Shell Ditches Wind, Solar, and Hydro 883
thefickler writes "Shell has decided to end its investment in wind, solar and hydro projects because the company does not believe they are financially sound investments. Instead Shell is going to focus on carbon sequestration technologies and biofuels. Not surprisingly, and perhaps unfairly, bloggers have been quick to savage the company: 'Between Shell's decisions to stop its clean energy investments and to increase its debt load to pay for dividends, the company is solidifying an image of corporate greed over corporate responsibility.' Is Shell short sighted, or is it just a company trying to make its way in an uncertain world?"
Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
As a company, if they can make more money on oil than on wind, then clearly the shareholders will demand oil. Oil is there bread and butter. I wouldn't expect them to innovate on something that is outside of their corporate culture. Like with the movie and music and software industries; you get innovation and creativity from smaller independent entities, and conservativism from the established entities.
It's fusion or bust (Score:5, Insightful)
Controlled fusion is the next step for our species. We won't know how hard it is except for retrospectively, but we haven't got much time left.
Nobody wants to save energy. There are billions of people on this planet that would like to use half as much energy as an average American, and no amount of wind or solar is going to deliver that.
What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: Since biofuels frequently lead to greater emissions than either diesel or gas,
That's not really true... Using Biodiesel can result in 75% less CO2 emissions, at the exhaust pipe.
Some Biodiesels, eg, based on Coconut oil, are incredibly low on emissions.
People who claim biodiesel releases more CO2 are making an argument industry wide, including the converting of existing land not used for agriculture to produce biofuels.
Which is a little dishonest, because there are other technologies being developed that make use of badly salt-affected land to produce Biofuel. (Algae based production)
These technologies actually improve the situation and make use of land that otherwise cannot be used at all.
GrpA
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's strap all oil company executives to bicycles instead, it would be a good learning experience for somebody that's never done any real work before~
Devil's advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to anything mentioned, the cleanest form of energy is nuclear power, all factors considered. It's the only thing we should be looking at in the long run as a primary source of power for the grid. Wind and solar are great for local uses but not on a large scale. They are incredibly land intensive for a very small output. A nuclear power plant's physical footprint for the power it generates is practically nil.
People just have to stop equating nuclear power with nuclear weapons, and realizing that modern reactors are far, far safer than reactors from half a century ago. Unfortunately, the United States has lost 30 or 40 years of reactor development time compared to other countries.
As usual, radical environmentalists are their own worst enemy. They advocate alternative energy, and then jump up and down when a new solar installation is built on a fictionally endangered habitat or a wind farm causes migratory bird strikes. You can't have it all ways.
You must find a viable replacement for fossil fuels before eliminating them or taxing them to death. Solar and wind alone are not a viable replacement at that scale.
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I'm down with the hippie hate, but I guess moderators really do like sucking corporate cock.
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupidest idea ever. Funny. But not insightful.
Why do you think this? Large companies are conservative and short-sighted. Even "long term" planning is at most 10-15 years. The markets are even more short-sighted and especially stupid. "Shareholders" comprise two groups: long-term investors (e.g., 401k's) that want slow, consistent growth. And then there are the short-term traders. They are either idiots or the scum of the earth. Nobody here is willing to take on a good risk on the 20-30 year horizon.
You shouldn't have such blind faith in the free market. It is darn good at solving short-term problems. But, boom-bust cycles are a counterexample to long-term efficacy of "market value."
You're retarded (Score:1, Insightful)
the land that "otherwise can't be used at all" is the naturally brackish wetlands that protect the oceans from our retarded corporate farming policies. "Biofuels" require the raping of nature. Nuclear is, unfortunately, the only plausible short term solution; solar and wind are nice eye candy but have failed miserably to scale or become financially viable. Long term, fusion is the only one that looks good now, but crystal balls are notoriously bad. The brutal reality is that any alternative energy must be cost effective to work. That's just all there is to it.
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:2, Insightful)
If those alternative energy sources were even remotely feasible you can be sure they would be all over them.
"Alternative" energy sources are feasible, but they just don't make as much money as oil. In the long run "alternative" energy sources (like wind for example) are much more economically feasible (to ordinary citizens at least) because they don't cause global warming, smog, lung cancer, asthma, etc.
Lets strap all of the environmental whack jobs to bicycles and have them the pedal generators to a cleaner tomorrow.
Generally people use ad hominems when they don't have a valid argument. Emotional appeals and rants often do satisfy the lowest common denominator in society however. It's one of the reasons why people like you often get Moderated Insightful.
CSR (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate Social Responsibility is another one of those dishonest and fraudulent business fads, flaunting secondary goal that often contradict with the primary goal of making money. When push comes to shove, guess which one would prevail. Shell is an oil company, set up to make money in oil business. Criticizing it for not being "socially responsible" (however you define it) is like berating a snake for not acting like a cow.
