, but I leave nice comments and like your work so I'm uncharacteristically taking time to write this in hopes you will do your excellent work on methane. The consumption world driving the pollution one is also a great topic, so keep the title for that. Sincerely....
Oil industry seeing their fuel demands begin to 'evaporate', finally, but sadly ironically right as El Nino and additional effects really start to cook up. Seems like we human just have to see it .....to believe action is needed. I kinda cringe at better late than never, because just how late really?. Intervention and time will tell!
Unlike most commentors on this page I found this video to be lightweight, even juvenile. Starting with some givens, 1. Our proliferate consumption has to change, 2. The climate crisis is real, 3. The change needed is massive, bigger than any seen in living history. But your video guest was talking about what is technically possible, when we all know that is the easy part. What your guest was saying was that the process plants can change but will need to be rebuilt or completely reconfigured. The volume of hydrocarbons needed by our world today means that this will take decades and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Who is going to pay for this massive about turn, the consumers of course, and there lies the biggest stumbling block. Politicians answer to voters, who are consumers and consumers have a limit as to what they will pay, and politicians want to stay in power. As we have seen with EVs, when they are presented to the mass market, as compared to the wealthy first movers, there is a very hard limit to what consumers will pay to change, both in money and in inconvenience. So, in summary, we need to change but it is not going to be pretty or smooth, and is going to take decades. This, the real challenge, was completely absent from your video.
Hemp can help with a lot. The big oil lobbied the governments to ban it because they knew how much of a wonder plant it is. You can make almost everything with hemp from clothes to dinner plates etc.
Its true. Hemp is a wonder crop with so many possibilities. The dominoes are falling, more nations are legalising cannabis so that objection to hemp is void. People need educating. Separate individual hemp fibres with steam jets to weave a cloth as fine as silk and much stronger. Clothes that last forever.
I said this in another comment, but it wasn’t banned by oil lobbies, it was due to it being *sort of* related to high thc producing cannabis. Essentially the Poppy Seed production vs Heroin Production Issue. Not that that was a good choice, but that was the reason, not some conspiring cabal. On the note of it’s usefulness, in the era before Semi-Synthetic Textiles it was one of the best Natural Fiber sources, although as compared to Flax Linen, short of rope it falls a bit short. Granted Life Cycle Assessments of Cotton vs Linen vs Hemp etc are the only way to get “hard” data, but yeah. Now though with the invention of Rayon/Viscose, *any* cellulose source can be made into a fiber of superior properties. Although a Plastic Fiber can ve used as well, a substantial portion of Carbon Fiber is made from Rayon as well, and Carbon Fiber is HEAVILY used for it’s superior properties (Granted usually in a composite of Plastic, although Bio-Plastics, or even Graphite or Chitosan can be used as well). In my opinion at least the choice of Hemp is either due to people not knowing all of that rant of mine, which is valid, or a sort of ignorant “stick it to the man” isage of it to spite the war on drugs authorities with your rebellious rope. I don’t want to sound mean, and i hate the results of the war on drugs as much as the next guy, but Hemp is ovverated vs either Local Grasses/other Local Biomass, or the Ultimate Cellulosic Feedstock (like the selectively bred/genetically engineered bamboo with the Guinness World Record for Fastest Plant growth etc) That’s my take at least, i’d love to hear your thoughts on all this.
Hemp is a great fibre that we were denied access to because of stupid puritanism. But it's a biomass material like all others. I just wish the pot-heads would stop claiming that it's the perfect thing to use to make everything, or that it cures cancer etc. You can literally make a silk purse from enough sow's ears, too, but that doesn't make it a sensible thing to do.
I've been following this channel for a long time now. It provides a good scientific background to support its arguments, as well as, gives a great update of the latest publications. So, I'm not gonna lie, this title scared me a bit as I wasn't sure what to expect. However, I'm glad it turned out to be the great one (again)! Thank you!
Thank you dave for this information. I am trying to be practical. As far as i understand global warming is a fact of life. What im curious about is how industry and governments are planning to handle the changes forseen?
A really great program.. I would love you to know that your channel is a Very valuable contribution and education to the world debate on climate change,, Keep up the great work.
We could have phased out oil at the least in most of transportation and large sections of manufacturing with solar panels. Especially if we invested heavily in the technology starting in the 70s
Solar has limited yield, and more investment herein is like trying to push a fully loaded wheelbarrow uphill in mud. The same goes for wind, the more we litter our landscapes with these technologies the lower the actual yield will be for growing economies. We need to advocate for free energy and water, and get governments worldwide to implement this immediately, there are better technologies out there than solar and wind, 70+ % of our earth is dynamic water.
Granted Photovoltaic has more complexity in terms of Sustainability. It has E-Waste levels of complexity for reprocessing. Not impossible, but not that easy. Also i think the “hurdles” exist more in the Sustainable Biomass->Fuels or the Power-to-X type workflows, although those are currently at a sufficiently high Technology Readiness Level to work in my opinion, and as you said could have been sped up via earlier focus and investment. (Also Coal-to-Liquids and Gas-to-Liquids overlap heavily with the technology I mention and thus much of the core concepts already existed short of Fuel Cell / Reverse Fuel Cell work and some Catalysts)
"Need" is a weird word. Things are only "needed" until they're not. Where's the expense of things and where's the profit? THAT tells one what's up with "needs". The folks that sell things will tell you ANYTHING to keep you buying things. Good vid. I doubt most folks understand what's up with these processes.
I'm thinking we'll always need petro-derived products. I'd like to know what those might be ? Over the short term and long term. Cost ? Nah, there's always a cost. My simple mind can't collate all the data Dave has presented us over the years so I need help big time to find out an answer.
A better way to think of it is that we'll always need certain molecules and materials that are easiest to make FROM petroleum. There's just no need to burn anything to do that, contrary to what the fossil producers are telling us. You certainly would need a very, very different refinery than the ones today, which turn 75-85% of each barrel (after 20% is used as fuel IN the refinery) into things that we burn.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Agreed, though that's the long view. My short view always comes back to airplanes 'cause it'll be awhile 'til they're not powered by combustion. (me? I'm just a retired firmware programmer.) Perhaps some vigorous exothermic chemistry is on the horizon ?
@@mpart_woodlathe-stuff yes, aircraft will need liquid fuels. No, we can't make those out of petroleum, because we can't catch the resulting CO2. So our choices are either biomass (C6 H10 O5) or CO2. Using biomass is far easier as a source than CO2- it takes far less hydrogen to get rid of all that annoying oxygen.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972We will be using petroleum for aviation and heavy transportation (probably all transportation) forever. At least until high temperature nuclear synfuels are viable. Nothing else is capable.
Oh boy, this video was INTERESTING to watch. The information was solid, but the assumptions and projections were unhinged. I have a son just finishing his petroleum engineering degree! We knew, and it’s been confirmed by his experience so far, that public sentiment has been so biased against the fossil fuel industry - against the reality of civilization’s dependence on fossil fuels - that he will face little competition for the available jobs in the industry. The profit margins are healthy and global demand strong for the industry. The more quasi-religious videos such as this produced, the more benighted government policies against fossil fuels, the more restricted the investments into the industry, the higher the prices! Well done, keep up the good work. My son’s financial success is assured.
Gradually transitioning from a gas household. The stove is induction. The hot water is a heat pump (as of last week), the main room heater is a heat pump. The clothes dryer is a heat pump and the main power source to the house is a Tesla battery and solar panels. I have a hybrid car at this stage.
@@oldbloke204 The stove was a 1980’s Chef and the door to the oven had fallen off, The hot water system failed and the plumber recommended it be replaced. The kitchen hadn’t been renovated since 1989 at least. I replace our car every 15 years whether they need it or not as a road safety decision. It was just a decision to get a more efficient machine.
@@peterbaxter8151 Yeah nice. So much waste these days. We have electric in the house but I'm not actually sold on everyone going over to it along with EVs due to the load on the electricity grids but we shall see. At this point we have no solar although we're probably in as good a situation for it as anyone and I don't like the idea of strapping batteries to our home. Maybe in a few years but at this point I shall wait and see.
@@oldbloke204 My solar array was installed in May with the Tesla battery. At this stage the electricity supplier owes me money, however, I expect to use it to pay for my winter use.
@@peterbaxter8151 Are you in the US? Here in Australia they were giving people big feed in tariffs to try and get people to take up solar which many many did. Now the feed in tariffs are very low and I expect they will drop to virtually nothing when all of the big solar and wind farms get going. I suspect that we will be producing more power than we can use during the day but at night................ We've just spent quite a bit of money re roofing our old place and I'm loathe to put panels on the main part of our roof. Maybe on the lean to at some point. Going to be interesting to see where it all goes over the next few years. For now we're making a half decent return on the money we haven't spent on all of this.
Probably the most important thing to note from that is the adaptability of modern hydrocarbon refineries. Perhaps in a future video you could explore the variety of usable feedstocks? What's currently used is compressed & heated compost - that compost doesn't have to be either compressed or heated, it can just as easily be grass clippings, food waste, abattoir waste, trees, anything carbon-based.
@chinookvalley seriously, wish someone had said something a few decades ago so we could have started the transition then instead of this sudden painful panic. 😳
That damn “empty hospital add” pisses me off. “Oh no how will we make things without fossil fuels” Straight up False Dilemma logical fallacy. Even without any major changes, algal ponds and Hydrothermal Liquefaction can make a *Drop In Replacement for Crude Oil* (The only changes *maybe* needed are Desalters (basically just mix with water then remove water, existing designs) and *maybe* Hydrodemetallization for Iron Contamination (i can grab the paper, but salt and iron were the main contaminants of HTL Biocrude if i remember correctly) similar to Hydrodesulferization, although i have read less on this so it may need more catalyst work etc) Then one can mention Power-to-X processes, and/or Gasification then “Gas-to-Liquids” processes. (Shoutout to my favorite Dimethyl Ether (DME). “Pyrolysis” also exists, and works better with Cellulosic Biomass etc, and can be used for “Thermal Recycling” or Plastics and other RDF. Granted separating the Pyrolysis Oil (often called “Bio-Oil” which gets confusing with Pure Plant Oil and HTL Biocrude) and Char in it can be difficult. *THEN* you have the precision fermentation realm where you can use the Familiar (Sugar and/or Cellulosic) Ethanol to make things such as Ethane etc. *Also* with genetic engineering one can make microbes that produce Bio-Butanol or all sorts of other interesting compounds. I’m rambling, but between all the possibilities, and also *high Technology Readiness Level Studies / Pilot Plants* the only limit is really investment + public interest, here’s to hoping…
It makes no sense to convert C6 H10 O5, via pyrolysis or hydrothermal liquefaction or whatever process that comes to mind, into -(CH2)- for non-burning applications, when -(CH2)- in giant excess of our needs is lying right beneath our feet.
Great interview! Always good to get a sneak-peak of what fossil fuel folks are thinking. But with the plastic/microplastic crisis we are also facing, I don't think we should strive to continue our petrol-based addiction even if it managed to detach from the energy and transportation sector. We need biodegradable or reusable alternatives.
