The Fossil Fuel Reality Check: Here's Why “Eliminate Oil Companies” Is Easier Said Than Done

We hear it constantly: oil companies are the enemy, and the fastest path to a green future is to shut them down yesterday. Yet most of the loudest voices seem unaware of how deeply fossil fuels are woven into everyday materials and processes that even “green” technologies depend on. The uncomfortable truth, laid out clearly by energy scholar Vaclav Smil in Numbers Don’t Lie, is that while solar and wind have matured and can now be added quickly to decarbonize electricity, several massive economic sectors have no realistic non-carbon alternatives that can replace fossil fuels rapidly and at the required global scale.

Consider long-distance transportation. Jetliners run on aviation kerosene; container ships, bulk carriers, and tankers burn diesel, bunker fuel, or liquefied natural gas. There are no batteries or hydrogen systems ready to power these vessels across oceans at the scale of today’s fleet. The same fossil fuels fire the massive rotating kilns that produce more than four billion tons of cement every year and provide the coke needed to smelt more than a billion tons of primary iron in blast furnaces—the very steel used to build wind-turbine towers and monopiles.

Then there’s agriculture and manufacturing. Nearly 200 million tons of ammonia (the backbone of synthetic fertilizer that feeds roughly half the world) and about 300 million tons of plastics start with compounds derived from natural gas and crude oil. Even space heating in much of the world still runs on natural gas. These are not niche uses. They are foundational.

Smil puts the scale in perspective: displacing roughly 10 billion tons of fossil carbon annually is fundamentally different from scaling up smartphones or electric cars. The latter happened in years; the former is a multi-decade challenge. Wishful thinking can't change chemistry or physics. Pretending we can simply “ban” oil companies ignores that the steel in wind turbines, the fuel in cargo ships, the fertilizer in our fields, and the plastics in our hospitals. They all trace back to the same hydrocarbons activists want to eliminate overnight.

Energy transitions are inevitable, but they must be guided by numbers, not slogans. Understanding the full scope of fossil fuels’ roles isn’t climate denial—it’s honesty. Until we acknowledge these dependencies, we’re not solving the problem; we’re just shouting at it.

Related Links

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Where Does Plastic Come From?

What Are the Primary Uses of Plastic?

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
Benjamin: Yes, sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Benjamin: Yes, I am.

Mr. McGuire: Plastics

--The Graduate (1967)

Do you remember that scene from The Graduate? It takes place at Dustin Hoffman's grad party. For me it was one of the most memorable lines in the film. "Plastics."

Most of us at this point in human history take it for granted. We grew up in a world where plastic is everywhere, and we never give it a thought as to where it came from. That is why I wrote Monday's post Where Do Plastics Come From?

All across the country, Duluth included, cities are working to eliminate lead pipes, most of it currently being replaced with PVC and other plastic materials or (expensive) copper. Likewise, we've been replacing lead paint with latex paints, which are polymeric. (Synthesized hydrocarbons.) 

Plastics are exceedingly versatile materials used across numerous industries due to their durability, flexibility, and low cost. We hardly realize how extensively plastics are used, hence the following list is a reminder. 

1. Packaging (40% of global plastic use):
• Single-use plastics like bottles, bags, food wrappers, and containers (e.g., polyethylene, PET).
• Used for food, beverages, cosmetics, and consumer goods due to lightweight, protective properties.
2. Construction (20%):
• Pipes, insulation, flooring, and window frames (e.g., PVC, polyethylene).
• Valued for durability, corrosion resistance, and insulation.
3. Automotive (10%):
• Interior components, bumpers, dashboards (e.g., polypropylene, ABS).
• Reduces vehicle weight, improving fuel efficiency.
4. Electronics (6%):
• Casings for phones, computers, and appliances (e.g., polycarbonate, ABS).
• Provides insulation and lightweight durability.
5. Textiles (7%):
• Synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon for clothing, carpets, and ropes.
• Offers strength and flexibility.
6. Medical (5%):
• Syringes, IV bags, prosthetics, and sterile packaging (e.g., PVC, polypropylene).
• Ensures hygiene and biocompatibility.
7. Agriculture (3%):
• Mulch films, greenhouse covers, and irrigation pipes (e.g., polyethylene).
• Enhances crop protection and water efficiency.
8. Other Uses (9%):
• Includes toys, furniture, and industrial applications (e.g., acrylics, polyurethane).
• Versatile for custom molding and design.

In 2021, ~390 million tons of plastic were produced worldwide, with packaging dominating due to its widespread use in consumer goods.

