03-07-04 03:13
No 493543
Are there any chemicals we specifically depend on oil to get for a reasonable price, or can any chemical be produced from biomass for about the same price (excluding the simple alkanes)?
The Hive - Clandestine Chemists Without Borders
(Stranger)
03-07-04 10:51
No 493570
Iam only an amateur, so i may not have the best answer but i doubt that you have to rely on petroleum. An example is Just the other day i was looking at a synthesis for bio-diesel from hydrogenated-vegtable oils.
(Hive Addict)
03-07-04 11:14
No 493574
> Are there any chemicals we specifically depend on oil to get for a reasonable price
we as in clandestine chemists, or we as in western wasteful society?
afaik, everything which can be made from oil can made from coal too.
so it can be made from biomass. but: there isn't enough place to grow
all that biomass and the process itself is wasteful.
filter(lambda W : W not in 'ILLITERATE','BULLSHIT')
(Hive Adickt)
03-07-04 15:24
No 493593
I don't think that biomass is so rich in aromatic compounds.
(Hive Bee)
03-07-04 16:32
No 493600
Without petrol you need coal. Just anything you get from petroleum you can also get from coal trough acetylene or H2+CO. From acetylene you can get benzenes, ethanol, acetic acid, ethenes and its polymers, pyridine and many other stuff. From CO+H2 you can get methanol and its derivatives.
But biomass? Well, I'm sure you can also get just about anything from it. But there is not much technology developed to do that efficiently and cheaply. But on the other hand, half of Brazil drives their cars on ethanol thet is almost two times more cheap than gassoline.
If nothing else you can still cabonise just about any living organism and use carbon instead of coal.
“The real drug-problem is that we need more and better drugs.” – J. Ott
(Hive Addict)
03-07-04 18:29
No 493612
Methane (and further derivatives) shouldn't be a problem, as it is easily formed (isolated as well?) by micro-organisms used in waste treatment.
Advanced clitoris massage specialist. 32 years of experience. PM me for a "sample".
(Hive Bee)
03-07-04 21:21
No 493633
the long chain hydrocarbons in fats, and shorter ones in oil could be broken down for use(i mean us as in chemists, not western consumers) and the necessary modifications made for the products we want(amination, halogenation), these things are possible but it is much more simple to use fractionally seperated petroleum since most of the work is done for you. we are dependant economically,(we being western society) only because of a lack of research in the area and due to the vast ammount of fuel we use, nature cant compete at present with petroleum. i suggest pming jemma he would love this.
disregard that post
(Hive Bee)
03-08-04 23:06
No 493809
can i ask why you ask, i mean you are well capable of the chemistry involved. is it more of an economical question or is there a compound you are after that you want to synth without starting from some petroleum derivative?
disregard that post
(Chief Bee)
03-09-04 02:07
No 493829
I was wondering if the upcoming draining of oil wells would have a significant impact on the production of everyday chemicals we use in the lab (and not just on the industrial sector).
The Hive - Clandestine Chemists Without Borders
(Hive Bee)
03-09-04 20:10
No 493995
it might be one but permenantly no. for example take a fatty acid from oil/ fats extracted from plants with the general formula ch3((ch2)n)cooh by catalytically cracking the the long chain we are returned with a ch3((ch2)n)ch3 alkane and a ch3((ch2)n)cooh carboxylic acid for saturated fats for reactions, it means more work but so what.
the pharmaceutical industry internationally has such a strong economic base that i doubt it would be one of the first to feel the pinch of our iminant oil crisis and the very nature of that industry is the chemistry that facilitates the type of reaction described above with out re-education of the work force. other industries will however suffer, obviously the oil industry, motor industry etc.
Norway/ scandanavia is safe but the rest of europe will have to develop new sources of electricity for when we run out of crude oil. europe is already implimenting directives for the use of renewable sources of energy. In the long run the chemistry sector will probably see great move towards genetically manufactured biomass.On the plus side we should be left using more environmentally fuels and energy sources.
