But I hope you won’t mind my saying that there is another really important point about crude oil (haven’t got to that chapter yet, so forgive me if you cover it). That is that crude oil is a highly complex mixture of different compounds or fractions. We all know that. But we don’t often focus on the key implication, which is that so long as there is irreplaceable demand for one or two of those fractions that can’t be substituted by a non-fossil source, the oil will still be needed. And once drilled, it will still be separated into all of its constituent fractions. And then something will have to be done with the ones we don’t want (even if they now make up 90%+ of the mix). And the cheapest thing to do will almost always be either to use the other fractions as we do now or, gulp, to burn them (if we can). Even if you can pump them back underground, you will have dramatically altered the economics of the product you still need and made it massively more expensive....
Sorry if this is obvious to you, but I’m convinced that it’s not obvious to most people.
Yes is a great point. Not sure I make it explicitly but there's hopefully a sniff of it in the refineries chapter and the conclusion. Paradoxically, refineries might end up being even more important in future than they are today but whereas the focus before was mostly petroleum in future the focus is likely to be other bits of the barrel. How the economics of this works is something I don't yet understand.
"How the economics of this works is something I don't yet understand."
Am fairly sure no one does. Seems predicated on 'growth' of the use of energy in the form of carbon deposits. Analogies with the biological world can sometimes be helpful.
Seems like it! America got motorised suburbs, a form of consumption, from gasoline (big fraction), when trucking of essential materials (part of production) needs diesel?
' Using the best rare earth metal motor' - of course the best motors today do not need to use rare earth metals. The sustainable solution is to use an alternative technology from Advanced Electric Machines based in Washington, United Kingdom. https://advancedelectricmachines.com/ This requires more advanced electronics and can also be designed without the use of copper.
Priorities, priorities! And meanwhile the footprint of all that R&D? Perhaps lego will be an heirloom toy! Thinking of useful heirlooms, belatedly our local rural water grid has been replaced with hard but sufficiently bendy plastic. It came in large rolls handled easily by a tractor, and was laid in prompt and efficient manner for domestic and multi-farm use. My guess is that it will last probably 10 times longer than the seriously degraded metal and asbestos/cement. As the 'easy' energy shrinks down it could give those in the next 2 or 3 centuries a bit of time to think about their use of water? (Thinks about Roman aquaducts in Europe, not begun to be replaced until canals in the early industrial take-off? And canals moved coal!)
Yes, the first PVC water pipes, laid in central German cities in 1936-41, are still in use and show no signs of deterioration. Polyethylene pipes (MDPE, HDPE, PEX) came in the 1960s, are also expected to last well over a century, and they are cheaper, quicker to lay and easier to join.
Stainless steel might last as long, depending on the soil chemistry, but it would be ridiculously expensive. Ordinary steel has no chance, even with cathodic protection. And the carbon footprints...
Trouble is (?) these priorities such as long life waterpipes come as part of a package deal, i.e. the very large 'rest of the barrel' of crude??? Can these 'prioity' items be made from methane at low enough cost and minimise components needed from the crude? The same question could apply to materials that reduce the energy needs of housing? These would better be long-lasting! Wood can be made very long-lasting without using biocides (needs acetic acid and energy of course). There are of course examples of long lasting wooden structures, including curiously, water pipes from elm. Future societies are going to have to make do very largely with what is left them?
I don't understand why we need to stop using fossil fuels as raw materials for stable products like ABS. If the process produces a lot of CO2, yes, that's contributing to climate change. And yes, eventually we will run out of fossil fuels. But for now the carbon in the ABS itself is locked up tight and can't cause any problems.
Totally. I think there's a fair bit of CO2 emitted along the way in this case. So that's one thing. But I think the main impetus here was that Lego said they wanted to shift away from crude oil feedstocks of all sorts.
Very interesting. Very true. The actionable, as often, is let's start with the low-hanging fruit (EVs, heat pumps, renewables to 50% of energy) - because we're still a long way from there. Some technologies are still missing, and even more uncertainties on whether the obvious required politics will be voted through the maize of established, obsolete but powerful special interests.
Another informative and highly interesting article.
Acrylonitrile was (and still is, I think) produced at Teesside, where the hydrogen cyanide by-product was transported by the tanker load! Too bad if one of those got breached!