These plastic products are generated by processing crude oil and natural gas. When Greenpeace says they want to put the oil companies out of business, they hardly realize what they are saying. Furthermore, we'd also be unable to convert wind into energy or generate solar power because hydrocarbons are necessary for wind turbines and solar panels.

Hydrocarbons in Wind Turbines and Solar Panels

Hydrocarbons, primarily derived from petroleum and natural gas, are integral to the production of wind turbines and solar panels, as they are used to manufacture plastics and other materials. Here’s a breakdown:

Wind Turbines

Wind turbines rely on hydrocarbons for key components, particularly plastics and composites:

1. Blades:
• Made from composite materials like fiberglass-reinforced polyester or epoxy resins (both petroleum-derived).
• These composites use hydrocarbons for the resin matrix (e.g., epoxy derived from benzene, a petroleum product) and reinforcing fibers.
• A typical 50-meter blade contains ~20-25% resin by weight, equating to ~2-3 tons of hydrocarbon-based materials per blade.
2. Nacelle and Tower Components:
• The nacelle (housing the generator) uses polycarbonate and polyurethane for casings and insulation, both derived from hydrocarbons. 
• Coatings and paints (petroleum-based) protect against corrosion.
• As with everything that has moving parts, lubricants are necessary. The synthetic gear lubricants inside the nacelle must be changed periodically just like the oil in your car engine. 
3. Manufacturing and Transport:
• Hydrocarbons are used in lubricants, mold-releasing agents, and energy for manufacturing processes.
• Transporting turbine components relies on fossil fuel-powered ships, trucks, and cranes.

Quantification:

• A single 2 MW wind turbine may require ~50-100 tons of materials, with ~10-15% being hydrocarbon-based plastics or composites (5-15 tons per turbine).
• For a 100 MW wind farm (~50 turbines), this translates to ~250-750 tons of hydrocarbon-derived materials.

Solar Panels

Solar panels also depend on hydrocarbons for various components:

1. Encapsulation and Backsheets:
• Ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), a petroleum-derived plastic, is used to encapsulate solar cells, protecting them from moisture and UV damage.
• Backsheets often use polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) or polyester (PET), both hydrocarbon-based.
2. Frames and Mountings:
• Frames are typically aluminum, but mounting systems may use polypropylene or PVC for components like junction boxes or cable insulation.
3. Manufacturing:
• Hydrocarbons are used in solvents, adhesives, and energy-intensive processes like silicon purification (requiring ~100-150 kWh/kg of silicon, often powered by fossil fuels in many regions).
• Polysilicon production relies on trichlorosilane, a hydrocarbon-derived chemical.

Quantification:

• A typical 350 W solar panel contains ~0.5-1 kg of plastic (EVA, PET, etc.), equivalent to ~0.5-1 kg of hydrocarbon-derived materials.
• For a 1 MW solar installation (~2,857 panels), this equates to ~1.4-2.9 tons of hydrocarbon-based plastics.
• Additional hydrocarbons are used indirectly in manufacturing and transport, but exact amounts vary by region and energy mix.

Broader Context

• Energy Input: Both wind and solar rely on fossil fuels for manufacturing. For example, producing a wind turbine generates ~10-20 tons of CO2 equivalent, and a solar panel ~0.3-0.6 tons CO2 per kW, largely due to hydrocarbon-based materials and energy.
• Recycling Challenges: Plastics in turbines and panels are hard to recycle due to their composite nature, leading to waste management issues.
• Renewable Alternatives: Some research explores bio-based resins (e.g., plant-derived epoxies) for turbines or panels, but these are not yet widely adopted.

Getting rid of oil sounds like an easy and noble objective to many but as with most things, the devil is in the details.

Summary:

• Plastics, mostly hydrocarbon-derived, are critical for packaging, construction, automotive, electronics, medical, agriculture, and more.
• Wind turbines use roughly 5-15 tons of hydrocarbon-based materials per 2 MW turbine, mainly in blades and casings. Solar panels generally use 1.4-2.9 tons per MW, primarily in encapsulation and backsheets.

EdNote: The information on this page was gathered from Grok (X.com LLM),  Google and years of reading.

* * * * * 

Are You Protopian, Utopian or Dystopian?

https://pioneerproductions.blogspot.com/2016/07/are-you-protopian-utopian-or-dystopian.html

Where Does Plastic Come From?

A smattering of applications made possible with plastics.

Imagine a world without plastic. No water bottles, no sleek smartphone casings, no corrugated plastic lawn signs, no vinyl Beatles albums, no toothbrushes. It’s hard to picture, isn’t it? Plastics are everywhere, woven into the fabric of our daily lives. (In fact, much of the fabric we wear is plastic--polyester or nylon.) But have you ever stopped to wonder: where does this stuff come from? Its origin is fossil fuels. Even the giant banners that protesters carry to protest against the oil industry were made with synthesized oil.