@@theunknownunknowns256hey! I recently got a job which has kept me super busy, but I have some video concepts in the works! The book is on my bookshelf next to my bed but I haven’t built up the courage opened it yet. 😂 what did you think of it?
Y'know, its ALMOST like we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars and more than a century developing chemistry and industrial processes to manipulate petrochemicals at will...🤔
The fact still remains that we a currently in the longest sustained coldest period in earths history since life began. We are also suffering the lowest levels of CO2 over the same period. Dropping to dangerous levels over the period of an ice age cycle when plant life stops growing. What the world need most of all is much higher levels of CO2 we need to get to 1000ppm as a minimum to get the plant back to normal levels. Any attempts to reduce CO2 is complete madness...
You all @JustHaveaThink are doing a tremendous job showing us the obstacles / challenges we face to becoming a civilization that lives within planetary means. Thank you :) People like you all give me hope. Because, I believe, we can overcome these things by working together, in a collective /consensus based fashion, to achieve them.
So big oil to shrink to a quarter of its current size. No problem just quadruple the price of every thing they provide with other increments due to the loss of economies of scale. Quick fix no sweat.
Well that is also where the concepts of reduced consumption, recycling and alternatives come into play so the need for petroleum materials and chemicals is also reduced at the same time as we reduce fuel demand/production.
@@5353Jumper Good argument with which I fully agree; please add in the other essential part of the global survival plan 'reduce population expansion'. With a replacement rate of two live births per woman that should be a target that is heavily promoted.
@@5353Jumper To be honest that is a function of the 'Demographic Transition Model' my parents were part of the generation that should have locked the 'two will do' protocol in place in the 1940's. Sadly for the Global South where the typical existence was subsistence farming or artisanal toil more children meant more help will the labour, Only in the urbanised Global North, where children were an expense (liability), did the reduction in population expansion idea find mass appeal. Anticipation would have prevented Desperation; but 'when one has to get through the day there is little time to worry about next weeks problem'.
Spot on again, Dave. I spent an entire career in oil and gas and I see that the industry is now in a life-or-death struggle for survival. Hence the massive mis-information campaigns being waged across the world by journalists, politicians and retired academics who will take anyone's money to spout nonsense. Rather that speculating about how oil and gas might mend their ways and do things differently (there's no listening there), I say it's smarter to consider entirely different methods of producing the materials we need. As an example, I refer to a new company in Scotland called Celtic Renewables. Disclosure: I am a very minor investor. This company recycles waste from whisky distilleries into three essential chemicals: Acetone, Butanol and Ethanol. And all in a circular and decarbonised process.
I live in a red-neck, religious, right-wing, radical county of southern Colorado where alternate energy is looked at as the work of the Devil himself. No need to change our ways, God will take care of things. Talk about "bewildering", that's the way of life here.
Aren’t Windmills (their minor downsides/complexity notwithstanding) basically Free Money for Farmers etc? (Granted small fossil fuel drill sites are as well i guess, and i know some pipeline welders who may be fucked over if we don’t get the “Just Transition” right so i get the sentiment i guess) (That and just Fox News induced Brain Rot lol)
Truly excellent and insightful content as always. Thankyou so much. We do really heavily on petroleum products, and although it's been obvious we don't need so much of it - the waste issue is huge - we still need to use it. It's incredibly positive that there are already ways to do this technically, even with the costs and the problems. Government regulation is really what is required now to push changes... unfortunately.
While it was totally "not new" to me, I'm still happy you made this video because it is an important message that can spread more widely through your channel and the likes. And it needs being spread.
@josemercado3063 Thanks for your nonsense. Close to nothing in your statement is true. There is much more than Energy in the Ghawar Oil Field. There are precious resources of which man can make wonderful products. Stupid mankind that walks around blindfolded and brainwashed so it can only see Energy in it. The vast majority of making/deployment/maintenance and dismantling of renewable energy equipment can be made by use of renewable energy instead of fossils. Just time is still needed to make the transition there as well: Mining etc.
Thanks for this video. I would argue that it is one of the most important videos of yours I've ever seen. Personally I don't think we need to get rid of all fossil fuel burning, and that's okay because it is the over use that's killing us (literally and figuratively). One of the things I would like to see is if these very smart chemical scientists can make new products that don't require burning the oil, but instead turn it into hard things. I recently sent an email to the CEO of ExxonMobil asking if it was possible to turn hydrocarbons into a substance that could reduce or replace concrete. Considering how big the concrete market is, if they could create such a substance it would be a money making machine. The fact is that the only reason we have plastics is because they are trying to wring the last half penny from the resource. I think that if they actually TRIED making alternative products, (things you don't burn) there would be some pretty incredible products they could produce. If there were enough of these kinds of products they could do very well indeed. The problem is getting them to see the potential, so far all they see is the easy profits from gasoline, which is their current bread and butter. Maybe others have ideas for products they could make out of oil. Perhaps if we bombarded them with ideas, they'd actually start looking at these ideas and changing themselves into the world's largest tangible objects makers. Of course they could just wither down to the small business they were before we began burning things in large quantities. The choice is theirs, in the end.
that petro chemicals flowchart is really sexy, I just recently looked for something like it! Very much appreciated how well your sources are cited in every video btw, so helpful!
As you mentioned, the shift toward a renewable and electric future is underway. At this point, the oil industry's primary strategy is to prolong this transition as much as possible, leveraging their vast experience and influence to maximize profits within the current market. It's crucial for us to advocate for solar and wind energy, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and similar technologies. Money propels the world forward, and we hold the key to driving change through our collective financial choices.
It’s absolutely more crucial for us to advocate for nuclear energy. Traditional renewables will never put out enough power to outcompete fossil fuels. Nuclear can, will, and does. The only obstacle is cost.
Also, our collective financial choices mean Jack diddly when 10% of investors hold 90% of stocks. 1% owns ~50% of wealth. It’s nice to pretend we have an inkling of power, but it’s also nice to acknowledge the facts.
Massive increases in the cost of basic materials like polymers are raised as objections to change, but the reality is that the costs of raw materials are a small fraction of the cost of finished products. The changes described here would put producers under pressure but would have minimal effects on the overall cost of things we need like plastics and lubricants.
Thanks Dave. This is such an important question yet there has been such a dearth of attention paid to the issue. I was delighted to see that you have given it some exposure. Needless to say, your treatment of the subject is as thorough and insightful as I've come to expect from you. Thank you. The notion of a genuine transition away from fossil fuels is complex and fraught with very, very serious questions. None of these questions are being discussed by our media or politicians and the prevailing narrative (which regards the green transition as a mere replacement of 'dirty' sources of energy with a'clean' ones) is simplistic and naive. We have difficult decisions to make as a species and our politicians are (at best) ignorant of these complexities or (at worst) deceiving their populations into believing that our current way of life can be sustained without the need for grave sacrifices. This question is, of course, a subset of a larger question; 'can a finite planet sustain infinite economic growth?' The assumption of the majority of politicians is 'yes', the reality almost certainly 'no'. We need to raise awareness of the concerns of the 'no' camp such that the prevailing narrative is more thoroughly interrogated.
12:05 Oil is not on the last legs. Still grows strong. Biggest secrecy in physics is entropy concept to mechanical systems that will change electricity production methods without any heat (burning), still 17 trillion dollars around the World by coal, oil and natural gas barons for education. I done oil refinery school project in chemistry funded by local refinery company who is biggest taxpayer in the country. Everything runs on oil, and in eastern Europe it is worst situation, all crude all oil comes from Russia and Russia oil surplus money spends on military hardware.
Thank you and very interesting, I was at a classic car event recently where this exact topic came up, it's probably not a surprise what views were being aired (along with many other BS ones regarding EVs). I tried to point out how spectacularly wrong they were (being more tactful than they were) but surprisingly enough they wouldn't listen, if I fancy restarting the discussion I might forward this video onto them. Sadly the vast majority don't care as they're stuck in their ways and it won't affect them as they won't be around in 20 years time.
To be fair, classic cars are far less damaging to the environment (assuming they were at some point used as primary cars) than new ones, and many times more fun to look at. A $10k EV conversion on an existing car instead of buying a new one would be by far the most sensible option long term. The problem is that GDP is so heavily dependent on new car sales that we have to create the fantasy that replacing old products that still work with new ones is somehow green. It's not.
@@guapochino140 it's rather dependent on what milage you do in the car but for the majority of cases yes I'd agree. Although the majority of classic cars are just a toy second car so it'd definitely be cleaner if it just wasn't run at all. But the majority of the views were about them busting into flames, taking days to recharge, only having a short range, batteries needing replacing every couple of years, "but what are we going to use all the excess petrol for because we'll still need the lubricants" etc etc etc.
@@guapochino140 I think the majority of the classic car owners were trying to pretend the EV conversion stand didn't exist, it seemed to offend their eyes.... The EV conversions are so expensive (much more than 10k) that they'll never be considered. tbh the car's character also changes so much with an EV conversion I understand why most wouldn't want it. Happily the impact on the environment from classic second cars is very minor.
@@tom314 I saw a video of a Beetle conversion where they mentioned it really improved handling. But that's probably just Beetles, ha. Re: Classic as a toy car... unfortunately, yes, although I can keep dreaming. In a similar vein, it seems like many people who buy EVs also still own conventional cars. It follows the current pattern of "green" energy - it gets added to the mix rather than replacing... so total consumption is still increasing.
Organic chemistry (chemistry involving carbon) is fascinating. It's not always economically feasible, but you can basically transform any carbon based molecule into any other carbon based molecule. It was always very suspicious to me that because of some grand coincidence the refiners were producing exactly what the market demanded. Its clear that they have an ability to adjust output based on demand. Bottom line is that any statement from the oil industry has to be taken with a big grain of salt. Their creativity in finding ways to justify their existence is boundless.
They have been very creative in bringing wars and ecological collapse
Do you seriously consider unintentional reactions with diamonds organic chemistry?
@hyndscsAfter the invention of Rayon/Viscose, Hemp is mostly obsolete.
I am still looking into what the most efficient Cellulosic Biomass is, but short of pre semi-synthetic fiber production fiber for rope (flax linen, and maybe cotton (although LCAs needed, water usage for cotton is bad) probably has it beat for textiles), and Cannabis Products (Perfumery, Pharmaceuticals, Recreational Drug Use) hemp is obsolete.
I am no war on drugs lover, but at the same time to say hemp is that useful is uninformed and probably coming moreso from a stance of wanting to “stick it to the man” (rightfully so given the outcome of the war on drugs although that is a whole other rant) rather than wanting to make the best and/or most Eco Friendly cellulosic fiber possible.
That’s my take at least, I’d love to hear what you think.
(Edit: Fixed a Typo)
The birthplace of organic chemistry was the German speaking lands in the 19th century.
Not having access to overseas natural rescources like Britain, they invented ways to manufacture Dyes, Medicines, explosives, etc.
From carbon rich industrial byproducts.
Back in their day that was Coal Tar.
Organic Chemistry can work on literally ANY carbon rich feedstock.
