Ketan Joshi

A GENTLE REMINDER: we are trying to eliminate fossil fuels because using them kills us.

If fossil fuels were cheap (they're not) or reliable (they're SO NOT), it would still be urgent to get rid of them because their intended use destroys our life support systems.

Even if we were unaffected (we're VERY NOT), it'd still be incumbent on us not to kill future generations of people by burning completely avoidable 19th century compressed plant matter today.

7:29amWeb
Show threadCAFCA4713h ago
@ketan
Maybe so but have you reflected on the 6,000 or so items that are derived from petrochemicals in daily use, including the plastics on the device we are using for our posts?
Crude oil extraction serves many purposes other than transport.
Show threaddasgrueneblatt13h ago
@CAFCA47
Yes, I have. That is (a) another very good reason not to just burn the stuff for a brief moment of heat, and (b) largely also very avoidable with materials already available today. Plastics are just way too cheap.
@ketan
Show threadtribactam10h ago
@dasgrueneblatt @CAFCA47 @ketan I am not sure about point 1. While chemically possible, it isn't so easy to make the hydrocarbons which have many uses beyond combustion. As far as point 2: taking out drivers of plastic production that you mention, while the volumes used may be insignificant, the products made such as modern pharmaceuticals are not.
I don't think apathy is the argument, I think it's about getting people to realise where their energy and stuff comes from. Most people have no clue.
Show threadiwein11h ago

@CAFCA47

1. no molecule produced by the petrochemical industry cannot be produced in another way,
2. Useful non energy related use of petrochemicals is insignificant (excludes single use plastic, fast fashion, and other such useless crap)
3. Even if 1, and 2 were not true, would you happily kill future generations for your comfort?

What are you arguing _for_ here exactly, apathy?

@ketan

Show threadAmorpheus10h ago

@iwein @CAFCA47 @ketan How to explain the sense of self-preservation of a frog.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=128fp0rqfbE

The “myth” of the boiling frog

YouTube
Show threadCAFCA4710h ago
@iwein @ketan
That may well be so but if I had a £/$ for every time I’ve heard ‘it must be possible’ in my lifetime I’d be extremely wealthy.
Ignorance is key to this & reliance on existing means too well established.
Scaling up of alternatives a possibility but e.g. here in the U.K. it’s gone very quiet about replacing natural gas with hydrogen for residential heating or freight transport.
Show threadiwein8h ago
@CAFCA47 why would you argue for apathy? What's there to gain with that?
Show threadtribactam11h ago

@CAFCA47 @ketan The figure is about 13% of fossil fuels are used as feedstocks.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52434-y

This is far too precious to burn!

Unaddressed non-energy use in the chemical industry can undermine fossil fuels phase-out - Nature Communications

The chemical sector is both hard-to-abate and hard-to-defossilize. This study shows how limiting the availability of alternative carbon feedstocks impacts climate goals and efforts to phase out fossil fuels.

Nature
Show threadShivviness11h ago

@ketan

The argument that it is incumbent upon people alive today to think about the wellbeing of future generations and leave them a healthy, habital planet is not made often enough. This belief that we've an obligation to postertty should be a central component of any healthy society IMHO.

Show threadtribactam11h ago

@ketan I need to add a slight correction.

Fossil fuels were not compressed in the 19th Century - they are the products of a multi-million year process involving compression under layers of accumulated sediment as it turns to rock. That energy was sunlight that bathed the dinosaurs/megafauna as they frolicked in the swamps.

Their large scale exploitation was given a huge boost in the late 19th Century by the development of the internal combustion engine. Add in the contributions of Rockefeller (Standard Oil - standardizing the supply chain from extraction to customer) and Ford (mass cars) essentially locked us into our dependency.

Around the same time, Edison, Tesla and others were playing with electricity which was seen as the future.
Funnily enough the first Porsche was electric. https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/products/taycan/history-18563.html

However, the problem of storage raised its head - the battery technologies of the time were just not enough. In contrast, you can put hydrocarbons in cans and carry the energy source around.

Today, we have NO excuse to burn carbon based fuels. There are plenty of alternatives and the storage technologies are getting better all the time.

The history of Porsche begins electrically

The electric powertrain is embedded deep in the Porsche DNA.

Porsche Newsroom
Show threadMisja van Laatum8h ago
@ketan fossil fuels are also a finite resource, whereas renewables are not 🤷‍♂️
Show threadbouriquet7h ago
@ketan One benefit of the rising price of oil and refined products…reduced consumption with more emphasis on alternatives
Show threadNu Modular7h ago
@ketan While most think quite otherwise, India just had a leap (finally) in their 3 Stage project with Thorium. This, of course, should've been accomplished by the US decades ago, but the US opted for Cold War and fossil fuels wealth, instead. Go figure.