Climate change and human responsibility

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

While I agree the pace needs to increase, there are lots of things happening that are hard to see. As with lots of tectonic societal changes it can change slowly, them all at once. For example: solar in Alberta. Most people who aren't interested in this stuff I talk to from Alberta tell me there's only a little solar in Alberta. That was true two years ago. Now?

I agree solar is booming which is great.

Solar panels are made with oil and gas. How do we reconcile that?

[Lego Man]

I think we can reconcile that as time goes on by:
1) decreasing the amount in which we rely on oil and gas over time in things like manufacturing, heating, etc.
2) increasing the amount in which we rely on renewable and clean energy sources.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Lego Man

I think we can reconcile that as time goes on by:
1) decreasing the amount in which we rely on oil and gas over time in things like manufacturing, heating, etc.
2) increasing the amount in which we rely on renewable and clean energy sources.

Of course, what serious person would ever disagree with this?

Now, the next layer. On what basis, what timeframe, what impacts to people, etc.?

Of course there is huge debate on all of this.

[BagoPucks]

Does the human consumption, living large lives and adjusting our lifestyle come into the equation for climate change or is that something that will shake out as a result of the market forces?

[Fuzz]

The amount of solar installed is also nameplate maximum capacity, which usually lasts for about 4 hours(though only really peaks for an hour or so). To get a more realistic number, multiply nameplate by 18%(to be generous). So to compare how much it generates on average over a year, it's about 182MW. So while it has increased a lot, it only generates ~1.8% of our needs. Much better than nothing, but not nearly the 10% a quick glance at the numbers would have you believe.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Okay, please let me know on the following (note, this list is not comprehensive):

Solvents
Ink
Upholstery
Tires
Dresses / Clothes
<snip>
heating homes / commercial buildings / anything
drinking cups
pillows


there's more. Far more but this is a good list to start.

O&G are miracle materials that have transformed the way we live, no question at all. But burning the stuff and discarding plastic everywhere is seriously degrading the environment so something's got to give. Most of the things on your list are durable goods that require emissions on the front end but then enjoy a long emission-free life. Who needs to ban those? Who is even talking about banning those? You keep talking extremes like we're going to cap every single well on earth.

What we need to do is stop burning the sh** and significantly curtail single use plastics (not a climate issue but another big one). If we do that we will need significantly less O&G but we will still need it and benefit from it.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by BagoPucks

Does the human consumption, living large lives and adjusting our lifestyle come into the equation for climate change or is that something that will shake out as a result of the market forces?

It has to. Replacing current energy sources to the same level, let alone growing consumption, just pushes the problem to a different area like scarcity of resources and massive cost. We ought to significantly reduce our consumption of lots of things, which will only happen by making them significantly more expensive.

Unfortunately this is an unacceptable solution for the public unless and until there is some compelling reason such as life, security, shortages, war, etc. The earth turning into a climate-induces hell-hole with massive crop failures, desertification, apocalyptic storms, etc. would probably do it, albeit a little late.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I agree solar is booming which is great.

Solar panels are made with oil and gas. How do we reconcile that?

The carbon footprint of a solar panel is paid off within a year and a half.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Okay, please let me know on the following (note, this list is not comprehensive):



Solvents

Ink

Upholstery

Tires

Dresses / Clothes

Diesel fuel

Motor oil

Bearing grease

ballpoint pens

football / soccer cleats

boats

insecticides

floor wax / all wax

Putty

Curtains

vitamin capsules

dashboards

percolators

skis

car bodies

Faucet washers

food preservatives

fertilizers

antihistamines

cortisones

dyes

life jackets

tv cabinets

bags, golf bags, back packs

tool boxes / tool racks

anything plastic

petroleum jelly

antiseptics

sports balls

deodorant

rubbing alcohol

shag rugs

perfumes

shoe polish

transparent tape

clotheslines

soap

shoes

refrigerants

linings

paint

epoxy

car batteries

solar panels / windmills

mops

umbrellas

roofing

speakers

water pipes / piping

antifreeze

heart valves

enamel

candles

lotions

toothbrushes

crayons

pillows

awnings

sun glasses

parachutes

dishes

surf boards

eyeglasses

lipstick

insect repellant

telephones / cellphones

detergents

cameras

paint brushes / brushes

bandages

anesthetics

dentures

cold cream

fan belts

fridges / appliances

movie film

artificial turf

artificial limbs

contact lens

shaving cream

toothpaste

hair curlers

ammonia

methanol

gasoline

heating homes / commercial buildings / anything

drinking cups

pillows





there's more. Far more but this is a good list to start.