You want renewable energy, set up monetary incentive for it, and be prepared to pay for it.
Terrible PR investment (Score:4, Insightful)
If they hadn't gotten into renewable energy, sure there would have been some good PR lost, but take a look at the backlash they're going to get now pulling out of it. The mistake was to get in if they had no staying power.
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:2, Insightful)
Put all objectivists into prisons and lock them into gigantic hamster wheels while collecting the hot air they generate while screaming about purestrain gold. This plan is guaranteed to generate enough power to launch five space shuttles per day for ten years, plus we would be removing all objectivists from society. There is no downside to this plan, if you disagree, you are wrong.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
so the big question becomes: Is Shell an oil company, or an energy company?
while oil is currently very cheep, it's supply is limited to hundreds of years. Renewable energy is expensive now, but it will not run out for a very long time. (billions of years)
to use a car analogy, Shell has gotten off the future express way and is driving down a dead end street. it may be a very long road, but it will come to an end.
No Conflict. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, it's logical for the oil companies to be behind any future fuels. They already have much of the infrastructure required for it, there is no way any start up can build up to that level in a reasonable amount of time.
This isn't BIG OIL(ever notice how you can put "big" in front of any industry to make them sound evil?) killing renewable fuels, it's a business accepting that these technologies are unfeasible for them. Wind and solar are dicey at best as energy sources. Hydro is made impossible by the very same environmentalists trashing shell.
The issues with biofuel come about from the realities of BIG AGRICULTURE. In the US for example, corn is a staple crop. Why? Because of massive government subsidies, ethanol being one of them. Corn is a terrible way to produce it, but it's kept alive to keep money going to farms.
Biofuel is the here and now, it could be implemented on wide scales quickly and at reasonable cost. But to do so requires farmers to grow something more efficient than corn, and for oil companies to buy into it. BIG OIL isn't retarded, they know they're going to run out of oil and are poised to jump on whatever is next.
Of course, this is all moot because biofuel and solar/hydro solve two different problems. The problem of generating electricity is very different from that of powering cars. The main issue at hand is finding a way to store energy in a sufficiently dense, low cost package to power a car. Today's batteries are awful at this. All the clean power in the world doesn't mean dick if you can't store and harness it.
Re:It's fusion or bust (Score:1, Insightful)
So...do you have any data to support that idea? Because I see tons of government subsidies that make wind energy viable, but I didn't see any investment without those subsidies. Facts to back up your claim of wind energy? Zero.
Solar panels are JUST NOW starting to break their 1$/watt barrier. If we DOUBLED solar power usage every year for the next 20 years we would end up getting something like 10% of our power from solar sources. Think about that. AND that assumes having enough silicon for all those solar cells (there isn't enough. It's incredibly resource intensive to acquire silicon).
Wind: More effective than it used to be. Not yet effective without gov't support. And only viable in certain parts of the country, because wind isn't everywhere. Not at the speeds needed. There are also the consistency issues, since wind power does not have a steady output. This causes problems with electric grids dealing with intermittent power supply. So yeah, it probably isn't a good idea. Shell will be much better off waiting for ten years and then jumping into the solar market. Maybe.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
while oil is currently very cheep, it's supply is limited to hundreds of years.
I'm not too sure about that. Regardless however, the equation remains stable: when the supply diminishes then prices increase. It's the paradox of people hunting animals to extinction; the more rare the animal the more money hunters can demand for it until there is no more left.
Oil company's need an excuse to change into generic energy companies. By hook or by crook they'll take the path of least resistance to the highest profit margin (whether it be with oil or solar panels).
Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Bah, humbug.
Does this mean we can PLEASE break up/ditch/ignore the Corn Cartel... sorry, lobbying group... which is probably the single biggest reason that biofuel is expensive and inefficient and such a bad idea?
Although I'm unhappy to see Shells move, I can't blame them... they aren't really a R&D outfit, and other startups are taking over the role of expanding wind/hydro/solar and making it profitable. Now, if they would just dump all that money into deciding that algae (or, gasp, hemp!) is a much more efficient biofuel, and help get rid of Big Corn, then everyone could win...
No, no, no (Score:5, Insightful)
"[New energy source] or bust" is a very irresponsible thing to say; we need to learn to compromise. But I'll just focus on your particular suggestion of fusion:
Fusion is very promising, if only because it has no proliferation worries, but other than that all of the advantages that count are already available in fission reactors.
Think solar is renewable? Not as renewable as nuclear.
All we need is for the public to get their heads out of their asses and learn to accept compromise.
Re:Really, all three? (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism is the enshrinement of the profit motive. Not only do you worship it, but you're using unfair trade rules, corporate strongarming and even military action to "liberate" the rest of the world from all other methods of social organization.