disregard that post
(Old P2P Cook)
03-12-04 06:27
No 494558
I was wondering if the upcoming draining of oil wells would have a significant impact on the production of everyday chemicals we use in the lab
Lab chemicals are so relatively expensive that the feedstock will not affect price a lot. It is in the industrial sector where oil is an invaluable feedstock and any other feedstock will greatly increase the price. One example would be the production of high purity dimethylterephthalate for producing polyester fiber, any other feedstock but oil would increase the price by perhaps an order of magnitude. I have always thought that it is a shame to be burning oil for energy when it is so invaluable as a chemical feedstock.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
(Moderator)
03-12-04 17:59
No 494655
The current petroleum supply situation is more the result of politics and economics, as opposed to any actual shortage
Here's some links that have varying versions of the known facts that seemingly aren't available to the popular media, though finding them is simply a matter of using a search engine 
http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-19-00.html
http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/paper
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309041422/html
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309041422/html
http://www.ugs.state.ut.us/online/c/c-93
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter1
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~leeman/LBnatres
http://web.mit.edu/10.391j/www/Resources
http://ogj.pennnet.com/forum/display_mes
Estimating oil reserves is rather problemetical at times, due to human nature
When the price of oil goes up enough to make production feasible, oil shale and tar sands will be mined and processed 
Chemistry is our Covalent Bond
(Hive Bee)
03-13-04 12:38
No 494834
I agree with terbium. For chemical reagents at the laboratory scale petroleum is not a significant, specific factor for cost or availability. However, for the large-scale production of industrial chemicals, there are many places where petroleum is a crucial feedstock. As the cost of crude oil goes up, so will the cost of these mass-produced organic molecules, and alternate methods will eventually have to be developed to utilize things like coal, tars, etc which will require much more extensive processing and catalytic cracking etc.
Just looking down this list, a lot of plastics and synthetic rubber wll be strongly affected:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8025/
Probably even more important than direct hydrocarbon-related industrial chemicals are things like fertilizer-production and aluminum refining, which are very energy intensive processes. These will get more expensive as electricity becomes a more and more expensive commodity.
-----------------------------
I must disagree with lugh when he says "The current petroleum supply situation is more the result of politics and economics, as opposed to any actual shortage." At the risk of going off-topic for the forum, I will try to make a brief response.
As far as the Cato Institute link goes, it is factually inaccurate, worthless ideological rubbish. Here's some more: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-341es.ht
Another Cato analyst said "Technology exists now to produce in virtually inexhaustable quantities just about all the products made by nature - foodstuffs, oil, even pearls and diamonds... We have in our hands now - actually in our libraries - the technology to feed, clothe and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years... Even if no new knowledge were ever gained . . . we would be able to go on increasing our population forever." http://www.hubbertpeak.com/bartlett/flat
You can go to http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default
The fact is: the production of cheap, easily obtained / processed petroleum is reaching a peak and will soon start falling. This is not based on politics or economics, it is based on physics, thermodynamics and geological reality. This is ironically illustrated, for example, by the second link on the list -- (http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/paper
"If world oil consumption is assumed to increase, annually, by 1 per cent, the production capability scenarios for the two Non-OPEC producer groups permit us to track the likely production path of OPEC producers--it being the difference between Non-OPEC production capability and world consumption."
the implicit assumption (I think it may be a form of dark humor by the report-writers) is that OPEC has the capability of producing an arbitrary amount of petroleum to meet geometrically increasing world demand, without considering the basic constraints of reality.
"The production paths... represent the high production capability scenario for the two producer groups--US and FSU and Other Non-OPEC (described above) as well as showing the resultant OPEC production. With this scenario, OPEC attains a 50% market share in 2015 at a production level of 38.5 MMBBL/D (an increase from present production of about 14 MMBBL/D). If the Non-OPEC production follows the low production capability scenario, OPEC attains the 50% market share in 2004; by 2015, it has almost 60% of the market, and would be obliged to produce 45.1 MMBBL/D (an increase from present production of about 21 MMBBL/D)."
these numbers are absurd. there is absolutely no chance that OPEC will be able to more than double its current production of oil by 2015. in fact, there are already signs that some of the most important oil fields in the region are beginning to experience exhaustion; increasing measures have to be taken to keep them pumping at current rates. very few countries in the world have spare production capacity; for countries that still have some, like Saudi Arabia, the spare capacity can only decrease with time; all the major oilfields have been discovered and developed.
While its true that substitutes for conventional petroleum exist and could become economically feasable at some point -- (e.g. syngas from coal, tar sands, oil shale) -- there are serious drawbacks to the exploitation of these resources. Not only will the environmental damage be horrendous, but there are also problems with theromodynamic efficiency (EROEI) -- it costs a lot of energy to do the mining and processing of these sorts of fuels.