I'll break the list down to make sense:


Petrochemical materials. We don't burn life jackets, ball point pens, or boats, so I'm not sure what your getting away unless you mean the emissions from petrochemical manufacturing and manufacturing goods. Direct electrification takes care of most, but hydrogen is more efficient for the processes that require a large amount of heat. There's not many companies in the space yet, largely because the space is dominated by O&G companies who produce the petroleum.

Diesel/gasoline: hundreds of companies working on this. Where electrification isn't possible, and substitute energy carriers aren't feasible, biodiesel already exists. I suspect there very few applications where electrification and hydrogen won't work, but there's companies all over the world (even in Alberta!) selling biodiesel

Buildings: This is a big one. Some of the most innovative companies are working on efficiency first. This is where the biggest gains are. Next is heat pumps. In the vast majority of populated areas, great pumps are more economical than NG furnaces. There's cold climate heat pumps that use a newer refrigerant to get much colder (below -30 in some cases) but due to low volumes so far the lack of scale makes them pretty expensive. This is why the government is offering incentives for heat pump installation. If the demand increases enough, the costs can come down. The most difficult part of this sector is you need billions of bespoke solutions. It won't be easy for sure

Ammonia/fertilizer: This one is straightforward but difficult. There are many, many companies working on this. At least hundreds, maybe thousands. Hundreds of billions of not trillions allocated here. Fertilizer is made from ammonia (70% of all ammonia uses), same ammonia is made from hydrogen. At this point, 98% of hydrogen is made from coal or natural gas (other 2% from renewables). The answer is both easy and hard. The easy answer is make all hydrogen from water with renewables using an electrolyzer. There are 2 big issues though. The first is that there's already not enough renewables yet and this adds further need. The second is bigger. Right now we move natural gas or coal to the fertilizer plant where they make the hydrogen and then the ammonia, which then becomes fertilizer. We do this because shipping hydrogen is insanely difficult and expensive and creates a lot of loss of hydrogen in the process. This means fertilizer plants will need to be located where the hydrolysis is going to happen, which in a lot of cases may mean moving facilities.

Did I miss anything?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The amount of solar installed is also nameplate maximum capacity, which usually lasts for about 4 hours(though only really peaks for an hour or so). To get a more realistic number, multiply nameplate by 18%(to be generous). So to compare how much it generates on average over a year, it's about 182MW. So while it has increased a lot, it only generates ~1.8% of our needs. Much better than nothing, but not nearly the 10% a quick glance at the numbers would have you believe.

You're missing the point entirely. Solar was projected to grow at a few percent every year. It grew 6700% in 2 years. The point is that things change suddenly and unexpectedly

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by edslunch

O&G are miracle materials that have transformed the way we live, no question at all. But burning the stuff and discarding plastic everywhere is seriously degrading the environment so something's got to give. Most of the things on your list are durable goods that require emissions on the front end but then enjoy a long emission-free life. Who needs to ban those? Who is even talking about banning those? You keep talking extremes like we're going to cap every single well on earth.

What we need to do is stop burning the sh** and significantly curtail single use plastics (not a climate issue but another big one). If we do that we will need significantly less O&G but we will still need it and benefit from it.

Okay we agree on your points above but what does "zero fossil fuels" mean to you?

You're saying "zero fossil fuels" means "still make things we need"? My misunderstanding if that's the case because I interpreted zero fossil fuels as zero fossil fuels.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'll break the list down to make sense:


Petrochemical materials. We don't burn life jackets, ball point pens, or boats, so I'm not sure what your getting away unless you mean the emissions from petrochemical manufacturing and manufacturing goods. Direct electrification takes care of most, but hydrogen is more efficient for the processes that require a large amount of heat. There's not many companies in the space yet, largely because the space is dominated by O&G companies who produce the petroleum.

Diesel/gasoline: hundreds of companies working on this. Where electrification isn't possible, and substitute energy carriers aren't feasible, biodiesel already exists. I suspect there very few applications where electrification and hydrogen won't work, but there's companies all over the world (even in Alberta!) selling biodiesel

Buildings: This is a big one. Some of the most innovative companies are working on efficiency first. This is where the biggest gains are. Next is heat pumps. In the vast majority of populated areas, great pumps are more economical than NG furnaces. There's cold climate heat pumps that use a newer refrigerant to get much colder (below -30 in some cases) but due to low volumes so far the lack of scale makes them pretty expensive. This is why the government is offering incentives for heat pump installation. If the demand increases enough, the costs can come down. The most difficult part of this sector is you need billions of bespoke solutions. It won't be easy for sure