When you stop thinking that you have the best country in the world, then you can start whining about things like this. Until then, however, bend over and take it like good little consumers.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Two contradictory theories... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Consider their Energy Scenarios [shell.com] study. Essentially, after this study, they asked governments to take the necessary decisions. If you look at what they're doing, they clearly believe that 'scramble' is the scenario we face, and are preparing the company for it.
Shell are a far-sighted company. As with all chemical engineering companies, they need to plan now to build in 5 years, and their plants need to operate at a profit for 20-odd years. The point I'm making is that over time they've become very good at predicting the future.
This leaves them alone (Score:4, Insightful)
With BP, Arco and other companies at least acknowledging in TV ads that the current 100% reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable and other solutions, along with simply using less, are a must. Shell is an awfully wealthy company and investing 1% of the money they spend on locating new oil sources would finance an awful lot of school/university projects to come up with financially viable forms of alternative energy. This investment would have more than paid for itself just on PR value.
I have never been particularly loyal to any brand of gas, but I think I will start using the BP station 3 blocks down the road that I drive to get home anyway rather than Shell which is just at the highway exit.
stunt (Score:1, Insightful)
"end its investment in wind, solar and hydro projects":
twas just a PR stunt so they, as oil company, could
make TV adds for themselves that for once didn't
involve a car.
*VVRRRRROOOOoomm*
-
side note: whats more free then water dropping from
the sky, light shinning from the sun and wind?
not a sound investment? lol
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:3, Insightful)
"Alternative" energy sources are feasible, but they just don't make as much money as oil. In the long run "alternative" energy sources (like wind for example) are much more economically feasible (to ordinary citizens at least) because they don't cause global warming, smog, lung cancer, asthma, etc.
So you need to get your government to legislate for these externalities, because at the moment these have no effects on the economics at all. Shell is inherently a long-run enterprise, you can't just pull a chemical plant out of your backside and start making money. Shell are looking at the long-run and saying that governments will not have the courage to make difficult decisions and so they will scramble towards biofuels as an eco-sop and a way of subsidising farmers.
See here [shell.com], these have been published for some time, and give insight to what Shell are doing today.
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah and another thing. Oil companies are not 'energy companies' they are 'resource extraction companies' there's a difference.
This relates to an argument about making furnaces better. The furnace company has very little incentive to make a more efficient furnace because they do not have to pay for the consumables and they make a profit off of parts and service. One idea to make HVAC more efficient is to make vertical monopolies within the industry that provide the server of heating or cooling. If the manufacturer has to pay capital costs and variable reoccurring costs then they will make a machine that lasts forever and uses as little resources per unit of heating or cooling as possible. This is why GM killed the EV because they want you to consume parts and service for the (short) life of the car. If GM gave you the service of having a car and had to pay for gas, parts and service you would have 100mpg cars in 10 years that would last a million miles without service. Don't think a million mile per engine car is possible? Look at the Volvo PS-1800, 2 million miles on single engine made in the 1960s.
Oil companies have generated more super wealthy people on this planet than any other human activity; don't underestimate people's ability to do evil when it comes to trillions of dollars.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
to use a car analogy, Shell has gotten off the future express way and is driving down a dead end street. it may be a very long road, but it will come to an end.
That's not a very good analogy really. Right now, oil is probably more representative of a highway that comes to an abrupt end in a very dry and barren desert; you know that it's going to end at some point, but you are not 100% sure quite where that it is. Alternative energy is a maze of meandering side roads and dead ends that lie to either side of the high way that represent higher short-term running costs, research that leads to economically or environmentally nonviable solutions, or equally bad dead ends as oil. Some of those roads, however, do lead to the future express way and those are the ones we have to find, but the problem is we don't really have a good map yet.
I'd say Shell has simply decided that, right now, they need to sit out The Recession with what to them at least is a safe and financially sound proposition in the form of biofuels, by getting back onto the dead-end highway for a while. This is really just the same basic strategy being taken by all those other business that have been focusing on their core operating markets recently. At least that way they're still moving and they know that the road remains good for a while yet, and it doesn't preclude them from doing a little more exploring of the side roads later on, and there might even be some better maps by then...
Biofuel is pretty unethical (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't have enough arable land on planet earth to fully convert from oil to biofuel.
Furthermore, it's a physical fuel that must be grown (on land, using fertilizers, pesticides and farm machinery), processed (expending energy) and then transported (expending energy).
Biofuel is only cheap because of gullible (or corrupt) politicians.
Re:Separating silicon and oxygen is expensive. (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic#Energy_payback_time_and_energy_returned_on_energy_invested [wikipedia.org]
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php [treehugger.com]
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm [windpower.org]
Re:It's fusion or bust (Score:3, Insightful)
Wind is abundant all over the place. Areas where solar may be restricted due to space (such as densely packed cities with tons of skyscrapers) are the perfect locations for wind power.
