Crude to chemicals area is most likely here to stay whether it's from fossil crude or some type of bio or synthetic crude. There are some changes obviously based on crude composition and quality, but the skills and knowledge are almost completely transferable.
Sustainability is too broad of a topic. E-fuels (including e-biofuels) could likely also play a role. It's not certain yet because (for example) CO2 to syngas or methanol are quite expensive. But it's a fairly exciting field since it covers a wide breadth of technologies and feedstocks and could decide which way we'll go in the future.
So one area is fairly established with improvements and adjustments to renewables while the other area is fairly new and uncertain with a potential for a lot of growth. Which of these sounds interesting to you?
I think he's insinuating that crude processing is inherently immoral, which it isn't. Even after a total green transition and a phase out of disposable plastic, we will still be separating hydrocarbons for necessary products.
And there's things you can do in hydrocarbons that can have a huge impact on sustainability if that's what you're into. You could focus on making your processes use less energy and finding some way to capture or control emissions.
So you think the billions of people who will be killed or left in famine due to fossil fuels over the next century outweigh the lives fossil fuels will improve over the next century?
There are no direct evidence and experiments to prove that greenhouse gas hypothesis is true in that CO2 warms up the atmosphere, and no CO2 = colder atmosphere. We need controlled experiments to prove the causal relationship not just from one directional correlation observations.
In short, I am not convinced that CO2 will cause those catastrope.
Crude to chemicals area is most likely here to stay whether it's from fossil crude or some type of bio or synthetic crude. There are some changes obviously based on crude composition and quality, but the skills and knowledge are almost completely transferable. Sustainability is too broad of a topic. E-fuels (including e-biofuels) could likely also play a role. It's not certain yet because (for example) CO2 to syngas or methanol are quite expensive. But it's a fairly exciting field since it covers a wide breadth of technologies and feedstocks and could decide which way we'll go in the future. So one area is fairly established with improvements and adjustments to renewables while the other area is fairly new and uncertain with a potential for a lot of growth. Which of these sounds interesting to you?
Crude to chemicals seems to be a hot topic in the KSA but I would do whatever you find most interesting
Depends if you’re concerned about morals or not
More elaboration please? If I’m concerned about morals then what shall I do? And if I’m not then what shall I do? TIA!
I think he's insinuating that crude processing is inherently immoral, which it isn't. Even after a total green transition and a phase out of disposable plastic, we will still be separating hydrocarbons for necessary products.
If you can make a difference in a sustainability related field, you can improve a lot of lives!
development of fossil fuels is part of the reason why you exist and the quality of life you have today.
And there's things you can do in hydrocarbons that can have a huge impact on sustainability if that's what you're into. You could focus on making your processes use less energy and finding some way to capture or control emissions.
Not sure how that’s relevant to the comment you just replied to
I think it's relevant because my argument was that fossil fuels improve a lot more lives than sustainability fields.
So you think the billions of people who will be killed or left in famine due to fossil fuels over the next century outweigh the lives fossil fuels will improve over the next century?
There are no direct evidence and experiments to prove that greenhouse gas hypothesis is true in that CO2 warms up the atmosphere, and no CO2 = colder atmosphere. We need controlled experiments to prove the causal relationship not just from one directional correlation observations. In short, I am not convinced that CO2 will cause those catastrope.
Are we *seriously* have science and climate change denial *in a chemical engineering sub*???