I'll cut this short, sorry for going off topic...
stop, drop & roll
(Old P2P Cook)
03-14-04 22:23
No 495135
When the price of oil goes up enough to make production feasible, oil shale and tar sands will be mined and processed
And coal too, it can be prcessed into a liquid hydrocarbon for use as fuel or as a chemical feedstock. Or, in the case of terephthalic acid that I used as an example of an industrially important chemical produced from petroleum feedstock, coal can be oxidized directly to benzenecarboxylic acids that can then be isomerized to terephthalic acid. The Japanese did some work on these uses of coal during WWII and the South Africans produced liquid hydrocarbons from coal on an industrial scale back in the days when that country was under international embargoe.
The US has large reserves of coal and oil shales and Canada has substantial reserves of tar sands. One US oil company used to like to boast that they owned enough US coal reserves to supply the energy needs of the US for more than a hundred years.
Production of liquid hydrocarbons and industrial chemicals from coal, oil shales and even sewage sludge and garbage was worked on in the US in the '70s by oil and chemical companies under government (DOE) contracts. Work progressed to the large pilot plant scale with coal liquifaction and to large scale mining and in-situ retorting with oil shales.
The question is only one of cost. If the cost of oil were to increase by a factor of 5 to 10 then these alternates might become viable.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
03-15-04 14:07
(Rated as: off-topic)
(Hive Addict)
03-19-04 23:19
No 496196
Peat is also used, and studied from this point of view by the International Peat Society. They are doing Chemical mappings to figure out how usefull and cost effective it would be to produce many chemicals/energy from there.
I wonder if that scarcity of petroleum Rhodium is worried about will up the prices of labmaterials via higher costs in logistics?
3
(Newbee)
04-17-04 15:40
No 501279
I don't understand exactly why this thread became that big...
Chem prices depend on oil price, for sure! Some chemicals are made using petroleum, and if oil prices go higher, the manufacturing of these chemicals becomes more expensive, too. If petroleum becomes too expensive to synthesize chemicals at industrial scale, alternative routes for their commercial production are used, and these alternative approaches to synthesize a particular compound are ALWAYS more expensive (at least if the reason for their invention is that the resources for better, easier routes aren't given any more).
It's very simple: additional work has to be done, more other resources are used if substitutes for oil have to be made. Sometimes a bit, sometimes much more effort/resources is needed. And oil is readily available - it can be bought... (and as long as this doesn't change there is no need to look for alternatives...
)I mean the reason why petroleum is used is its availability, and where it is used, it is the simplest, cheapest known possibility. If petroleum becomes too expensive/rare, the chemicals can't be produced for the same price anymore. Biomass produces a lot of methan/methanol, there is even a company who makes petroleum from waste (with 90% of their output being used making energy for production, but that's still 10% left for other uses)! You can't tell me that this would't make a nice supply for running car engines with it! But as long as there is still "enough" oil, no efforts are made to look for other energy sources, as it is simply the cheapest. And with the chem industry, it's the same thing...
(what will people say in 300 years? "Oh those stupid bastards, they ran their CARS with it, and now we don't have enough petroleum even for making pharmaceutics!! They just BURNED everything... AAARGH!")
A
"..ein Trank von unterschiedlicher Farbe, in ihm ist Heilung für die Menschen."
(Hive Bee)
04-17-04 17:22
No 501296
Seems the chemists are already working on a solution.
THERMOCHEMICAL CONVERSION OF SWINE MANURE: A PROCESS TO REDUCE WASTE AND PRODUCE LIQUID FUEL
Summary:
A thermochemical conversion (TCC) process was applied to the treatment of swine manure slurry for energy production and waste reduction. The objectives of this first stage study were to explore the feasibility of oil production from swine waste and to determine the waste reduction rates through this process. A bench TCC reactor was developed and tested. The operating temperature ranged from 250°C to 305°C. The retention time was two hours. A reducing agent, CO, was added to promote oil product conversion. Operating pressure ranged from 6.9 to 10.3 MPa and pH was monitored but not controlled. The oil product was evaluated through element analysis, heating value, and benzene solubility. The waste reduction rate was evaluated by chemical oxygen demand (COD) before and after the TCC process. The operating temperature and CO addition were the important factors affecting oil yield and quality. At temperatures of 285ºC or above with CO addition, the carbon content was typically 65% to 68%, and hydrogen content 8% to 10%. The oil yield was as high as 63% of the initial volatile solids in the input. The benzene solubility of the oil product was as high as 90%. The average heating value of the oil product was 30,500 kJ/kg. The COD reduction rate was as high as 72% through this TCC process.
http://www.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/tcc
Though I wouldn't know how this sythetic crude compares to the stuff we pump out of the ground in terms of components.
"Canada is exporting to us the crack of marijuana and it is a dangerous problem." ONDCP