It's a well known fact that city streets act like wind tunnels. It may take a shift in construction architecture, to position wind turbines in the right spots(between buildings, up high, where the wind likes to go), but it is doable, and it'd reduce the burden on the power grid a bit.
I'm sure someone will come and say it isn't feasible - but up here in Vancouver, BC (Canada) [wikipedia.org], many tall buildings are being replaced with earthquake-immune ones. They aren't tall like New York - most are just ~30 stories or less - but many actually dangle off central pillars, which is pretty neat.
If they can be rebuilt for a purpose like that, they could also design them to support wind turbines at the top. :P We just have to start planning now, so it can be done in 15 years.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
But when the oil is out they can benefit from others investments in renewable energy and expand in that area at a lower cost.
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
See, troll. Ad hominem and emotive attacks with little or no factual content.
If the evil oil companies are the ones raping the American people, I'm sure glad no American ever bought any oil related products, or voted for some kind of anti-environment President, otherwise they might be considered partly responsible themselves...oh, wait.
The chemical/energy industries are full of scientists, chemists and engineers. There is more of a green attitude in Shell than there is in Parliament/Congress/any government I can think of.
They can no longer afford faking not to be evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Neither. They're responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not defending that philosophy at all. I don't know where you got that from.
You're defending the head-in-the-sand philosophy, where people blame 'big oil' because it's easier than taking personal responsibility for the impact one's actions have on the environment.
Oil companies don't destroy the environment and pump oil for shits and giggles, they do it because people are paying them hand-over-fist to do it. People are also willing to forgo legislation to protect the environment to save themselves a few bucks, and then bitch about how the environment is being wrecked.
Yeah, it sucks that Big Oil is ruining the planet man, I wish I could do something about it. What car? This car? No, I need that to drive to my air-conditioned gym.
Re:It's fusion or bust (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Corporate culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Once oil will not be profitable enough....
Oil will *always* be profitable. Especially when you're sucking the last few barrels out of 100 year old wells and selling it to a captive market who either couldn't afford to switch to something renewable or have no real alternative.
You damn well charge what you want.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, Shell simply decided that's it's marketing campaign of green energy investments was promoting threatening ideas and, generating insufficient advertising benefit. Bio-fuels (starving the third world) and burying pollution underground (at the tax payers expense) were far more profitable and in harsh economic times, knows that the public will be far to worried about keeping their home, feeding their family and panicking about possible medical emergencies, that they would largely ignore the end of the clean green PR=B$. Come on did anybody seriously believe shell was interested in alternative renewable energy beyond a cynical exercise in marketing.
The only source for funds for the development of cheap renewable energy has to be the government, there is no profit in it and the real benefits are the free benefits of a cleaner healthier environment, lower medical costs from a healthier population and of course cheap 'free' energy(beyond initial capital outlay and maintenance).
Re:No, no, no (Score:5, Insightful)
But your comments on Fission are out by quite a bit. First it is *not* cheap. The new reactors are costing upwards of 5billion and can be higher than 10B. That totally ignores waste management costs that are heavily controlled and fixed by government regulation. There is plenty of nuclear fuel if we reprocess and use Thorium fuel cycles. The US does not reprocess and hence on a pure U based cycle you are looking at a few 100s of years IIRC (so a few 1000s with reprocessing). Even with reprocessing 5 billion years of U fuel is not here- but thats long term planing in the extreme.
Now the "its available now" comes with a caveat. What to do with the waste? Lets at least plan a head a little. We could develop fast reactors and/or accelerators driven reactors to reduce the waste to something quite manageable. But this kind of R&D reactor will come in the 20B+ price bracket with a 10+ year program. Quite similar to Fusion. After than you only know it can work, we still need to build the reactors.
Personally I think we should invest R&D into both. We don't know if they will be economical. But it would be nice to have the option.
Responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Why ask large corporates to be responsible? I say take personal responsibility and don't buy their products. Ride a bike!
Buy the start-ups (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't be suprised if Shell (or other oil companies) would opt to do this. They gather the money now so they can buy those renewable-energy start-up companies AFTER they've proven SUCCESSFUL (i.e. let the weaklings die, then invite the survival-tried to join the gang).
Re:Biofuel is pretty unethical (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have enough arable land on planet earth to fully convert from oil to biofuel.
Who said anything about fully converting from oil to bio? Shell just wants to concentrate their investments on biofuel.
We all know it's going to take a portfolio of energy sources to get away from oil and coal and we're going to eventually need some sort of replacement fuels for all of those legacy motor vehicles that will be on the road. And you just know that folks will bitch about oil based fuel disappearing off of the market over night.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot one major thing though. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well. Two.
NIMBY
BANANA
And the fact that if you say "nuclear" to some people, they do a GREAT imitation of a cat, arching their spines, hissing and spitting.