I am a firm believer in the need to get to net zero. I also worked in the oil industry for over thirty years, not as a petroleum or chemical engineer but as a lawyer. From my vantage point (including GC of the European operation of a very large company) I was able to grasp the huge range of products and activities derived from/dependant on petroleum. I am writing this to support you in your comment that we have not begun to realise how complex getting to net zero (and “”stopping oil”) is going to be. That does not in any way (to repeat myself) take away from the urgent, vital need to do so, it is just that public understanding of the issues you so ably describe is absolutely dire. You really are doing something very important in chipping away at that ignorance
Oh, some individuals understand how hard it's going to be. Vaclav Smil has spoken about this for decades.
But yes, you are right. Policymakers are clueless.
Their successors in 2040 are going to be utterly confused when the electricity grid is completely renewable (maybe with some nuclear), and cars have all been electrified, and yet atmospheric carbon dioxide still keeps going up! "How is that possible?", they will cry.
I hope it's not too late! But I guess we will find out in due course. The problem with unessential things is we seem to be seeking out ever more of them. Eg as I say in the book the weight of the "essential" bits of a car (eg chassis, frame, engine etc) have been going down over time. But the weight of the average car has gone up. Why? Because we are shifting to SUVs and we fill the cars with gizmos like entertainment systems, heated seats and whatnot. Eg human nature (encouraged by the businesses selling us stuff) seems to drive us towards ever more consumption. It's Jevons' paradox. May do a post on that in future...
I recently read, can't recall where, that CAFE standards have led to small trucks getting bigger footprints. The standards, and changes to them over the years, don't appear to have affected 1 ton truck footprints as our 02 Long Bed Chevy took up the same footprint as a newer model that was topping up his fuel tank at the pump across from me last month. Bell our border collie will not get in the truck anymore. She did not enjoy the ride across the county without many stops staying in front of the winter storms.
As always, a wonderfully insightful article.
But I hope you won’t mind my saying that there is another really important point about crude oil (haven’t got to that chapter yet, so forgive me if you cover it). That is that crude oil is a highly complex mixture of different compounds or fractions. We all know that. But we don’t often focus on the key implication, which is that so long as there is irreplaceable demand for one or two of those fractions that can’t be substituted by a non-fossil source, the oil will still be needed. And once drilled, it will still be separated into all of its constituent fractions. And then something will have to be done with the ones we don’t want (even if they now make up 90%+ of the mix). And the cheapest thing to do will almost always be either to use the other fractions as we do now or, gulp, to burn them (if we can). Even if you can pump them back underground, you will have dramatically altered the economics of the product you still need and made it massively more expensive....
Sorry if this is obvious to you, but I’m convinced that it’s not obvious to most people.
Yes is a great point. Not sure I make it explicitly but there's hopefully a sniff of it in the refineries chapter and the conclusion. Paradoxically, refineries might end up being even more important in future than they are today but whereas the focus before was mostly petroleum in future the focus is likely to be other bits of the barrel. How the economics of this works is something I don't yet understand.
"How the economics of this works is something I don't yet understand."
Am fairly sure no one does. Seems predicated on 'growth' of the use of energy in the form of carbon deposits. Analogies with the biological world can sometimes be helpful.
Seems like it! America got motorised suburbs, a form of consumption, from gasoline (big fraction), when trucking of essential materials (part of production) needs diesel?
' Using the best rare earth metal motor' - of course the best motors today do not need to use rare earth metals. The sustainable solution is to use an alternative technology from Advanced Electric Machines based in Washington, United Kingdom. https://advancedelectricmachines.com/ This requires more advanced electronics and can also be designed without the use of copper.
interesting thank you
Priorities, priorities! And meanwhile the footprint of all that R&D? Perhaps lego will be an heirloom toy! Thinking of useful heirlooms, belatedly our local rural water grid has been replaced with hard but sufficiently bendy plastic. It came in large rolls handled easily by a tractor, and was laid in prompt and efficient manner for domestic and multi-farm use. My guess is that it will last probably 10 times longer than the seriously degraded metal and asbestos/cement. As the 'easy' energy shrinks down it could give those in the next 2 or 3 centuries a bit of time to think about their use of water? (Thinks about Roman aquaducts in Europe, not begun to be replaced until canals in the early industrial take-off? And canals moved coal!)