Economists and Bankers are ultimately the ones that decide which those are.
Unfortunately, oil brought forth the Industrial Age. What sort of lives would we have had without the means to make progress? 😕
Back in the Dark Ages?😢
Mendeleev, the father of the periodic table of the elements, was asked once what he thought about burning petroleum. He said he supposed you could also keep warm by burning banknotes in the kitchen stove...That's the point I make constantly- that petroleum's highest value uses are NOT as fuels. And if we waste less petroleum by burning it, we'll have MORE of this precious, finite resource available to future generations to use for truly high value applications.
The same can be said for coal, my chemistry professor said future generations will curse us for burning it
@@utubesprotwhy?
@@utubesprot A few products are made from coal oil, but very few. Pretty confident that coal will just stay in the ground in a decarbonized future, once we no longer need it for making coke for steel production.
I agree
If you've got unlimited clean energy - which we will if the green transition is done right - then we can just synthesize as much hydrocarbons out of thin air as we need (while also getting CO2 out of it). It's all a question of energy.
This was a good one, Dave. Your guest was excellent. Thanks for fighting against the lies of the fossil fuel industry.
Glad you liked it :-)
i was construction surveyour alberta tar sands refinary i got to see it all built in auto cad and stuff too@@JustHaveaThink
Only coal is a fossil fuel
@@eugenecrawford14 "Only coal is a fossil fuel."
LOL! And oceans are not full of salt water.
@@ub59 thank goodness I converted my engine to run on salt water
Far from being mortified, I think your restraint is admirable!
Thanks Jonathan :-)
An agonizingly slow process but those who have seen the light are grasping the opportunity to move forward! Thanks Dave this was an excellent video.
Thank you. Glad you liked it :-)
I heard Conference of the Parties will be renamed from COP to Keep on Polluting KOP to better reflect the progress being made. By KOP 32 they hope to reach the target of doubling our CO2 emissions in just 50 years.
While I get the humour here- this is a pretty pessimistic outlook. If you look at where we were 5 years ago vs where we are today, there are genuine advances we're making globally that wouldn't have happened without govt support. Personally I'm about to buy an EV with a govt loan, and am actively looking at a heatpump using another govt incentive. The COP summits don't have to fix problems overnight, they just have to keep some pressure up between nations to do better.
That was a pretty good overview of a modern petroleum refinery. I worked at the Conoco Refinery in Westlake, LA back in the 1980s as a plant engineer once I got my BS in Chemical Engineering. BTW, the gunk at the very bottom is used as asphalt to pave roads!
You do know what that BS means don't you? Edit: I gave you a thumbs up. I'm sad because many of my friends children went into petro engineering and now they are mad because they can't find a decent job. I hope you were taught the realities of life because the petro education is based on lies.
Asphalt is *kind of neat too*. Granted i want to read up on Leaching Behavior, and Occupational Hydrocarbon exposure for the workers, BUT:
- Unlike Portland Cement based Concrete Pavement it is Infinitely Recyclable (within reason)
- Rubberized Asphalt Concrete uses Waste Tires and reduces road noise (although the usage in it, vs use in a Blast Furnace with Emissions Control, or in a W2E Plant is debatable pending a LCA i guess)
- To an extent, although especially if Sustainable Biomass such as Algae HTL derived “Bio-Crude”, it can act as “Carbon Sequestration in Construction” to an extent.
“Reverse Coal Mining”, but instead of a pile of Charcoal/Petcoke, you have useful roads (impacts of Mass Motorization and the need for less car dependency notwithstanding of course, but roads will be needed in some respect regardless)
(Also urban heat island notwithstanding, although novel Cooling Paint layers over the asphalt pavement can reverse this (Granted more complexity and thus LCA’s needed with that) )
(Also Enhanced Weathering Based Concrete Pavement adds more complexity to the Cement vs Asphalt Concrete Paving Debate in an LCA)
That’s my rambling take at least, I’d love to hear what you think!
Resid is used for basically four things: 1) feeding to delayed cokers to make more fuels, plus petroleum coke 2) road and roofing tar 3) shipping fuel- when the source is low enough in sulphur to permit this and 4) feeding to extinction hydrocrackers to make more fuels and an even nastier heavy material called "cracker bottoms".
Thanks Rich. Much appreciated :-)
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Yeah, the refinery in Westlake actually feeds it to a delayed coker which produces premium petroleum coke, which at least when I worked there was used to make electrodes for electric arc steel production.
Another banger from you Dave. May I suggest something? A video series called 'Climate Forensics'(or something better) where you take a country and take it's climate policies apart and see what they are doing right and wrong, are the policies backed by actions or are they just words. Would be both educational and click-worthy ;)
Brilliant!!!
That's a very good idea. It would be quite a challenge, but I will give it some thought.
Second that !
@@JustHaveaThink yes please if it's feasible.
I imagine Carbonbrief will be a valuable resource.
Great Idea!! The facts are out there and the mainstream media should be pushed to reveal the results of that work.
I remember a conversation I had with a mechanical engineer in Detroit years ago, discussing electromotive products, including my disdain for the Petroleum Industry as a Profit driven, ultimate authority that disregards the health and wellbeing of others. It was he that reminded me that the best avenue to confront our “betters”, was the banking industry directly…. I have come to realize the truth of that, and with your commentary concerning what CAN be done at “great expense”, my faith in the possibility of actually correcting the problems at hand is being renewed… Thank you for that 🤔😎
I think there is a social thing too. How many EV drivers would support a war to protect oil supplies? Or rules forbidding fossil cars from entering city centers? I think a lot depends on whether it affects you. Now consider what happens if in a couple of years, you can buy an EV for the price of a gas car? There have been power purchase agreements signed in the US for both wind and solar at 2 cents. That can be a half a cent a mile if you could buy it for that. At 4x that I could match gas for heating with a couple of my heat pumps. If everybody had access to cheap renewables only when they are overproducing, we could do a lot. Charge cars, batteries, heat a pile of bricks in the basement.
The very money used to fuel the oil business is not mined or drilled for but created out of nothing (as bank credit not cash) by private commercial banks.
The Bank of England Q1 2014 Bulletin website explains how this system operates.
This is how almost all of what we now use as money is created.
My point is twofold.
First you have to know this applies to everything being debated but is left out.
Secondly this is where the power is, in the ability to create what is in effect money and choose where it goes for the biggest and quickest returns.
This is not a force for good.
The single largest category of investors is _pension funds_ & they're pulling out of oil quite rapidly.
@@gordonwilson1631 I’m more familiar with the “how” monies are created (fractional reserve, etc.) than the “why”…Although I am aware concerning the effects of volume vs. purchasing authority, market shares, interest rates, I’m certain that there are additional, more critical, less talked about motivations and intent… Thank you for sharing
What's wrong with profit? You nake profit with every paycheck over the minimum amount needed to buy beans and rice and a tent to live in.
Thanks for sharing your chat. Good to know that there are options for the fossil fuel industry. Too bad they didn’t start building towards it sooner, but here we are 😒
It’s something I’ve said for a few years now… the petroleum industry *could* have positioned themselves as the leaders in green energy. With their outrageous profits they could have developed the technologies and continued to be very profitable whilst also helping to decarbonize our economy. Instead they have continued to lie, lobby, cheat and steal to protect their existing business model, while their own internal research has shown for at least 5 decades now that the continued use of fossil fuels would have potentially disastrous consequences for the environment. The people who have enabled this have gotten rich, the rest of the world has to figure out how to reverse or mitigate the damage.
With a replacement rate of two live births per woman that should be a target that is heavily promoted. My parents were part of the generation that should have locked the 'two will do' protocol in place in the 1940's. Sadly for the Global South where the typical existence is subsistence farming or artisanal toil more children mean more help with the labour, Only in the urbanised Global North, where children were an expense (liability), has the reduction in population expansion idea found mass appeal. Anticipation would have prevented Desperation; but 'when one has to get through the day there is little time to worry about next weeks problem'.
Since when is it that they needed “options” ? Seems to be that they have a hard time keeping up with your demand for the products they are providing.
@@Stan-b3v Making the range of products desired by ‘the market’ from crude oil is not as simple as is sometimes suggested when ‘bunker oil’ is referred to as the ‘bottom of the barrel’. Among the many highly skilled professionals in the oil refining business the 'elite of the elite' are the 'blenders'; they take the fractions that can be extracted from the crude oil that one set of traders buys and after distillation (both atmospheric and vacuum aka thermal cracking) followed by 'cat cracking', chopping the residual longer and more complex chains of hydro carbon up into shorter bits, with the aid of a catalyst, they have a suite of components. They then blend the components into the products that the other set of traders can sell in the market for the most revenue; all at the least cost in time, energy, effort or any other type of expenditure. When it is possible to find any useful revenue stream anywhere in the process they will, thus low sulphur atmospheric residue (LSAR) from the simplest distillation stage might be saleable as 380cSt HFO if it meets the specification for that product. The regulators set some specification parameters; like sulphur content, either at a national or international level, and those pesky consumers buy what they want from what is available.
There are no "Fossils" in Fuel - that’s another one of there untruths. In reality oil is found at depths where no biological material has ever existed. Its made by the earths mantel from abundant hydrogen and carbon using high pressure and heat. In reality its the second most abundant liquid on the planet and won't run out till all the carbon and hydrogen in the earths mantel is consumed in billions of years time.
Dave, no need to apologise. You're one of my favourite ultracrepidarians! At least you admit it; honesty is the best policy. If only those big oil spokespeople could be as honest with the public and with governments. Thanks for this most informative video.
Cheers. I appreciate your support :-)
Now there is a useful word. I shall endeavour to use it more often.
My new show, the "Ultracrepidarian News" or should I stick with "The Disaggregation Hour"? I suppose I'd be disaggregating as an ultracrepidarian!
We just dumped our gas heating and installed a heat pump. As we drive electric and don‘t fly at all we are prepared for the desperately needed changes outlined in your excellent video. Politicians, please proceed!!!
I don't know if biomass could completely substitute for petroleum to supply our plastics industry, but I suspect that it could. Perhaps you have already made a video about this?
So, how many government handouts did you receive for your transition?
@@joemccarthy7120so doing the right thing is ok so long as you don't accept any help. Is that your point of view?
Congratulations! :)
@@joemccarthy7120 If governments wouldn't invest in people changing their heating systems etc. they would pay much higher prices for the destructive conditions, that climate change causes.
Thank you for the insight Dave, fascinating as always. Might be worth exploring at some stage (or again?) the other myths the industry is using to try to derail the transition we must go through? Those myths such as plant food for CO2, societal collapse will follow the end of fossil fuel combustion etc. etc. ? I know other online sources cover them to some extent, but a good summary might be handy...
Refer to the podcast "The Climate Denier's Playbook"
@@TRWnan They seem to have not worked out how concise videos most likely appeal to more? Dave is great with videos hovering around 15 mins... There are plenty of 1 hour plus youtube videos that I have ... ... not quite been able to get to yet...