Whoops! Sorry! That was three wasn't it?
They'll KEEP pointing to archaic monstrosities like TMI and Chernobyl and go "BUT WHAT IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN!" until the end of time.
Yeah, and what if it started suddenly raining knives from the sky! Think of the children!
You simply CANNOT convince these people that it's safe and you cannot decouple "nuclear" from "weapon of destruction".
And while I'm disappointed in Shell for taking this step backwards, a part of me would MUCH rather a new, vigorous economic juggernaut create itself than having to deal with the back-monkey of a previous, someday-obsoleted industry.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
radical environmentalists = own worst enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
You forget. Such people would have the majority of us (as long as it didn't include THEM) die off "for the greater good", and have the remainder living in caves, starving to death because anything you do has an environmental impact.
Nuclear NEEDS to be done right (Score:4, Insightful)
We NEED to build the latest designs of reactors out of Europe and Asia and not the 1950s style Pressurized Water Reactors.
We NEED to get past the fear of nuclear proliferation and allow spent nuclear fuel to be reprocessed
If both of these things are done, it solves a lot of the current problems with nuclear power.
Newer reactor designs (pebble bed etc) are a lot safer.
Breeder Reactors and Reprocessing help solve the nuclear waste problem by taking all the waste currently sitting in cooling ponds and storage sites around the US and extract more energy from it. The result after waste has been reprocessed and run again and again and there is no more reprocessing that can be done to it is (IIRC) easier to store and takes less time to become totally inert than the current waste comming from existing reactors.
New reactor designs and other modern technology can use nuclear fuel (not just Uranium) that PWRs cannot.
religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Its simple: eco-friendly is the new god to many. They see it as heresy to even suggest 'green' fuels aren't green, or aren't a better-than-break-even venture. Like most religious zealots, facts or reality mean nothing if those facts interfere with their faith or first beliefs. Simply put, logic be damned. (This is why we've got 'green terrorists' burning down SUV dealerships.)
Oh, also, it's plainly obvious why Shell is doing what they're doing. Large companies are not well suited for persuing emerging trends, or for that matter, quick-and-dirty R&D. This is particularly true during a recession/depression, when they've got to be careful to not be capsized utterly. On the flip side of things, this is why small R&D, and 'start ups' in general, tend to flourish during hard economic times (as Apple, MS, etc. did during the late-70s/early-80s): the big dogs are slow to maneuver due to a tightening belt, and are more risk/challenge averse.
If history can be any indication, some small start-ups will invent/discover the "next big thing" in terms of 'renewable' energy.
Re:No, no, no (Score:4, Insightful)
Now the "its available now" comes with a caveat. What to do with the waste?
Bury it. It's a relatively small problem which we can solve when we have better tech (assuming the waste won't become a commodity), we have bigger things to worry about now.
First it is *not* cheap.
"Cheap" is relative, and hard to work out. Should we include a portion of the potential cost of dealing with global warming into the price of a coal plant? Nuclear power, as you said, includes the cost of decommissioning and clean-up.
Also we don't know how long these plants last. Our current generations of reactors have been able to run long past their original estimated expiry dates; when the cost of the fuel is so cheap and plants last a very long time the cost of the plant has to be taken in context.
WWKSWD? (Score:3, Insightful)
What would Ken Saro-Wiwa do?
Re:Corporate culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Back when XEROX had the personal computer technology when nobody else did, their top brass decided not to go for it because it was outside their corporate culture. "We are a xerographic company"... The rest is history :(
And what history is that? An incredibly rich and vibrant personal computing field? Companies stick to core competencies precisely because it is what they are good at. Leave getting good at personal computers to someone else, which someone else did.
When large corporations reach outside their core competency, danger looms. Microsoft is a software company. They attempted to build complicated hardware and got a two-thirds RROD rate. Examples like this abound.
Re:No, no, no (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that 'regulations could decrease this probability (of another accident) by orders of magnitude(...)'. Regulations?! Like SEC regulators that caught Madoff before he could do any real damage with his fraudulent operation? Oh, wait...
People don't create the fail-safe reactor by following guidelines and rules written by politicians who know shit about nuclear physics. They do it because the incentive of being the safest and most marketable reactor will make them a truckload of money!
The only thing regulation does is remove a characteristic of a product from the sphere of market competition and turn it into a standard throughout the industry.
I guess the corporations must like it, its one less thing to be concerned about, but for the rest of us? I don't know. If that's well thought of, great, no harm done, if not, tough luck people, we all blow up at the same time. Did we forget the old adage of 'having all eggs in one basket'?
I don't know where comes this blind faith in 'regulation'. Does _God_ write them?
Re:Hopelessly blinkered. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm always surprised to see comments like this...
You've clearly never used Biodiesel in your life and have no idea what you're talking about.