Yes, the first PVC water pipes, laid in central German cities in 1936-41, are still in use and show no signs of deterioration. Polyethylene pipes (MDPE, HDPE, PEX) came in the 1960s, are also expected to last well over a century, and they are cheaper, quicker to lay and easier to join.
Stainless steel might last as long, depending on the soil chemistry, but it would be ridiculously expensive. Ordinary steel has no chance, even with cathodic protection. And the carbon footprints...
Trouble is (?) these priorities such as long life waterpipes come as part of a package deal, i.e. the very large 'rest of the barrel' of crude??? Can these 'prioity' items be made from methane at low enough cost and minimise components needed from the crude? The same question could apply to materials that reduce the energy needs of housing? These would better be long-lasting! Wood can be made very long-lasting without using biocides (needs acetic acid and energy of course). There are of course examples of long lasting wooden structures, including curiously, water pipes from elm. Future societies are going to have to make do very largely with what is left them?
I don't understand why we need to stop using fossil fuels as raw materials for stable products like ABS. If the process produces a lot of CO2, yes, that's contributing to climate change. And yes, eventually we will run out of fossil fuels. But for now the carbon in the ABS itself is locked up tight and can't cause any problems.
Totally. I think there's a fair bit of CO2 emitted along the way in this case. So that's one thing. But I think the main impetus here was that Lego said they wanted to shift away from crude oil feedstocks of all sorts.
Very interesting. Very true. The actionable, as often, is let's start with the low-hanging fruit (EVs, heat pumps, renewables to 50% of energy) - because we're still a long way from there. Some technologies are still missing, and even more uncertainties on whether the obvious required politics will be voted through the maize of established, obsolete but powerful special interests.
We can focus net zero later.
Another informative and highly interesting article.
Acrylonitrile was (and still is, I think) produced at Teesside, where the hydrogen cyanide by-product was transported by the tanker load! Too bad if one of those got breached!
I am a firm believer in the need to get to net zero. I also worked in the oil industry for over thirty years, not as a petroleum or chemical engineer but as a lawyer. From my vantage point (including GC of the European operation of a very large company) I was able to grasp the huge range of products and activities derived from/dependant on petroleum. I am writing this to support you in your comment that we have not begun to realise how complex getting to net zero (and “”stopping oil”) is going to be. That does not in any way (to repeat myself) take away from the urgent, vital need to do so, it is just that public understanding of the issues you so ably describe is absolutely dire. You really are doing something very important in chipping away at that ignorance
Oh, some individuals understand how hard it's going to be. Vaclav Smil has spoken about this for decades.
But yes, you are right. Policymakers are clueless.
Their successors in 2040 are going to be utterly confused when the electricity grid is completely renewable (maybe with some nuclear), and cars have all been electrified, and yet atmospheric carbon dioxide still keeps going up! "How is that possible?", they will cry.
The solution is to reserve oil and gas for essentials. This doesn't include Lego. Replace with Meccano.
Air travel is very unessential.
Shipping goods around the world is unessential.
Heating is not essential if water solar and wind replace it.
You will know others
However as a phycisist who has studied climate change for years I strongly believe it's too late already.
And net zero doesn't stop the climate warming....
I hope it's not too late! But I guess we will find out in due course. The problem with unessential things is we seem to be seeking out ever more of them. Eg as I say in the book the weight of the "essential" bits of a car (eg chassis, frame, engine etc) have been going down over time. But the weight of the average car has gone up. Why? Because we are shifting to SUVs and we fill the cars with gizmos like entertainment systems, heated seats and whatnot. Eg human nature (encouraged by the businesses selling us stuff) seems to drive us towards ever more consumption. It's Jevons' paradox. May do a post on that in future...
I recently read, can't recall where, that CAFE standards have led to small trucks getting bigger footprints. The standards, and changes to them over the years, don't appear to have affected 1 ton truck footprints as our 02 Long Bed Chevy took up the same footprint as a newer model that was topping up his fuel tank at the pump across from me last month. Bell our border collie will not get in the truck anymore. She did not enjoy the ride across the county without many stops staying in front of the winter storms.
A modern manifestation of Jevons’ Paradox