The journey of plastic, from raw materials to the products we use, is an interesting blend of chemistry, industry, and innovation. 

Here's the backstory of where plastics originate and how they come to be.

The Fossil Fuel Foundation

The vast majority of plastics—over 99%—originate deep underground. That is, most plastics are born from petroleum and natural gas, the fossil fuels that have powered much of modern industry. These resources are like the raw canvas for plastic production, rich in hydrocarbons that form the building blocks used in many of our favorite materials.

The process begins with refining, where crude oil or natural gas is distilled in massive industrial facilities to separate out valuable components. From crude oil, we get naphtha, and from natural gas, we extract ethane. These hydrocarbons are the stars of the show, but they need some transformation to become plastic. 

This is where cracking comes in, a process that breaks these hydrocarbons down into smaller, more manageable molecules called monomers, like ethylene and propylene. Think of monomers as Lego bricks—small, simple units that can be snapped together to create something bigger.

Next comes polymerization, where these monomers are chemically bonded into long chains called polymers. My father was a chemist whose career revolved around polymers, primarily in the real of house paints and adhesives. Before the development of latex paints, homes were painted (inside and out) with lead-based paints. We've since learned that lead is a toxic chemical that can cause brain damage, especially in children.  

Through polymerization, those chains become the plastics we know, like polyethylene (think plastic bags and bottles) or polypropylene (used in food containers and packaging). To give plastics their unique traits—flexibility, durability, or color—manufacturers mix in additives like stabilizers, colorants, or plasticizers. It’s like seasoning a dish to get just the right flavor.

Bio-Based Plastics

Not all plastics come from fossil fuels, though. A small but growing fraction—about 1% of global production—is plant based. Plastics like polylactic acid (PLA) are made from renewable sources such as corn starch, sugarcane, or other plant materials. The process involves fermenting these plants to produce lactic acid, which is then polymerized into plastic. It’s a bit like brewing beer, but instead of a cold pint, you get a biodegradable coffee cup.

These bio-based plastics are gaining traction as the world grapples with environmental concerns, though producing them still requires energy and land.

Recycling Plastics

Used plastics—like the water bottle you tossed in that bin—can be collected, cleaned, and reprocessed into new products. The idea of it sounds good, but only about 9% of plastic waste globally is actually recycled. The rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or our oceans. I'm often surprised when I learn that there are many parts of this country that have no recycle centers. According to National Geographic, less than 10% recycle their plastic waste. And some sources say it's half that number.

Recycling plastics is tricky. The process can be costly and energy-intensive. Then again, if some folks had their way and they succeeded in bankrupting all the companies involved in oil production, we won't have to worry about how to recycle or safely discard our plastics. There won't be any. 

Two Things I've Heard All My Life That Don't Make Sense

Even though we're closer to Armageddon than we were 50 years ago, somehow it seemed like the real "Armageddon Fever" took place a half century ago. Maybe it was Hal Lindsey's 1970 bestseller The Late Great Planet Earth that stimulated the subsequent firestorm of pop-Apocalyptic lit. Or maybe it was simply the turbulence of the times--assassinations, Viet Nam, cities burning--that spawned the belief that humanity was doomed.

While Christians were reading about the end of the world and looking for their Lord's return, secular readers were engaged with books like Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and doomsaying by groups like the Club of Rome. And let's not forget the angst generated by the somewhat intangible, though ever present, threat of nuclear holocaust as presented in books like On the Beach and Pat Frank's Alas, Babylon.

From those times to the present I've observed a few statements by pundits that never seem to go away. They may lay dormant for a season or two, but pretty soon they are being recycled again.

The first: In 10 years we will be out of oil.
This declaration was always accompanied by hand wringing about oil running out and the need to cut our dependence on oil. The latter is noble, though when I was young the statement emphasized cutting our dependence on foreign oil. There is so much oil under U.S. soil that you can't even imagine it. For some reason this off limits and that is off limit and those folks should be permitted to use their oil rigs and that pipeline has to be shut.... Bottom Line: It's empty rhetoric.

The real moral of this story is: Repeating silly pronouncements with specific dates or numbers will diminish your credibility

The second: There are too many people to feed. The world can't sustain any more.
In 1960, the population of the world was 3 billion. By 1974 it had grown to 4 billion. As of this moment, August 2023, there are 8 billion people populating our planet. 

Paul Ehrlich's book predicted mass starvation of the global population by the end of the 70s. 