1. ALL Biodiesel I've heard of has significantly lower emissions and also less harmful emissions that diesel. It doesn't take much of a search to confirm that, so please tell me which biodiesel you think produces more greenhouse gases than regular diesel.
2. There doesn't have to be a negative impact of biodiesel on the environment. In fact, a lot of commercial biodiesel is made from used vegetable oil that's recycled. ... That's actually a useful thing.
If everyone started using it, then you need to make lots which means using some agricultural land to make it... but it's still better than using crude oil to make the stuff.
3. What? What a lot of rubbish. Most biodiesel (commercial) is 98% as much energy as Diesel... I used it for three months and had almost no change of fuel economy.. 27mpg in a 1980's JEEP. That's better than twice the economy you get from a Petrol Jeep.
2% is NOT 50%... I've never heard of Biodiesel being 50% worse... Are you thinking of a petrol substitute? Even Ethanol isn't nearly that bad.
Also, some biodiesel, notably Palm/Coconut based not only has 1/100th the emissions of normal diesel, it also has 20% more energy...
That means for the same tankful, you get 20% more range, 20% more power or 20% more torque...
Do some research before you go talking about facts...
I've used the stuff, bought commercially, in an unmodified Jeep. (Same diesel engine it came out of the US factory with in 1982)... The only drawback is that it's a little harder to start in the cold.
On the positive side, it provided better lubrication and smelt better too.
But I got sligtly improved fuel economy so the stuff I was buying was probably slightly better than normal diesel.
GrpA.
Re:Two contradictory theories... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, no, no (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've read about fusion power I mostly agree with your summary. The only part I would question is the comment on high-level nuclear waste. It's certainly true that the neutron flux will cause the containment vessel to become highly radioactive but by selecting the correct materials for it that radioactivity will be very short lived. I believe that they are talking about half lives of a few years at most. In other words the plant would only need to sit there for maybe 100 years before it could be decommissioned and recycled. We already build structures that are designed to be maintained for over 100 years so this is well within our current capabilities.
As for tritium production we can always run a couple of nuclear plants to produce it. I think the problem for fusion power will continue to be waste helium removal and a severe lack of funding.
I agree completely though that nuclear power is our only viable alternative at the moment. We have discovered that uranium is a lot more abundant than we first thought (and we haven't even looked that hard yet) but on it's own it's not enough to power the world for a billion years. If you include reprocessing and thorium breeding then yes we can get power for a very long time but both of those technologies are in their infancy. What we need is for governments to bite the bullet and run a PR campaign for nuclear power. The whole proliferation reason for not reprocessing is starting evaporate as more and more countries get nuclear weapons.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Because people aren't, in general, all that bright. Do you see much evidence that people are moving away from cars & fossil fuel dependency?
To what? You give me an reasonably priced, safe car that can get me to work and back with the AC or heater on full every day that doesn't use fossil fuels, and I'll gladly drive it.
As for now, don't call me stupid because I don't drive a car that does not exist.
Re:Thats ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, the good old big oil conspiracy. I'm sure Shell et al. are sitting on patens for super efficient fuel injection and combustion technology, 90% efficient solar panels which have no toxic byproducts during manufacturing, and wind generators that break even within a year.
That, or most of the magical technologies you keep hearing about are vaporware, and in fact the startups have no product. Instead, they are just looking for some easy VC money in a popular industry. The rest end up either infeasible, or require more research, while a small portion actually has some impact.
They might be exiting the business for now, but I seriously doubt they'll just burn the solar panel plant down to the ground together with all related assets and IP. It's probably going to be sold off, and continue to operate independently from the evil Big Oil company.
Reality Therapy (Score:3, Insightful)
Bio-Greed is still Greed. (Score:3, Insightful)
...Producing bio-oil is likely to be very profitable in the short to medium term.
Yeah, that's the problem. Not only is it shortsighted and greedy, but bio-oil is still oil. Dressing on a pig.
Of course businesses can't really function at 150 per barrel so you get this massive demand destruction and a following recession. Think of it like a hammer knocking oil dependent economies back down just as soon as it gets going.
I saw nothing but innovation take off like a rocket with people coming up with all sorts of alternatives to get from point A to point B when oil was well over $100/barrel. In fact, it's likely the reason that oil is well below the $150 line right now because Big Oil actually saw it as a risk. A sedated price makes a compliant (and lazy) customer.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:2, Insightful)
And you base the assumption that it won't be 10-20 years this time on that it has been wrong in the past? Without realising this is fundamentally absurd?
Re:Corporate culture (Score:2, Insightful)
> so the big question becomes: Is Shell an oil company, or an energy company?
It's a company which makes most of its money from oil, but which is looking to make money from other energy sources when this makes economic sense.
> to use a car analogy, Shell has gotten off the future express way and is driving down a dead end street. it may be a very long road, but it will come to an end.