CO2 is plant food though. Greenhouses actually pump extra CO2 in to help grow food quicker. Part of the reason the earth is getting greener is due to CO2 levels going up.
I will give it some thought Peter.
@@pin65371 Straight from the fossil fuel industry obfuscation playbook / training manual.
CO2 is not the limiting factor for plant growth, it comes way after nutrients, light, & water. CO2 in greenhouses is where those other needs are met so CO2 becomes one of the plant growth determining factors, although the results vary with extra CO2 making some plants less nutritious, the picture is not clear but quite nuanced. The greening is also nuanced, improved agricultural practice is a major factor in this greening.
Stomata density on the leaves of prehistoric plants is actually a proxy for prehistoric CO2 levels, as CO2 levels gradually climb, then plants reduce stomata density as they need fewer pores to maintain their CO2 consumption, and so reduce water loss with fewer stomata, as CO2 is not one of the key factors in plant growth. Pretty sure Dave could give you chapter & verse of the research documenting this!
Great vid and graphics. Very informative.
I worked at a refinery years ago and have limited knowledge of the subject.
Oil industry claims you need them.
If I was running a scam, that is what I would say.
Organic plant based oils work well for all of these things.
We would be better off if those oils were used for medicine than popcorn.
High temp autoclave can break down these left overs.
The producers supply what the consumers will buy; so first stop focus on what you 'need' not what you 'want'. We the consumers have the power of rejection.
It is possible to make a wide range of products such as jet fuel from vegetable oil. But the global production of vegetable oil, mostly for edible purposes, is only about 200 million tonnes per year compared with aviation fuel ~300 million tonnes per year and total petroleum production of over 4 billion tonnes per year
Occasionally when sitting on the bus you'll see a skinny old lady running for the bus. Now if she drove a car she would be a lot heavier unable to run and need more of that medicine you mentioned.
@@AlanRPaine Fossil fuels are cheap making them accessable thus consumable on large scale that introduced economies of scale further reducing costs and on and on and on. Sadly the real evils over consumption by an overly large population, are the elephants in the room no one talks about. It is fashionable to blame producers when the villans in the piece are really us consumers.
Thank you for continuing releasing videos of such a high quality!
Thanks Petter. I'm glad you like them :-)
Very good video. By the way I love your dry British humor in the beginning. There was much surprise for me on the petrochemical industry. You also opened up a real can of worms with over consumption and using the earth as an open sewer. I can't say enough about this video , a truly great job.
Thank you Julius. Much appreciated :-)
All your vlogs hold fascinating news/info, thank you!
Thank you. I'm glad you like them :-)
This has been a question in my mind for a long time. Thanks for providing such a complete review of the subject and information on what is possible.
Excellent as always. Its worth noting that flaring is extremely destructive to air quality and causes cancers in people who live near where this happens. So its definitely something worth investing in.
I’m being a bit snobby here, but *Citation Needed. Granted “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana etc is a VERY real thing, but if i remember correctly (Granted *citation needed for me to lol) it was largely due to improper wastewater treatment, and BTEX pollution (also maybe people working at business there that have poor industrial hygiene programs)
Assuming it burns all the stuff there should be CO2 and Water Vapor. As with vehicles it is probably a bit more i complete of combustion, so NOx, CO, and Soot (akin to DPM potentially?) as well.
Granted this would mostly cause respiratory issues if I understand correctly.
Granted if the unburnt hydrocarbon pollution is enough and of the types required i guess it could cause the various cancers.
Either way i hate their pollution and it’s impact on the poor just as much as the next guy, but what specifically causes the cancers is a bit more complex than the Flaring itself.
Granted again i do agree this is splitting hairs a bit, Like me going “Did the bullet kill them via Bleeding or Hydrostatic Shock” when the other person is there saying “The killer is right there dumbass”!
Either way here’s to making sure the Fossil Fuel companies are forced to clean up their act!
I never understood why instead of flaring that gas, they don't use it in a boiler for process heat or making electricity to power the plant, or export electricity.
@@niconico3907flaring is a waste disposal method. Alternative waste disposal methods are less economic and is less environmentally friendly. (More pipes more leaks, more infrastructure)
Yes, industry can sequestrate CO2 and manage pollutants better. That will result in higher prices passed on to users but less CO2 emissions and less pollution.
The question is whether this approach leaves us better off compared to the “green transition” that is also dependent on burning fuel, uses resources and have an environmental footprint.
If we do not like our chances then there is always demand management…….. Fewer people will require fewer resources….. So, now we have three alternatives to consider.
1. Improved efficiency and effectiveness
2. Green transition that will have a massive initial carbon footprint
3. Manage demand …….
4. Other?
Take your pick. No free lunch, sorry.
@@JohanThiart flaring gas is wasting energy, they should use it for something usefull. It burns, everything that can release heat is usefull.
@@niconico3907 return on investment is an important concept. If disposing of waste in a sensible way creates better economic and environmental outcomes that is surely the way to go.
No action comes without waste and one should therefore always consider your option and do a thorough analysis. But then again, most alarmists choose to ignore the reality of unintended consequences. Some call it known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns!
Of course we should use waste products. This podcaster did a really good job to explain how efficient the petroleum industry is. But yes, the industry can be improved.
The polite next-level trolling in this is truly great. Greater. Greatxcellent.
Thank you. Glad you liked it ;-)
I’m one of those employed in a down stream fossil fuel business, that would need to be redeployed if the world was to move significantly away from hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon based commodity products.
But even though things have been changing, new polyethylene plants have opened up in just the last few years and more are on the drawing boards. We would need an absolutely major and seriously colossal paradigm shift in the way we live life to do away with poly ethylene derived products that a shift to renewable energy simply doesn’t deliver. Ever seen how much plastic is involved in EV’s? Solar PV? Or Irrigation? Medical industry? Clothing? Food? Packaging? Power distribution? Furnishings? Toys? Etc. Society would need to be redesigned. This goes well beyond removing plastic bags from supermarkets.
For what it is worth, the little we heard from your guest was genuine and transparent, he wasn’t gilding the Lilly in any way.
Excellent video.
Shifting the ENTIRE relationship humankind has with energy is obviously a gargantuan challenge. The materials challenges are just a subset of that much bigger problem.
No problem making PE and PP in a decarbonized future. All that light stuff that currently is burned as fuel gas in refineries can be cracked to make ethylene and propylene, to replace the current sources which are ethane and propane from natural gas.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 In my part of the world, it is the natural gas that comes up with the recovered crude oil from which the dominant component Ethane is extracted and value added by being cracked into ethylene and propylene (for downstream polymerisation).
What "light stuff" cats and dogs from crude oil distillation can be "cracked" in current tech SRT steam crackers to make Ethylene and Propylene?
A thought that has occurred to me lately, seeing the reduction in fossil fuel industry's investment in renewables, is that many may actually want to go bankrupt. For a while FF companies were showing signs of beginning the switch to renewables - however pathetically small that was. But the problem with remaining viable is they will continue to be on the hook for all the lawsuits and government demands for compensation and cleaning up their mess. It is estimated that the the Tar Sand in Alberta alone have an unfunded liability of over $250 Billion to restore the area into something that doesn't even match the nature it destroyed. Just something that isn't an ongoing environmental catastrophe. And that doesn't even include its contribution to air pollution global warming. I'm concerned that the higher ups will begin quietly divesting leaving dupes and taxpayers with all the costs.
I think you're right.
@@lshwadchuck5643 So do I. They'll make off with any remaining value, and leave taxpayers holding the bag to clean up their mess. If we were smart, we'd pass legislation to prevent this outcome. But too much of Congress is bought off by the oil industry.
The expertise oil and gas companies have is often very different to what is needed in renewables. They are already moving towards transforming into chemical companies and similar things. However only offshore wind and geothermal have any sort of real skill transfer. That is not to say those skills are not usefull for other industries then renewables thou.
@@incognitotorpedo42 same in Canada to a somewhat lesser extent. They're bucking the end of their tax breaks by promising carbon capture. Pure greenwashing.
Ya our duped south of that believe that single pipeline extension made us slaves to Saudi Arabia and their brilliance in capitalism never heard of supply and demand after 2020, but then remember it in 2021 despite the numbers.
2:47 Dave's best 'I have no idea what you are talking about, but will keep nodding' face :-)
Excellent material - thank you. I've been wondering about that question myself.
Glad it was helpful :-)
Thank you for the vid, best moment of the week when these drop. Great work
Thanks Harry. Glad you enjoyed it. :-)
Excellent work that keeps me informed & broadens my knowledge. Thanks for all your efforts,
Very welcome
Courageous of you to stare down the mouth of the Canadian Fossil Industry Dragon :D
Important insights, though. Well done!
They really have to get out of the oil shales mining buisness.. its possibly even worse than Germany historically open cast mining brown lignight as a source of pollution and environmental damage.
We weren't ignorant. We just didn't care. We haven't changed much.
We didn't care, but we were too puny for our uncaring to result in too much damage. But then we got bigger, and so did our impacts. Petroleum helped with this. But we can use petroleum wisely, if we choose to.
I have noticed an increase in news articles against electric car, battery, and environmental technology lately. It's almost like the oil and auto industry have come to an understanding that they need to work together to keep up the status quo. There was such optimism and hope a year ago. There is still tons of advances and positive news, but if you don't like to dig for it, you would never know it.
Thankyou for your informative and entertaining show.
Carl from Washington state, usa
Very informative, thank you
Thanks for another informative video!
My pleasure :-)
Thanks Dave. Your Sunday sermons are one of the highlights of my week. Keep preaching the good word.
Sunday sermons - yep, I agree
I will do my best :-)
To quote the famous philosopher, Pogo, “we have met the enemy, and he is us”.
If we wouldn’t buy stuff, then they wouldn’t make it. If they didn’t make it, then we wouldn’t have pollution.
We cannot continue on the assumption that we can continue to have everything that we do, and also reduce pollution of all kinds to any meaningful extent.
What a brilliant take on the madness.
Thank you :-)
My knowledge of oil refining was at level "I think I've heard something about manipulating the length of carbohydrates" which to me means they can make anything out of everything in oil. Thank you for confirming and deepening this knowledge.
Thanks for another great vlog topic. One thing not mentioned was the use of fossil fuels in agriculture (fertilizers, pesticides & herbicides etc) - agriculture is one of the top users of fossil fuels and emissions sources. In industry, ammonia is a very important chemical product, and heavily reliant on fossil fuels.
The top natural alternatives to fossil fuels include fungi, hemp, rattan, algae / seaweed, bamboo & cork - all must be sustainably & ethically harvested of course. Palm oil is also extremely useful, but cultivation, harvesting & distribution is extremely problematic at this time.
We do seem to making incremental progress in the industries producing the most emissions (except for agriculture - unsure what progress is being made here if any)
- electricity & heating (moving to clean tech and energy & thermal storage)
- fuels for transportation & freight including shipping (moving towards electrification & battery storage)
- steel (new processes)
- cement (new processes)
- industrial heating (moving towards electrification and thermal recovery & storage)
- producing chemicals, dyes, paper & plastics (use of alternative materials & processes)
- waste from landfills & human waste processing (expanding the circular economy)
- clothing & fashion (???)