What I remember most is that despite the troubling rise in population, technology was also advancing to make production of food more efficient and human life sustainable.

Now here's what I don't understand. After decades of handwringing about not being able to feed the world population as it grows, these very same people are diverting food crops for ethanol. And they are eliminating cattle in the Netherlands because of flatulence. (Ireland and Canada are pushing 30% cuts as well.) And I just heard that even more cropland is being eliminated for solar panel farms.

What happened to the concern about hunger?

Photo by Jesse Gardner on Unsplash

Sometime around 20 to 25 years ago Popular Science magazine had a detailed breakdown of the costs and benefits of turning corn into ethanol for car fuel. By the time you grow the corn, harvest it, transport it, convert it, distribute it.... There has been absolutely no gain. It uses up as much energy to create ethanol as the net gain from using it. In short, it is a waste.

Here's something else they don't tell you. E-10 gasoline (E-10 means 10% ethanol) can cause damage to small engines if not handled properly. It's too technical for this blog post, but you can look into it. The problem is called "phase separation." 

So what does our Minnesota leadership do? They are now pushing the use of E-15 instead of E-10. Moving forward with ethanol is ridiculous. Lawmakers close their ears to the experts who point out the silliness here. First, ethanol can damage older engines because it is a solvent which can dissolve some of the plastics, metals and rubber components used in older engines. Second, it has a lower energy content than gasoline. The result is lower fuel economy, the exact opposite of the increasingly stringent fuel economy objectives pressed by the EPA through CAFE regs. Third, because ethanol evaporates more easily than gasoline, it can contribute to smog formation. So why is Governor Walz celebrating the increased use of E15?

Why are we decreasing food production to increase production of a form of fuel that is less efficient and creates more smog? Whatever happened to all that concern about not being able to feed the masses?

*

A couple stats about corn in Minnesota. According to the USDA, Minnesota farmers planted 8.5 million acres of corn in 2021. 31% of this corn crop was used for ethanol. That's slightly more than all the acres used for cities, towns and roads in Minnesota. 

*

It's time to take a walk.

Eliminating Oil Will Lead to Elimination of Countless Other Everyday Products

Nevada Bob at Woodstock. Love Bugs and other vehicles
are switching to battery power. Photo: Gary Firstenberg.

I've spent much of my adult life hearing news reports that we were going to run out of oil in ten years. Our dependence on oil goes far beyond the fuel we use for our cars, trucks, tractors and toys like snowmobiles, motorcycles and dirt bikes. Let's not forget airplanes, ships and boats, both outboard and inboard.

It's been about fifteen years since I last heard that prediction about running out of oil. Since then we've been told that we must stop using oil to save the planet.

By the time that day comes, one hopes that we will have found not only alternatives for power production but also alternative means of producing the thousands of products that are derivatives of oil. That's what this blog post is about.

* * * 

When crude oil is removed from the earth it gets sent to refineries where it becomes feedstock. This feedstock is used in petrochemical plants where it is turned into plastic to make a multitude of products. Solar panels, car bodies, eyeglasses, DVDs, children's toys, tires and hearts valves is just the start of a very long list.

Today's cars are laden with electronics, sensors, chips
and hoses. Tires and dashboards have crude oil roots.
The photo here is of my wife Susie, and her Soul.

Because they are non-conductive and heat resistant, petroleum-based products are used extensively in electronics. Speakers, smartphones, computers, television sets and flat panel TVs, radios, cameras and CD players are just a few of the items we're all accustomed to.

In the realm of textiles, we've nearly all become accustomed to acrylic, rayon, polyester, nylon and spandex as well as vegan leather. 

You'll find petroleum is used for making all sorts of sports equipment that we've grown accustomed to. I'm not sure what we will use in the future to replace petroleum as a resource to make basketballs, golf ball, football helmets, surfboards, skis, tennis rackets or fishing rods. (OK, we can use cane poles and come up with an alternative to the current form of fishing line.)

Personal care products is another big business today that will undergo change. I was unaware of how extensively oil was used in products like perfume, hair dye, hand lotion, toothpaste, soap, shaving cream, deodorant, toothbrushes, panty hose, combs, shampoo and contact lenses. Cosmetics like lipstick, makeup, foundation, eyeshadow, mascara and eyeliner are also in this category.

When it comes to modern medicine, there are hoards of medical devices that rely on petroleum. Likewise in the realm of pharmaceuticals. Hospital equipment like IV bags, aspirin, artificial limbs, dentures, hearing aids, and heart valves will need alternatives if we shut off the oil supply. 