Ammonia/fertilizer: This one is straightforward but difficult. There are many, many companies working on this. At least hundreds, maybe thousands. Hundreds of billions of not trillions allocated here. Fertilizer is made from ammonia (70% of all ammonia uses), same ammonia is made from hydrogen. At this point, 98% of hydrogen is made from coal or natural gas (other 2% from renewables). The answer is both easy and hard. The easy answer is make all hydrogen from water with renewables using an electrolyzer. There are 2 big issues though. The first is that there's already not enough renewables yet and this adds further need. The second is bigger. Right now we move natural gas or coal to the fertilizer plant where they make the hydrogen and then the ammonia, which then becomes fertilizer. We do this because shipping hydrogen is insanely difficult and expensive and creates a lot of loss of hydrogen in the process. This means fertilizer plants will need to be located where the hydrolysis is going to happen, which in a lot of cases may mean moving facilities.

Did I miss anything?

So still use petrochemical byproducts?

So, still produce and use oil and gas then?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So still use petrochemical byproducts?



So, still produce and use oil and gas then?

Yes? Just not burn it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

So still use petrochemical byproducts?

So, still produce and use oil and gas then?

Has anyone (at least anyone reasonable) suggested otherwise? If someone wanted to phase out wood burning for heat because of the smoke pollution, that doesn't mean they think houses and furniture shouldn't be made of wood any more.

[Mr.Coffee]

Uh, okay. But that's not "phasing them out entirely" or "zero fossil fuels".

So maybe the issue is on poor communication (not entirely on my part...). You guys are saying phasing out fossil fuels for the strict purpose of burning them which is entirely different than phasing them out altogether. Like, gigantic worlds of difference actually. So the clarity is relevant. Also for 2 days we have had this discussion and this was not clarified?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Has anyone (at least anyone reasonable) suggested otherwise? If someone wanted to phase out wood burning for heat because of the smoke pollution, that doesn't mean they think houses and furniture shouldn't be made of wood any more.

What? Yes, that is the entire impetus of "phasing out fossil fuels".

What does phasing something out mean to you? to me it means not use it.

Not, "don't use it but for *exceptions we don't talk about and people are assumed to know this*".

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Uh, okay. But that's not "phasing them out entirely" or "zero fossil fuels".

So maybe the issue is on poor communication (not entirely on my part...). You guys are saying phasing out fossil fuels for the strict purpose of burning them which is entirely different than phasing them out altogether. Like, gigantic worlds of difference actually. So the clarity is relevant. Also for 2 days we have had this discussion and this was not clarified?

Phasing out fossil fuels isn't phasing out oil and gas. Fossil fuels are fuels

[Mr.Coffee]

Oil and gas are fossil fuels. You cannot have oil and gas if you phase out fossil fuels. they are essentially the same thing.

The vast majority of petrochemicals are derived from fossil fuels (oil and gas). So the statement to phase out fossil fuels is akin to saying phase out oil and gas.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

What? Yes, that is the entire impetus of "phasing out fossil fuels".

What does phasing something out mean to you? to me it means not use it.

What does "fuel" mean to you? Here's the Wikipedia definition of fossil fuels:

A fossil fuel is a hydrocarbon-containing material formed naturally in the earth's crust from the remains of dead plants and animals that is extracted and burned as a fuel.

People are talking about phasing it out as a fuel source wherever possible. Like, if someone said "we need to phase out biofuels (for whatever reason)", would you take that to mean that we should stop producing and eating corn?

Not, "don't use it but for *exceptions we don't talk about and people are assumed to know this*".

You realize that the entire issue is carbon emissions and burning oil & gas as fuel, right? Why would you take that to mean that all oil byproducts and petrochemicals need to be phased out? Things that don't generate many emissions (durable goods made from plastic, lubricants, etc.) aren't an issue in terms of carbon emissions. That's why the entire conversation revolves around energy, because that's where oil and gas are used as fuels.

[Mr.Coffee]

I understand all of that.

Oil and gas are fossil fuels. That's what they are. You can go google the same definitions and questions, what are oil and gas, what are fossil fuels, are oil and gas fossil fuels, etc.

So to make a statement "phase out fossil fuels" means to literally phase out oil and gas. So why would I interpret the phasing out of fossil fuels as the phasing out of oil and gas? Because that is literally what you guys are saying, that is why.

Maybe people should be more clear, or provide the proper clarifications, such as "phase out the burning of fossil fuels".

An example:
"we need to phase out X"

"but if you do that there are disastrous consequences with Y, which is literally made from X"

"no but YOU misunderstood. I said phase out X why would you claim Y would get phased out?"

"because Y is literally X"

"no that's your misinterpretation. We mean phase out X EXCEPT FOR Y. YOUR mistake."

Ahhhh okay. Sounds good.