- agriculture (???)
Scientists, engineers & academics are working very hard to decarbonise these sectors, despite the incredible push back from governments, dirty industries, vested interests, economic oligarchs and the misinformed. Hopefully it won't be a case of too little too late - we certainly are leaving it to the last last last minute. Agriculture is the only sector that seems to have fallen through the cracks.
We must also remember that the climate crisis isn't solely about the increasing concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere (most notedly CO2 which is at 420 ppm (vs the safe 350 ppm), methane & nitrous oxide (mainly from agriculture)) - which is very serious & needs to be reduced very quickly very very soon. The flip side of the climate breakdown coin is the destruction & degradation of GHG sinks, such as the oceans, kelp & mangrove forests, seagrass meadows, tropical forests & soils etc. All these critical GHG sinks might have reached their max capacity for GHG drawdown so any increase in GHG concentrations from now on is going to exacerbate the climate crisis very very significantly going forward.
Ag products like fertilizer are the same as other petroleum materials and chemicals mentioned in this video.
They are not "fossil fuels", they are products made beside fossil fuels.
So the topic of the video was about maintaining fertilizer etc. production when we no longer need to fuel production.
I think “Bio-Petrochemistry” will still have it’s role. Also Semi-Synthetic Textiles such as Rayon/Viscose are good alternatives to many Synthetic Fibers, and Precision Fermentation will allow for (Spider) Silk as well. Chitosan has many promising applications as well.
Broader Adoption of Low/No-Till Aggriculte and Applications of Some “Permaculture” Princaples such as Co-Cropping etc, and Genetic Engineering for Nitrogen Fixing etc all will hopefully make Agriculture less dependent on Fertilizer and Pesticides, although their need will still remain in some amount
one would think.
I have made a few other comments on this video, and would be happy to infodump more later, but i think this is okay for now.
I’d love to hear what you think, and maybe even discuss/plan for a video sometime!
The big use of fossils in agriculture, in terms of both mass and importance, is ammonia- which is derived today from hydrogen made from natural gas, not from petroelum.
@@ericlotze7724 There seems to be some awareness among the fashion set about moving towards sustainability & the need to reduce fast fashion waste. Perhaps once the plsstics treaty hss been finalised, the next treaty needs to focus on the export of clothing waste to developing countries etc.
In terms of our broken food system, it's really complicated & complex - farmers earn a pittance (high suicide rates in some countries) while food producers & retailers earn mega profits. Food wastage in many places can be as high as 40%. I'm a great fan of permaculture and food forests. The question is can it feed 8 billion people? Project Drawdown likes silvopasture.
If 80% of people will eventually live in cities, urban agriculture needs serious attention to ensure food security. Of course agriculture does not only provide food for people, but to feed livestock & pets, ingredients for beverages, medicines, perfumes, fibres for clothing & construction, fuels, commercial flowers, and other industries There is also a huge ethics problem with the privatisation & commercialisation of food, including patenting of genetic code. Modern agriculture is a huge topic with many insersecting issues, challenges, vested interests & shenanigans. And often not discussed as part of the climate crisis.
WWF has done an excellent report on food (From Farm to Fork) and the FAO has a report on the food - water - energy nexus (I include land as part of this intersecting challenge), also critical in the climate discussion. There are some excellent doccies on the topic.
As a vegetarian (I'm trying to go vegan), animal welfare is also a critical aspect in the agri / climate discussion in that if we are comfortable with cruelty as part of our society, cruelty towards people (esp. women & children) is generally not far behind. In my opinion a disregard for enviro & biodiversity welfare directly links to the climate crisis, and closely related to enviro injustice, crimes against women & children and other social inequality.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 i understand the term "fossil fuels" to include oil, coal & natural gas. Petroleum is only one product of the fossil fuel industry. In many industries fossil fuels can be used directly (heat, electricity, fuels for machinery) or indirectly (using the products of the fossil fuel industry as inputs) - not fogetting all the investment profits made by investors - all producing GHGs & pollutants that's killing our world & ourselves (eg PFASs).
Brilliant video as usual. Your excellent presentation skills, combined with a pinch of dry humour with having to resort to theatrics is so professional. I never thought that I would watch a video explaining the refining of fossil fuels as I am an ardent believer in renewable energy but when I saw that it was Dave questioning the mantra of the fossil fuel industry I knew the answer would not only be possible but good! Thank you!
Interesting education in refinery design. I have heard that German industry had been using natural gas as feedstock for large swaths of industrial products, not just for energy. So I’d be interested in learning more about how that worked as a follow on.
Well, with the sudden slowdown in Russian supplies, lots of processes had to be throttled down or paused until other supplies rejoined the German market (for example: Some North Sea gas fields were in the middle of a major rebuild and couldn't supply gas at the time).
Longer term, the chemical engineers at BASF etc. will need to dig into their archives for methods of supplying Germany without access to Crimean and Caucasian oil fields (a problem they also faced last that area was at war) .
the conversion between all the different molecules was covered in the video but I agree far too briefly.
USA has been using waste gas from oil wells in Alaska to make Ammonia Nitrate fertilizer since the 1970's. They burn the gas with a catalyst to bond the Nitrogen in the air to the Hydrogen to make to a granular fertilizer.
A very useful and comprehensive video giving an insight into the complexity of an effective transition to a non carbon based economy, I am a 92 year chemical engineer who was trained to deal with an oil and coal based world and the production of all its products, however I felt reluctant to burn what had taken millions of years to create. I feel today that no government is able to administer the details of how thousands of necessary products must be sourced, produced and distributed, this has to be left to the markets through the price mechanism where oil and coal is charged and constantly increasing tax at source on an absolutely world wide basis. Thereafter, it is to each individual user, small or large, to decide whether it is worthwhile for themselves to burn it by flaring, or in cars, etc.. or products worth $thousands per kg. This could provide for a gradual transition over the next 25 years . 😊
Raising the price of energy raises the price of everything. Energy is the fundamental cost of all goods and services. Raising the price of energy harms the poor the most. They starve, while the rich just buy smaller yachts.
The comment your guest makes at the end of his presentation starting at 10:32, he concludes "right now we have these giant gas networks that distribute gas over hundreds to thousands of kilometers and every pipe leaks a little bit, every joint, every flange, leaks a little bit and that will have to be taken care of, but, again, the gas industry is mostly a self fixing problem because the way we'll fix those problems is by not using natural gas anymore."
Which is simply incorrect, as natural gas is often a byproduct of drilling for oil in the first place. Getting rid of the market for natural gas doesn't get rid of natural gas. It just makes it worthless, and if it's worthless it is much more likely to be flared off...
It's not worthless. We use it as a chemical input now. That will continue.
Add to that a reduction in fossil fuel use will mean a reduction in petroleum drilling which will also mean a reduction in incidental gas finds and need for flaring.
Produced Gas can also be run into Generators (for onsite power, or *maybe* power export), or as per a paper i can grab, reformed and made into Dimethyl Ether (DME) which can be used in onsite diesel engines/generators, or exported offsite like Propane.
Most natural gas isn't co-produced with petroleum, but rather is recovered on its own. Small amounts of light hydrocarbons heavier than methane and ethane are recovered as LPG and "natural gasoline" from these gas wells.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 - fair nuff re: CH4 co-production.
Best video you have done, almost no hectoring and lots of useful information.
I recall my college organic chemistry 🧪 textbook 📕 had “profile of a chemical: carbon monoxide, an industrial feedstock”.
It’s all nice juicy reactive carbon-oxygen bond.
👍
It's kind of the reagent of last resort, which I mention in the video in relation to the "lights"- the stuff coming off the top of various process units which contains gases like methane, ethane etc. that are too light to make into useful products. Those you would have to convert in a reformer to CO and H2, i.e. "syngas", and feed to methanol or Fischer Tropsch units to turn them into something useful again. But F-T is quite an energetically wasteful process, so you don't want to do that more than you absolutely need to. Unfortunately, and for fundamental reasons, it's really good at turning that CO and H2 you just made, BACK into methane and water, meaning you have to recycle the methane again.
Here in Queensland Australia we hit a record 200mt of coal production last year and India can't get enough
It's just none stop and production is set to exceed 300mt in the next 10 years
So apparently Coal is the king of commodities that we just can't do without
Coal mining provides wealth, jobs and an incredible amount of disposable income that has for generations built a political system that is a behemoth dedicated to it's own insatiable appetite
This should be taught in schools and universities
Everything you need to know about this IS taught in a typical chemical engineering curriculum. It's just not taught in the context of how you could run a refinery without making gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, because right now we DO make 75-85% of every barrel into fuels. I certainly remember over 30 yrs ago, when we first learned about Fischer Tropsch- and it WAS taught in the context of "...and this is how we could keep making petroleum after we've burned all of it we can find in the earth".
Thank you! We need more of this on all platforms!
My father, an engineer and mechanic, always reckoned oil is far too valuable to just burn,whether to produce steam or movement. Way too inefficient. Nice video Dave well presented
The Fossil Fools keep telling us that we can't, but… WE CAN. I'll bet the whalers claimed that we couldn't do without whale oil either. Don't drink the Fossil-Fool Aid, folks!
Just like if you went back and time and asked the guys in the 1850s who were drilling for oil where it was seeping out of the ground, how likely it would be that we could find enough to burn 10 million barrels per day...they'd have laughed and laughed at you!
I think your video title should be; Why are we burning this valuable commodity when it is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, electronics, fertilizers, plastics, etc. I think the fact that oil will become scarce and thus force up prices on essential items and we should be burning other less valuable and scarce chemicals.
What should we burn?
Interesting video Dave, thanks. I also work(ed) in the industry, and I have never really heard the claim that it's impossible to make the byproducts without burning the fuel. I have only ever heard it said that it's not possible to do so with the current setup, and without changing processes significantly. Of course, that all takes cost, time, and large amounts of energy to do. Fundamentally though, the argument has always been an economic one. Yes, we could produce the other commodities without burning fossil fuels, but all those commodities are currently subsidised by the burning (selling fuels for burning in other words) of fossil fuels. Thus, those commodities are likely to rise significantly in cost, and those commodities also form the building blocks of our entire economic system (with regard to materials flow). If I can be critical of your otherwise excellent work, I think this video failed to get to grips with the economics of the situation, and indeed failed to provide a critique of our economic system. I have to agree with the oil industry with this one, that there is no way to provide the commodities we currently use (read: waste) without burning the fuel. There is a circular issue in play that the economy needs these commodities but cannot accomodate the subsequent rise in price that will be required by taking fossil fuel profits out of the mix. The answer is, of course, to tackle both the fossil fuel issue and the economic system in parallel (which is where I completely differ from my friends in the oil industry, obviously). The answer is, and always has been, to reduce, reduce and reduce again. Less plastics, less fertiliser, less electronics, and so on. The only thing preventing this is the economic system that we're all part of. I think we all know this too, and we all know that there are limits to growth. I do like Paul Martin, your guest also, he's a great thinker and speaker. I'd recommend everyone checks out his (and others') interview with Nate Hagens.