A few years ago an older man came out to replace our well pump. As we talked I learned that he was on his second artificial heart. He said that his first was metal, and the splashing of the blood thru the heart was noisy and distracting. He was much relieved when the new heart was installed, undoubtedly with some plastic parts. (I did hear recently that a pig's heart was successfully transplanted into a human and not rejected, so maybe there will be an alternative in this area.)

Household products is another area where petroleum has been used extensively. Roofing materials, insulation, linoleum flooring, furniture, appliances, pillows, curtains, rugs are some larger items. Dishes, cups, non-stick pans and dish detergents frequently use oil in their creation.

* * * 

THE POINT IN ALL THIS is that the auto industry has been working on doing their part for more than 25 years. I saw a number of EVs in 1998 at an Environmental Expo in Anaheim. I'm just curious about all these other products derived from oil. If were to shut down oil altogether, would hypodermic needs have to be made of glass again? Will we have enough cotton and wool to clothe ourselves? Will there be no more PVC plumbing? What will we replace it with since lead is not safe?

We want to have wind turbines to generate electricity, but what are those enormous blades made out of? 

I think we need to manage our expectations regarding what is possible and what is necessary. 

Just sowing seeds. Something to think about.

* * * 

THE SOURCE FOR MUCH OF THIS BLOG POST CAN BE FOUND HERE:  www.capp.ca/oil/uses-for-oil/

Donald Rumsfeld and Our Curious Fickle Ways -- U.S. Diplomacy in the Middle East

A recent Lee Child/Jack Reacher novel I was reading -- I believe it was Gone Tomorrow -- made reference to a photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein during the Reagan ear. The reference prompted me to do a Google search and sure enough, there it was in .6 seconds. 

The photo shows Donald Rumsfeld as special envoy on behalf of President Reagan, carrying an olive branch (figuratively) to indicate our alliance with the Iraqi commander-in-chief. One copy of this photo is located on a page in a National Security Archive along with a host of details surrounding this moment in history. The meeting took place December 20, 1983. The National Security Archive document was written in February 2003.

This meeting between Rumsfeld and Hussein took place around the mid-point of the Iran-Iraq War which had begun in 1980 and lasted till 1988.

It seems strange to me that from the 1950s till Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran the U.S. was a strong ally with Iran. When I was in Cuernavaca in 1981 I walked past the mansion of the deposed Shah-in-exile, which stood next door to former President Richard Nixon, also a deposed leader, on elite street.

Strangely enough, the U.S. took the side of Hussein even though we knew he was using chemical weapons in this eight year war, weapons that were outlawed by the Geneva protocols. Iraq was also using chemical weapons on the Kurds, a minority group within their own country.

So it is that we went from friends with Iran to friends with Hussein, only to go to war ourselves with Hussein during Desert Storm in January 1991. In the first instance, the U.S. powers that be determined that a Iran victory would not be in our best interests. We chose to help Iraq with intelligence and arms support, despite Iraq's appalling human rights record. When Iran appealed to the U.N. about Iraq's chemical weapons usage, the U.S. attempted through back room pressure to thwart any U.N. action. 

Still later, post-9/11 we decided it was in our best interest to eliminate Saddam Hussein altogether. I remember going to the county fair and they had one of those rifle range games where you got to shoot this giant image of Hussein. The drums of war were sounding and the government efforts to win support for this effort had filtered down to the grassroots of our nation.

The title of this NSA report is "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq: 1980-1984."

The conclusion the report's unnamed author draws begins as follows:

The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.* * 

* * * 

The conclusion I myself have surmised from reading this brief account is that it must make leaders somewhat uneasy being an ally of the United States. We were allies of Iran for decades for political reasons, but the U.S. was applying pressure on the Shah to speed up its Westernization, modernization and secularization. Ever since the Shah's exile, we've now stood in opposition to Iran, which turned from a pro-Western authoritarian monarchy into an anti-Western theocracy.* 

One last corollary: Is it possible that some of our troubles here at home have to do with a values conflict in which conservative, family-values people are resistant to being modernized and secularized? This, more than anything, is what led to the Shah's downfall. 

* * * 

As for Donald Rumsfeld, my article above was written Tuesday June 29, the day before his passing was announced on the 30th. This is not, therefore, a eulogy. Rather, it is a coincidence.

Trivia: In 2002 Donald Rumsfeld was named Sexiest Man Alive by People magazine, an inauspicious list that includes Mel Gibson, Brad Pitt, Denzel Washington, JFK Jr., Johnny Depp, George Clooney, Pierce Brosnan, Bradley Cooper, Richard Gere and many other familiar names and faces. Except, really? A Secretary of Defense for sexiest man alive? 

* * *  

* Wikipedia

* * National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82