It IS a very long road, and as they approach the end they'll see where other drivers are going and follow them, only attempting to overtake if there's sufficient space on the road to do so.
What they WON'T do is pull off the road and try and drive through a forest full of trees, holes and boulders, no matter how many people stand at the edge of the woods urging them to do so.
Patent troll? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that concerns me is if they will use patents collected through their body of research into solar, wind and hydro to block technology developments and deployments creating the same sort of patent mess that is interfering with innovation in the information technology industry.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:2, Insightful)
I expect Shell will continue to research alternative energy but unless it makes a profit (and is therefore attractive to share-holders), it can't do this.
Incredibly Naive (Score:2, Insightful)
Between Shell's decisions to stop its clean energy investments and to increase its debt load to pay for dividends, the company is solidifying an image of corporate greed over corporate responsibility."
Now, some companies are run by people with a streak of "corporate responsibility". Sometimes, the staff want some "corporate responsibility". But mostly "corporate responsibility" is about profit. It's about looking nice to your more naive customers. In the end, companies will work this stuff out as a trade-off. Amount of income lost to treehuggers who boycott you vs amount of income lost on green projects.
If green projects > treehugger income, you'll get rid of the projects.
Re:No, no, no (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But how are they going to be developed?
We need to create economic incentives to encourage investment in the development of alternatives, and the only efficient way to do that is through higher taxes on carbon emissions. The people who think fusion is going to save us are mostly the same ones who don't want the government to distort markets, yet somehow expect the government to magically produce viable. It's laughable.
Dontcha worry, there's plenty of countries on this planet where the subject of taxation can be discussed without a bunch of talking heads screaming about communism, and I'm sure they'll be more than happy to license the resulting tech to the US power companies...for a small fee. Ironically enough India is way ahead of the game when it comes to solar, giving Asia yet another edge for when they replace the West as the dominant empire on this planet.
Re:Really, all three? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that's it. We MADE China manufacture all that stuff to sell to the U.S. And before that, we absolutely threatened Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines into producing all the stuff the U.S. no longer could produce cheaply enough. Come to think of it, we threatened to invade India if they didn't help the U.S. offshore those American jobs.
And look what the U.S. did for Kuwait, the U.S. invaded the damn country just so it could give it back to the Kuwaitis; maybe the Kuwaitis were threatening to go into textiles instead of pumping oil, it being such a lucrative market.
And what's with the Free Trade Act, imagine opening up American markets just so those evil, money grubbing S. and L. American countries could sell their stuff here. Why, even Mexico is threatening tariffs if the U.S. Congress doesn't take back the restriction they recently put on Mexican trucks. I'll be the U.S. threatened Mexico to threaten the U.S. with tariffs just to keep trade free and open.
Those naughty Americans, the nerve of such people thinking other people in the world might want a better standard of living. Maybe socialism would work, its been so successful in the past.
Gerry
Re:quick to savage the company... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Every project goes through a cost benefit analysis. Shell apparently did the analysis, and the conclusions were that investment in wind and solar are unlikely to pay for themselves, even in the long run. Or, more precisely, investments in wind and solar are unlikely to pay better than investments in oil and gas, even in the long run.
Besides, there's nothing to prevent them from re-entering the market if the economics change.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:2, Insightful)
There's the problem, it hasn't all been discovered yet. We aren't refilling it, we are discovering more. I have no doubts that there is only 10 years left of oil in currently tapped wellfields, but is it really that hard to grasp that new technologies allow us to reach deeper (and sideways) for oil that was previously out of reach? Also, new alternatives open up as the price goes up, such as the tar sands in Canada (which have more oil reserves than the Middle East).
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhh....
everything is a pollutant when it is present in concentrations such that the current local environment can not deal with them.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Demonizing their actions is stupid. Shell is a for profit corporation and it's clear they are predicting cheap oil for the foreseeable future. What they are doing is both reasonable and predictable. By their own admission the alt-energy projects weren't financially feasible. Their own stockholders can and will sue if they keep dumping money into non-starter projects.
Stop expecting them to behave like philanthropists. The government can dump all the money it wants into economically questionable ventures - like ethanol fuel - but that doesn't mean it will ever make money or even work. The simple fact of the matter is that oil is too cheap. When companies like Shell can bank on profits from a proven alt-energy source you'll see an explosion of investment.
Re:No, no, no (Score:1, Insightful)
People don't create the fail-safe reactor by following guidelines and rules written by politicians who know shit about nuclear physics. They do it because the incentive of being the safest and most marketable reactor will make them a truckload of money!
Yeah right - up to the point where running a shoddy plant will make them more short term profit.
I don't know where comes this blind faith in 'regulation'. Does _God_ write them?