Even if inflating the bubble, I also strongly recommend Nate Hagens‘ vlog, very good systemic viewpoints and excellent Interview partners.
Excellent overview.
Thank you Dave. You have a talent for taking complex subjects and making them easier to understand. I have a suggestion for you. I just finished reading Michael Mann’s new book titled “Our Fragile Moment”. You could take this excellent book on climate science and summarize it for your followers.
Hi John. I've just received my copy of that book. Mann also recently criticised James Hansen's latest paper. I plan to attempt to understand where their differences lie, and which of the two we should regard as more accurate or realistic (neither is a great option, by the way!)
@@JustHaveaThink I suspect that you will find Michael Mann to be well grounded and a little more conservative. We have several excellent geoscientists here in Tucson at the University of Arizona. Michael mentions one of them in the book. Her name is Jessica Tierney. She has given two lectures to the geosciences class that I led at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute (OLLI-UA). Her department head told me that she is a rock star in her field of paleoclimatology.
Probably the best titled You Tube channels. Makes me think!
Thanks Dave! My brother works revamping the control systems and other requirements for these plants down in Houston. This is the lifeblood of Houston, so something has to be done to keep the jobs and change our ways, away from greenhouse gas emissions and towards renewables. I'm glad you mentioned a bit of the thinking being given to transitioning towards a green future. Your guest is amazingly astute in this area, and I recon that the industry simply has to move towards changes and renewables, which the owners obviously won't like to do, but even they live on planet earth. 🌎. Sure it's expensive to deal with the changes, but planet B is a long ways off, so we'll have to keep planet A in good shape. 😊 These industries have branches that make the ultra pure silicon and on up to modules, so they need to grow those sectors and shift the economic levers in that direction, they could even make more insulation boards and other products to max out the performance of building envelopes. ✉️ 🌄
There is plenty of wind and sunlight in Houston, just go for it. And build powerlines that are up to EU Standards
@@johgude5045 ...& switchgear, control centres & all the rest of it.
Blah blah blah! You're wiki- scrapping ESG Given Wisdom 'Renewable Energy!' narrative. Like reading Harry Potter! _"Elixirim probablis notis!"_
Pentagon just looted $33B from Biden's ' Renewable Energy!' slush fund while you were bleating! Documented!
What atmospheric gases have the capacity to generate a genuine greenhouse effect in the free atmosphere? In terms of climatology, water vapour is the only gas that's a powerful temperature regulator. The rest of them are irrelevant, and the physics/associated mathematics can prove it.
They are chemical (process) companies, they could be producing whatever is needed. OPEC thinks demand for oil will keep _increasing_ until 2050, do with that fact whatever you like, but if true, that doesn't sounds good. The industry keeps talking more and more about synthetic fuels, maybe they need it to keep up with demand now that these processes have become more economically. I don't think they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. 🙂
your channel is great - thank you Dan
It's Dave...but thank you anyway :-)
I love it, Dave! So well presented. I sense that some of the oil giant bigwigs themselves will be checking out this video for the overview.
Thank you . I hope so! :-)
Hi Dave, thanks for this. I didn’t know it was possible to only refine the things you want and leave the rest unrefined. I’m also very happy that you talked about the need to reduce consumption. That often gets left out. The only thing I’m unclear on is what we do with the unrefined oil. Am I misunderstanding something? We have to pump the whole barrel of oil to get the parts we want, so we still have the parts we don’t want out of the ground. Do we pump that part back into the ground or what? Maybe I missed something? Can you please explain? Thanks.
The Catalytic “Cracking” Currently used to make Gasoline and other light Components could be used to only make Gas Fractions for Chemicals, Plastics, and Pharmaceuticals. The gases could also be put into a Pyrolysis unit and turned into Hydrogen and Carbon Black (the “Turquoise Hydrogen” or whatever goofy term was used)
Catalytic “Upgrading” could also be used to make lighter fractions into heavier ones for Lubricating Oils, Waxes, and Asphalt.
Also as less Fuel is needed, less needs to be extracted, and smaller refineries can exist.
Also rather than Refining or simply Flaring, the leftovers could be fed into a Generator such as a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine or Solid Oxide Fuel Cell etc and turned into electricity and central heating. Granted some form of Carbon Capture, or at least MAJOR emissions control would be needed as well.
This is a bit more speculative, but “Disposal” of unused fractions in an “Injection Well” (potentially in the exact well the original crude oil/gas was extracted from, pending logistical mess), or as my favorite “Reverse Coal Mining” of the Carbon Black could be done.
Making a PILE of Carbon Black and Carbon Fiber, as well as Synthetic Graphite, the latter of which is a fossil resource that will need to be phased out thus a growing market in of itself, are another way to go.
All in all What *exactly* will happen (as with most things Fossil Fuel Phaseout / Decentralization of the Economy wise) is a major unknown for now as there are essentially infinite ways to go, but there are various educated guesses such as those mentioned in the video/what I mentioned.
Hope this helped!
You don't "refine what you need and leave the rest unrefined"- you take the suite of molecules you start with, separate them, and then convert the ones you don't want, into the ones you do. The ones that are too small, you convert to synthesis gas in a reformer and use a process like Fischer Tropsch or methanol synthesis to make into bigger molecules or other valuable products. You crack lights to make olefins for plastics, and to polymerize into bigger molecules if needed. You "plat-form" straight chain molecules to make them into aromatics. And you crack and desulphurize heavy hydrocarbons to make stuff to feed the other processes. Only those molecules you need, are removed. You recycle the rest internal to the refinery. It's a bit more complex than that, but that more or less describes how we run refineries today- except refineries today are optimized to turn 75-85% of each barrel (after 20% is used as fuel gas) into molecules that we burn.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 I’ve only read a little on the Fischer Troph Process, how commonly is that used (especially in plants not specifically designed for Coal or Gas to Liquids)?
Also what all do you know about that other process, what was it “Methanol to Olefins” or something, was Syngas->Methanol if i remember correctly, then either to DME and stuff from that (which I somewhat understand), then some full on organic chemistry / catalyst dark magic to make more complex hydrocarbons?
I am VERY interested in the whole Bio-Petrochemisry / “Power-to-Chemicals” / “Power-to-Fuels” type ecosystem so I’d love to hear what all you know!
@@ericlotze7724 Fischer Tropsch is a process where any carbonaceous material can be gasified, with water as needed, to produce CO and H2, which are then reacted with one another to make long hydrocarbon chains, generally straight chains.
Coal and natural gas have been used in past. Biomass can also be used. But when fossil petroleum is permitted to be made into fuels to be burned instead, F-T is an economic disaster. It is energy inefficient and requires a huge capital investment. It can't make money except at GIANT scale, even when fed FREE natural gas as a source of both feedstock and energy.
There are many syngas processes. Syngas can be used to make methanol, acetic acid etc. A F-T type catalyst can be used to make olefins directly from syngas. Methanol can also be reacted to make olefins, and methanol can be reacted over a zeolite catalyst in the old Mobil "Methanol to Gasoline" process, producing aromatics. Two methanol molecules can also be reacted with one another to produce DME and water, but DME is more or less useless other than as a diesel replacement- so it's of no use if the source carbon is of fossil origin.
It makes far more sense to make -(CH2)- from petroleum than to try to make it from CO2 or C6 H10 O5 (the generic approximate formula for biomass). Biomass is hydrogen deficient plus it requires huge additional amounts of hydrogen to remove the oxygens as water. But if we use fossil sources like petroleum, we MUST NOT burn the products, either on purpose as fuels, or at end of life.
Power to X (where X is fuels) is best understood as "power to excrement", i.e. you take pure thermodynamic work, waste most of it, and the product is a small amount of chemical energy- a proxy for heat. Bad, wasteful idea. Something to do out of desperation, not choice.
Eliminating methane use is hard because of civilian use.
Way too many people rely on it for home heating.
Even if electric or heat pump is much cheaper to run.
Most simply do not have the money to swap. Even if gov paid 2/3 of it.
Electrified heater is the same price or cheaper than gas furnace.
So it could easily happen with new home builds or replacements in old homes as gas furnaces wear out.
It is called "transition" not "snap your fingers and no one uses gas any more".
And it easily could have started decades ago when it would have been less urgent.
Bio-Methane (from Anaerobic Digestion of Manure and/or Sewage, as well as potentially stuff like compostable waste or dedicated sustainable biomass), or my personal Favorite *Dimethyl Ether* (DME) both exist currently at some scale, and can easily be scaled up.
Biogas can even be done yourself with the various DIY / Open Source designs for a “Biodigester”, granted these smaller Anaerobic Digesters are a bit more finicky, and produce “Biogas” which has sulfur impurities as well as water and carbon dioxide, BUT it can be used as is, or upgraded with some small devices to decently pure methane.
DME is my favorite though as it can be made from Electricity or Biomass, and stores like propane. Also makes an AMAZING diesel fuel due to it’s high cetane value and inability to produce Diesel Particulate Matter (aka soot)
(Granted might be some issues with seals, probably have to use more Fluropolymers like Vitron etc, or even metal gaskets, although I haven’t found as much information as i want on all this, but this is the only real concern i have found on dme)
It’s usually used as a more portable/easier to use form of Coal, rather than being made sustainably, but SE Asia is investing quite a bit in DME if i remember correctly.
I’m rambling, but despite the fact that i do like heat pumps (especially ground source heat pumps!) more, i do agree things like CNG and/or Propane have their uses, but i think there are plenty of replacements.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on all that though!
the fact that we need it for other things is literally an argument AGAINST burning it
Mendeleev, the father of the periodic table of the elements, was asked once what he thought about burning petroleum. He said he supposed you could also keep warm by burning banknotes in the kitchen stove...That's the point I make constantly- that petroleum's highest value uses are NOT as fuels.
We can produce it via,
'Precision Fermentation ' technology.
Not sure what you mean by "it", but given the volumes of stuff we make from oil, precision fermentation is not an economically viable option.
@@incognitotorpedo42
From 'it' I mean petroleum products.
And yes, its not economically viable yet.
But the cost of Precision fermentation is decreasing and sometime in the future it will become viable.
So your expert answered very Clearly the first, best thing we can do today. Methane is not CO2, & "equivalent" (not) is that methane is 80x stronger than CO2. He clearly said and glossed over, could be captured, reused, eliminate flaring, etc. Plus methane quickly degrades in the atmosphere unlike CO2 (permenant). Quick fixes all without dealing with the larger problems you ran rough-shod over and each should be a topic. Not least, the title. By confusing different terms /gasses and a whole different topic/video (extinction of gas or us) only a few viewers likely followed much. I know you complain about people like me, but I leave nice comments and like your work so I'm uncharacteristically taking time to write this in hopes you will do your excellent work on methane. The consumption world driving the pollution one is also a great topic, so keep the title for that. Sincerely....
Oil industry seeing their fuel demands begin to 'evaporate', finally, but sadly ironically right as El Nino and additional effects really start to cook up. Seems like we human just have to see it .....to believe action is needed. I kinda cringe at better late than never, because just how late really?. Intervention and time will tell!
