15
Polymer membrane separates hydrocarbons, offering alternative to distillation
(www.chemistryworld.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
15 points (100.0% liked)
Science
4615 readers
68 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm aware some energy is recycled, and I do think we (humankind as a whole) need to phase fossil fuels out. But even then, we'll still need petrochemicals - and I'm hoping this sort of membrane eventually makes them cheaper, when used instead or alongside fractioning columns.
There's research into non-oil based polymers in Akron funded by the Biden administration (don't tell Trump) and Goodyear IIRC. So ... if that goes somewhere, maybe not.
I hope this research leads to the replacement of some oil-based polymers. And, additionally, I think we should decrease our reliance on industrial polymers, ~~my balls already have enough microplastics;~~ even if they come from a cleaner source, their presence in nature is problematic.
Do we really need petrochemicals, though? Or do we like the cheap products made from them? Because humanity went by just fine without them until a century ago.
Hydrogen from syngas (thus ammonia), sulphur (thus sulphuric acid), ethylene, benzene, and so many others, they're used for absolutely everything: fertilisers, medication, explosives, solvents, detergent, dyes. Even a good chunk of the industrial ethanol comes from ethylene.
And as you hinted, plastics. We still need them for water tubes, computers, and everything else.
So even in a future where we stop doing stupid shit like literally burning old dino juice, and we reduce the amount of plastics to reasonable levels, we're still going to need petrochemicals.
Alright, I don't think we're understanding each other.
Yes, the primary source of hydrogen nowadays is oil, but it doesn't have to be. We can electrolyze water for that. We can also use modern alternatives to monoculture that do not deplete the soil.
Sulfur can be mined without resorting to the oil chain.
I don't know why you mentioned ethylene. It is used as a ripening agent, but we can simply wait for fruit to ripen on their own, with the added benefit that they would develop their flavor instead having the bland taste we currently get at the supermarket.
Medication, explosives, detergents, dyes come from the chemical industry, and yes, there's an important difference.
Solvents and paints are something harder to replace, but there are some plant based alternatives being used in very niche applications.
All of the alternatives are not being used today because it's more expensive. And they're more expensive because they don't have a century of research dedicated to make them cheaper like oil has.
We don't NEED oil. It's just more convenient, it allows us not to change the status quo, to not think about different ways we should live. With oil, we can put our head in the sand and pretend we're not careening to our own demise.
I think the main difference is that you're probably focusing on a longer term than I am.
I do think we [humankind] need to get rid of our reliance on petrochemicals, but that process might take centuries; in the meantime, if the tech in the OP gets well developed, we might see the benefits already in our lifetimes. One thing doesn't exclude the other, so I think we should be chasing both.
With that in mind:
Kind of.
Hydrogen from electrolysis is expensive because it relies on huge amounts of electricity; and unless the electricity itself is "clean", we're simply shifting the problem elsewhere (e.g. burning natural gas for electricity for hydrogen, instead of simply reacting that natural gas with water). So we actually need to wait until clean electricity becomes even cheaper to solve this.
IMO we should rely more on legumes for nitrogen fixation, but I don't think it'll fix (eh) the issue completely. Also note that ammonia isn't just fertilisers, it's also everywhere in the industry, from cleaning agents to cooling systems. (It sucks in comparison with CFC, but at least it doesn't leave a hole in the ozone layer.)
People used to mine sulphur. It costs more, it's hell for the workers, and deposits aren't that common.
Ethylene is used almost everywhere in the industry. Not just for fruit ripening and polymers; pharmaceuticals, solvents, even detergent uses it. It's one of those building blocks in organic chemistry, alongside benzene and inorg junk. Industrially it's also used to produce ethanol; and while you can produce ethanol from biomass instead, you'll either need to
Also note how this interacts with the ammonia issue. Like any other plant-based solution; they're still encouraging monoculture.
Currently we need it to keep our current life standards, and I don't think most people are willing to give up. And while I do think we [humans] should stop pretending we're digging our own collective grave, some things are only practical in the long run, but we still need to do things to help out in the short run.
(And by "we" I don't even mean those parasites wasting resources so they can say "I'm an astronaut now!" or wasting resources to build huge memecoin "mining" rigs. We'd solve a lot of the issue if we got rid of them first.)
Not that fine, though. Quality of life came a long way.
Not because of petrochemicals. Fertilizers, agriculture mechanization, and medicine are the key factors. Plus we could do without all the microplastics and PFAS on my blood.