Unlike most commentors on this page I found this video to be lightweight, even juvenile. Starting with some givens, 1. Our proliferate consumption has to change, 2. The climate crisis is real, 3. The change needed is massive, bigger than any seen in living history. But your video guest was talking about what is technically possible, when we all know that is the easy part. What your guest was saying was that the process plants can change but will need to be rebuilt or completely reconfigured. The volume of hydrocarbons needed by our world today means that this will take decades and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Who is going to pay for this massive about turn, the consumers of course, and there lies the biggest stumbling block. Politicians answer to voters, who are consumers and consumers have a limit as to what they will pay, and politicians want to stay in power. As we have seen with EVs, when they are presented to the mass market, as compared to the wealthy first movers, there is a very hard limit to what consumers will pay to change, both in money and in inconvenience. So, in summary, we need to change but it is not going to be pretty or smooth, and is going to take decades. This, the real challenge, was completely absent from your video.
Hemp can help with a lot. The big oil lobbied the governments to ban it because they knew how much of a wonder plant it is.
You can make almost everything with hemp from clothes to dinner plates etc.
Its true. Hemp is a wonder crop with so many possibilities. The dominoes are falling, more nations are legalising cannabis so that objection to hemp is void. People need educating. Separate individual hemp fibres with steam jets to weave a cloth as fine as silk and much stronger. Clothes that last forever.
I said this in another comment, but it wasn’t banned by oil lobbies, it was due to it being *sort of* related to high thc producing cannabis. Essentially the Poppy Seed production vs Heroin Production Issue. Not that that was a good choice, but that was the reason, not some conspiring cabal.
On the note of it’s usefulness, in the era before Semi-Synthetic Textiles it was one of the best Natural Fiber sources, although as compared to Flax Linen, short of rope it falls a bit short.
Granted Life Cycle Assessments of Cotton vs Linen vs Hemp etc are the only way to get “hard” data, but yeah.
Now though with the invention of Rayon/Viscose, *any* cellulose source can be made into a fiber of superior properties. Although a Plastic Fiber can ve used as well, a substantial portion of Carbon Fiber is made from Rayon as well, and Carbon Fiber is HEAVILY used for it’s superior properties (Granted usually in a composite of Plastic, although Bio-Plastics, or even Graphite or Chitosan can be used as well).
In my opinion at least the choice of Hemp is either due to people not knowing all of that rant of mine, which is valid, or a sort of ignorant “stick it to the man” isage of it to spite the war on drugs authorities with your rebellious rope.
I don’t want to sound mean, and i hate the results of the war on drugs as much as the next guy, but Hemp is ovverated vs either Local Grasses/other Local Biomass, or the Ultimate Cellulosic Feedstock (like the selectively bred/genetically engineered bamboo with the Guinness World Record for Fastest Plant growth etc)
That’s my take at least, i’d love to hear your thoughts on all this.
Hemp is a great fibre that we were denied access to because of stupid puritanism. But it's a biomass material like all others. I just wish the pot-heads would stop claiming that it's the perfect thing to use to make everything, or that it cures cancer etc. You can literally make a silk purse from enough sow's ears, too, but that doesn't make it a sensible thing to do.
I've been following this channel for a long time now. It provides a good scientific background to support its arguments, as well as, gives a great update of the latest publications. So, I'm not gonna lie, this title scared me a bit as I wasn't sure what to expect. However, I'm glad it turned out to be the great one (again)! Thank you!
Thank you dave for this information. I am trying to be practical. As far as i understand global warming is a fact of life. What im curious about is how industry and governments are planning to handle the changes forseen?
That is the $64,000 question Simon! Next week's video throws a bit of light onto that (spoiler alert...in most cases, not well!)
A really great program.. I would love you to know that your channel is a Very valuable contribution and education to the world debate on climate change,, Keep up the great work.
We could have phased out oil at the least in most of transportation and large sections of manufacturing with solar panels. Especially if we invested heavily in the technology starting in the 70s
Solar has limited yield, and more investment herein is like trying to push a fully loaded wheelbarrow uphill in mud. The same goes for wind, the more we litter our landscapes with these technologies the lower the actual yield will be for growing economies. We need to advocate for free energy and water, and get governments worldwide to implement this immediately, there are better technologies out there than solar and wind, 70+ % of our earth is dynamic water.
Granted Photovoltaic has more complexity in terms of Sustainability. It has E-Waste levels of complexity for reprocessing. Not impossible, but not that easy.
Also i think the “hurdles” exist more in the Sustainable Biomass->Fuels or the Power-to-X type workflows, although those are currently at a sufficiently high Technology Readiness Level to work in my opinion, and as you said could have been sped up via earlier focus and investment.
(Also Coal-to-Liquids and Gas-to-Liquids overlap heavily with the technology I mention and thus much of the core concepts already existed short of Fuel Cell / Reverse Fuel Cell work and some Catalysts)
"Need" is a weird word. Things are only "needed" until they're not. Where's the expense of things and where's the profit?
THAT tells one what's up with "needs". The folks that sell things will tell you ANYTHING to keep you buying things.
Good vid. I doubt most folks understand what's up with these processes.
I'm thinking we'll always need petro-derived products. I'd like to know what those might be ? Over the short term and long term. Cost ? Nah, there's always a cost. My simple mind can't collate all the data Dave has presented us over the years so I need help big time to find out an answer.
A better way to think of it is that we'll always need certain molecules and materials that are easiest to make FROM petroleum. There's just no need to burn anything to do that, contrary to what the fossil producers are telling us. You certainly would need a very, very different refinery than the ones today, which turn 75-85% of each barrel (after 20% is used as fuel IN the refinery) into things that we burn.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Agreed, though that's the long view. My short view always comes back to airplanes 'cause it'll be awhile 'til they're not powered by combustion. (me? I'm just a retired firmware programmer.) Perhaps some vigorous exothermic chemistry is on the horizon ?
@@mpart_woodlathe-stuff yes, aircraft will need liquid fuels. No, we can't make those out of petroleum, because we can't catch the resulting CO2. So our choices are either biomass (C6 H10 O5) or CO2. Using biomass is far easier as a source than CO2- it takes far less hydrogen to get rid of all that annoying oxygen.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972 Ya lost me there but do Carry On ! Please.
@@spitfireresearchinc.7972We will be using petroleum for aviation and heavy transportation (probably all transportation) forever. At least until high temperature nuclear synfuels are viable. Nothing else is capable.
Oh boy, this video was INTERESTING to watch. The information was solid, but the assumptions and projections were unhinged. I have a son just finishing his petroleum engineering degree! We knew, and it’s been confirmed by his experience so far, that public sentiment has been so biased against the fossil fuel industry - against the reality of civilization’s dependence on fossil fuels - that he will face little competition for the available jobs in the industry. The profit margins are healthy and global demand strong for the industry. The more quasi-religious videos such as this produced, the more benighted government policies against fossil fuels, the more restricted the investments into the industry, the higher the prices! Well done, keep up the good work. My son’s financial success is assured.
Gradually transitioning from a gas household. The stove is induction. The hot water is a heat pump (as of last week), the main room heater is a heat pump. The clothes dryer is a heat pump and the main power source to the house is a Tesla battery and solar panels. I have a hybrid car at this stage.
Hopefully you aren't getting rid of gear that is still working thereby creating more waste and consuming more resources via buying new products?
@@oldbloke204 The stove was a 1980’s Chef and the door to the oven had fallen off, The hot water system failed and the plumber recommended it be replaced. The kitchen hadn’t been renovated since 1989 at least. I replace our car every 15 years whether they need it or not as a road safety decision. It was just a decision to get a more efficient machine.
@@peterbaxter8151 Yeah nice.
So much waste these days.
We have electric in the house but I'm not actually sold on everyone going over to it along with EVs due to the load on the electricity grids but we shall see.
At this point we have no solar although we're probably in as good a situation for it as anyone and I don't like the idea of strapping batteries to our home.
Maybe in a few years but at this point I shall wait and see.
@@oldbloke204 My solar array was installed in May with the Tesla battery. At this stage the electricity supplier owes me money, however, I expect to use it to pay for my winter use.
@@peterbaxter8151 Are you in the US?
Here in Australia they were giving people big feed in tariffs to try and get people to take up solar which many many did.
Now the feed in tariffs are very low and I expect they will drop to virtually nothing when all of the big solar and wind farms get going.
I suspect that we will be producing more power than we can use during the day but at night................
We've just spent quite a bit of money re roofing our old place and I'm loathe to put panels on the main part of our roof.
Maybe on the lean to at some point.
Going to be interesting to see where it all goes over the next few years.
For now we're making a half decent return on the money we haven't spent on all of this.
Probably the most important thing to note from that is the adaptability of modern hydrocarbon refineries.
Perhaps in a future video you could explore the variety of usable feedstocks? What's currently used is compressed & heated compost - that compost doesn't have to be either compressed or heated, it can just as easily be grass clippings, food waste, abattoir waste, trees, anything carbon-based.
It's going to be interesting to see how people will react when they realize what a corner we've painted ourselves into.
We have the technology to get out of that corner. All we lack is political will.
They will wonder why no one warned them.
Or the time. @@incognitotorpedo42
@chinookvalley seriously, wish someone had said something a few decades ago so we could have started the transition then instead of this sudden painful panic. 😳
That damn “empty hospital add” pisses me off. “Oh no how will we make things without fossil fuels” Straight up False Dilemma logical fallacy.
Even without any major changes, algal ponds and Hydrothermal Liquefaction can make a *Drop In Replacement for Crude Oil*
(The only changes *maybe* needed are Desalters (basically just mix with water then remove water, existing designs) and *maybe* Hydrodemetallization for Iron Contamination (i can grab the paper, but salt and iron were the main contaminants of HTL Biocrude if i remember correctly) similar to Hydrodesulferization, although i have read less on this so it may need more catalyst work etc)
Then one can mention Power-to-X processes, and/or Gasification then “Gas-to-Liquids” processes. (Shoutout to my favorite Dimethyl Ether (DME).
“Pyrolysis” also exists, and works better with Cellulosic Biomass etc, and can be used for “Thermal Recycling” or Plastics and other RDF. Granted separating the Pyrolysis Oil (often called “Bio-Oil” which gets confusing with Pure Plant Oil and HTL Biocrude) and Char in it can be difficult.
*THEN* you have the precision fermentation realm where you can use the Familiar (Sugar and/or Cellulosic) Ethanol to make things such as Ethane etc.
*Also* with genetic engineering one can make microbes that produce Bio-Butanol or all sorts of other interesting compounds.
I’m rambling, but between all the possibilities, and also *high Technology Readiness Level Studies / Pilot Plants* the only limit is really investment + public interest, here’s to hoping…
It makes no sense to convert C6 H10 O5, via pyrolysis or hydrothermal liquefaction or whatever process that comes to mind, into -(CH2)- for non-burning applications, when -(CH2)- in giant excess of our needs is lying right beneath our feet.
Great interview! Always good to get a sneak-peak of what fossil fuel folks are thinking. But with the plastic/microplastic crisis we are also facing, I don't think we should strive to continue our petrol-based addiction even if it managed to detach from the energy and transportation sector. We need biodegradable or reusable alternatives.
Hey Beckisphere! Don't see your channel pop up much these days.
Have you read Ministry for the Future?
Dave give this lady a like and comment!
@@theunknownunknowns256hey! I recently got a job which has kept me super busy, but I have some video concepts in the works! The book is on my bookshelf next to my bed but I haven’t built up the courage opened it yet. 😂 what did you think of it?
Brilliant. We just need politicians with spines to bring the changes about. Unfortunately they seem very few and far between at least in the UK.
Or anywhere else in the western world!
In fact, I firmly believe that the new age of stupid is fully financed by the fossil industry. Just hear what's coming out of the populists mouths...
Great video as usual
producing products FROM oil isnt the same as BURNING oil.
Learning about Waste Heat on youtube should lead people here. Great video!
Y'know, its ALMOST like we've spent TRILLIONS of dollars and more than a century developing chemistry and industrial processes to manipulate petrochemicals at will...🤔
Fascinating subject. I far prefer discussions that cover the problems as well as the solutions when it comes to energy challenges.
The fact still remains that we a currently in the longest sustained coldest period in earths history since life began. We are also suffering the lowest levels of CO2 over the same period. Dropping to dangerous levels over the period of an ice age cycle when plant life stops growing. What the world need most of all is much higher levels of CO2 we need to get to 1000ppm as a minimum to get the plant back to normal levels. Any attempts to reduce CO2 is complete madness...
"The fact still remains that we a currently in the longest sustained coldest period in earths history since life began."
If you had something useful to say your comment might not have got deleted...but you didnt.
You all @JustHaveaThink are doing a tremendous job showing us the obstacles / challenges we face to becoming a civilization that lives within planetary means. Thank you :) People like you all give me hope. Because, I believe, we can overcome these things by working together, in a collective /consensus based fashion, to achieve them.
So big oil to shrink to a quarter of its current size. No problem just quadruple the price of every thing they provide with other increments due to the loss of economies of scale. Quick fix no sweat.
Well that is also where the concepts of reduced consumption, recycling and alternatives come into play so the need for petroleum materials and chemicals is also reduced at the same time as we reduce fuel demand/production.
@@5353Jumper Good argument with which I fully agree; please add in the other essential part of the global survival plan 'reduce population expansion'. With a replacement rate of two live births per woman that should be a target that is heavily promoted.
@BernardLS well, and also starting a few decades ago so we are not in a panicked painfull rush to get this done.
@@5353Jumper To be honest that is a function of the 'Demographic Transition Model' my parents were part of the generation that should have locked the 'two will do' protocol in place in the 1940's. Sadly for the Global South where the typical existence was subsistence farming or artisanal toil more children meant more help will the labour, Only in the urbanised Global North, where children were an expense (liability), did the reduction in population expansion idea find mass appeal. Anticipation would have prevented Desperation; but 'when one has to get through the day there is little time to worry about next weeks problem'.
Spot on again, Dave. I spent an entire career in oil and gas and I see that the industry is now in a life-or-death struggle for survival. Hence the massive mis-information campaigns being waged across the world by journalists, politicians and retired academics who will take anyone's money to spout nonsense. Rather that speculating about how oil and gas might mend their ways and do things differently (there's no listening there), I say it's smarter to consider entirely different methods of producing the materials we need. As an example, I refer to a new company in Scotland called Celtic Renewables. Disclosure: I am a very minor investor. This company recycles waste from whisky distilleries into three essential chemicals: Acetone, Butanol and Ethanol. And all in a circular and decarbonised process.
Does anybody else have the little thought that when ever an oil company or their minions speak, they lie? Just a little thought.
It gets tiresome!
Stop that! Back in line!
Very interesting ....great graphics to help follow the processes 👍
I live in a red-neck, religious, right-wing, radical county of southern Colorado where alternate energy is looked at as the work of the Devil himself. No need to change our ways, God will take care of things. Talk about "bewildering", that's the way of life here.
Aren’t Windmills (their minor downsides/complexity notwithstanding) basically Free Money for Farmers etc?
(Granted small fossil fuel drill sites are as well i guess, and i know some pipeline welders who may be fucked over if we don’t get the “Just Transition” right so i get the sentiment i guess)
(That and just Fox News induced Brain Rot lol)
COP in UAE looks like a huge conflict of interest…. Thanks for another great video, very informative
Truly excellent and insightful content as always. Thankyou so much. We do really heavily on petroleum products, and although it's been obvious we don't need so much of it - the waste issue is huge - we still need to use it. It's incredibly positive that there are already ways to do this technically, even with the costs and the problems. Government regulation is really what is required now to push changes... unfortunately.
While it was totally "not new" to me, I'm still happy you made this video because it is an important message that can spread more widely through your channel and the likes. And it needs being spread.
@josemercado3063 Thanks for your nonsense. Close to nothing in your statement is true. There is much more than Energy in the Ghawar Oil Field. There are precious resources of which man can make wonderful products. Stupid mankind that walks around blindfolded and brainwashed so it can only see Energy in it. The vast majority of making/deployment/maintenance and dismantling of renewable energy equipment can be made by use of renewable energy instead of fossils. Just time is still needed to make the transition there as well: Mining etc.
Thanks for this video.
I would argue that it is one of the most important videos of yours I've ever seen.
Personally I don't think we need to get rid of all fossil fuel burning, and that's okay because it is the over use that's killing us (literally and figuratively).
One of the things I would like to see is if these very smart chemical scientists can make new products that don't require burning the oil, but instead turn it into hard things.
I recently sent an email to the CEO of ExxonMobil asking if it was possible to turn hydrocarbons into a substance that could reduce or replace concrete.
Considering how big the concrete market is, if they could create such a substance it would be a money making machine.
The fact is that the only reason we have plastics is because they are trying to wring the last half penny from the resource.
I think that if they actually TRIED making alternative products, (things you don't burn) there would be some pretty incredible products they could produce.
If there were enough of these kinds of products they could do very well indeed.
The problem is getting them to see the potential, so far all they see is the easy profits from gasoline, which is their current bread and butter.
Maybe others have ideas for products they could make out of oil.
Perhaps if we bombarded them with ideas, they'd actually start looking at these ideas and changing themselves into the world's largest tangible objects makers.
Of course they could just wither down to the small business they were before we began burning things in large quantities.
The choice is theirs, in the end.
that petro chemicals flowchart is really sexy, I just recently looked for something like it!
Very much appreciated how well your sources are cited in every video btw, so helpful!
As you mentioned, the shift toward a renewable and electric future is underway. At this point, the oil industry's primary strategy is to prolong this transition as much as possible, leveraging their vast experience and influence to maximize profits within the current market. It's crucial for us to advocate for solar and wind energy, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and similar technologies. Money propels the world forward, and we hold the key to driving change through our collective financial choices.
It’s absolutely more crucial for us to advocate for nuclear energy. Traditional renewables will never put out enough power to outcompete fossil fuels. Nuclear can, will, and does. The only obstacle is cost.
Also, our collective financial choices mean Jack diddly when 10% of investors hold 90% of stocks. 1% owns ~50% of wealth. It’s nice to pretend we have an inkling of power, but it’s also nice to acknowledge the facts.
Massive increases in the cost of basic materials like polymers are raised as objections to change, but the reality is that the costs of raw materials are a small fraction of the cost of finished products. The changes described here would put producers under pressure but would have minimal effects on the overall cost of things we need like plastics and lubricants.
Thanks Dave. This is such an important question yet there has been such a dearth of attention paid to the issue. I was delighted to see that you have given it some exposure. Needless to say, your treatment of the subject is as thorough and insightful as I've come to expect from you. Thank you.
The notion of a genuine transition away from fossil fuels is complex and fraught with very, very serious questions. None of these questions are being discussed by our media or politicians and the prevailing narrative (which regards the green transition as a mere replacement of 'dirty' sources of energy with a'clean' ones) is simplistic and naive. We have difficult decisions to make as a species and our politicians are (at best) ignorant of these complexities or (at worst) deceiving their populations into believing that our current way of life can be sustained without the need for grave sacrifices.
This question is, of course, a subset of a larger question; 'can a finite planet sustain infinite economic growth?' The assumption of the majority of politicians is 'yes', the reality almost certainly 'no'. We need to raise awareness of the concerns of the 'no' camp such that the prevailing narrative is more thoroughly interrogated.
Your humor is often the high point of my week. :) Thanks, yet again, for a good commentary.
12:05 Oil is not on the last legs. Still grows strong. Biggest secrecy in physics is entropy concept to mechanical systems that will change electricity production methods without any heat (burning), still 17 trillion dollars around the World by coal, oil and natural gas barons for education. I done oil refinery school project in chemistry funded by local refinery company who is biggest taxpayer in the country. Everything runs on oil, and in eastern Europe it is worst situation, all crude all oil comes from Russia and Russia oil surplus money spends on military hardware.
Great video. Thank you so much for creating and posting.
Thank you and very interesting, I was at a classic car event recently where this exact topic came up, it's probably not a surprise what views were being aired (along with many other BS ones regarding EVs). I tried to point out how spectacularly wrong they were (being more tactful than they were) but surprisingly enough they wouldn't listen, if I fancy restarting the discussion I might forward this video onto them. Sadly the vast majority don't care as they're stuck in their ways and it won't affect them as they won't be around in 20 years time.
To be fair, classic cars are far less damaging to the environment (assuming they were at some point used as primary cars) than new ones, and many times more fun to look at. A $10k EV conversion on an existing car instead of buying a new one would be by far the most sensible option long term. The problem is that GDP is so heavily dependent on new car sales that we have to create the fantasy that replacing old products that still work with new ones is somehow green. It's not.
EV conversions of classics also makes them about 10% faster. So there's that.
@@guapochino140 it's rather dependent on what milage you do in the car but for the majority of cases yes I'd agree. Although the majority of classic cars are just a toy second car so it'd definitely be cleaner if it just wasn't run at all.
But the majority of the views were about them busting into flames, taking days to recharge, only having a short range, batteries needing replacing every couple of years, "but what are we going to use all the excess petrol for because we'll still need the lubricants" etc etc etc.
@@guapochino140 I think the majority of the classic car owners were trying to pretend the EV conversion stand didn't exist, it seemed to offend their eyes.... The EV conversions are so expensive (much more than 10k) that they'll never be considered. tbh the car's character also changes so much with an EV conversion I understand why most wouldn't want it. Happily the impact on the environment from classic second cars is very minor.
@@tom314 I saw a video of a Beetle conversion where they mentioned it really improved handling. But that's probably just Beetles, ha. Re: Classic as a toy car... unfortunately, yes, although I can keep dreaming. In a similar vein, it seems like many people who buy EVs also still own conventional cars. It follows the current pattern of "green" energy - it gets added to the mix rather than replacing... so total consumption is still increasing.