I don't know where comes this blind faith in 'the market'. As history has shown us over and over again, if you leave a market entirely to itself, someone will figure out how to game it and screw everyone else over.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody credible on the subject of biofuels has seriously advocated using food crops for fuel
Except the US Government. Oh wait, you said credible. I guess that's what we get when you put a political entity in charge of something. Something the people clamoring for Governmental intervention might want to consider....
Re:Corporate culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Bio-fuels (starving the third world)
Yeah, it's our fault that the third world is a toilet. We're not the ones who are running the regimes of their oppressive dictators. We're not the ones diverting international aid away from starving people. Yes, production of biofuels makes the cost of some food items increase. But if they'd grow their own fucking food, it wouldn't be an issue.
LK
Re:What the? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethanol isn't ideal... Getting rid of Petrol/Ethanol engines would be better.
And lumping in problem biofuels because of the market for them isn't being honest either...
Biodiesel is a useful fuel, and it does a lot less damage to the environment than batteries, although I'm a big fan of batteries too.
As for food?
I get very angry when I hear comments like people starving so we can drive cars.
People have starved for the past century while there's plenty of food wasted. There's only as much food grown as is economically viable. People convert vast swathes of land to support GM seeds that IMO are only fit for Biofuel, not for human consumption.
And as for alternatives? People are seriously looking at Algae based biofuels right now. Is it economical? Not while we're still destroying the worlds oil reserves... But we're probably going to run out of those fairly soon and fusion's not an option (yet or in the near foreseeable future).
There's enough capacity to make huge salty-algae fuel farms without losing any farming land.
Anyway, if you don't like conventional biofuels, you can always run your car on peanuts...
That was, afterall, the original idea.
GrpA
Re:Corporate culture (Score:1, Insightful)
Given the history (or lack thereof) of oil companies getting bailed out by governments, I think you are rather off base.
Second, big oil companies take good care of their employees, rarely lay people off, and have low turnover. Further, they offer great health care.
So why is it that people think oil companies are bad? They take care of their employees, and the employees are among the most loyal you will find.
And what "behavior" should we not be tolerating? Wise investments? And if the oil companies should be forced into solar, wind, etc. then why don't you also force Chevy to make planes (or Boeing to make cars)?
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, the economic viability of biofuels is questionable, and carbon sequestration definitely isn't viable from physics.
The problem isn't they chose to kill off technologies which are not promising, the problem is they chose to pursue those that are less energy efficient, if at all (and thus, unless they scam someone, less promising).
They expect they will market them to government or something, rather than solve ecological problems. That's why its wrong.
You can't lose a green conscience you never had. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Move somewhere that does not require you to drive a personal car to work.
2. Ride a motorcycle to work.
3. Carpool.
The enemy of the perfect should not be the enemy of future generations. If you truly believe that your lifestyle is unsustainable you should take action accordingly.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
but is it really that hard to grasp that new technologies allow us to reach deeper (and sideways) for oil that was previously out of reach?
Not at all. After all, there MUST be pirate treasure buried in my backyard. The problem is that nobody's invented good enough metal detection technology to enable me to find it.
Re:Energy Return On Energy Input (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe one day there will be an entity that I trust to run a nuclear power plant safely and efficiently. Private industry is too focused on profit over safety, the government is too incompetent to do so. That, and the problem of waste that's hazardous for 10,000 years....
Re:No, no, no (Score:3, Insightful)
They do it because the incentive of being the safest and most marketable reactor
And since when has marketing been anything but a boatload of lies?
They'll market their reactor as the safest, and when it blows up, they'll have pulled their cash out of the corporation and run for the hills, leaving behind a husk of a limited liability corp and the taxpayers holding the bag of a really, really expensive Superfund site.
Not to say that the current regulations have done that great of a job. America is now decades behind modern reactor technology thanks to them. I'd love to be able to trust corporations without government interference, but when they barely manage to clear the hurdles of regulation what makes people think they're going to bother to jump when the hurdles are removed?
Re:Only if you ignore the rest of the world (Score:1, Insightful)
Spot on. The full costs of polluting technologies like coal or oil are not reflected in their price. If it were, the economic proposition for solar would look substantially better. For nuke supporters: If nuclear is so safe and cheap, why is it that every country that produces a substantial amount of power from nuclear has massive government subsidies? Answer: because it really isn't cheap. Kw/hr prices rarely reflect the myriad government subsidies involved.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate profits are unfortunately something that is shortsighted. What is the *cost* of putting all the extra CO2 into the air? at this exact moment, probably fairly minimal, but over time as we continue the cost may very well be extreme.
The gov't is the leveling factor, by pricing oil artificially higher to encourage a different direction for a better long term result.
Some will say we don't need it, and while there is general scientific consensus that we do, factual evidence is scarce since we're making predictions about the future. By the time actual evidence exists it will be far to late to 'fix' the problem.
Shell probably sees the writing on the wall, their industry is a monopoly on our transportation...switching to electric or other renewables means they will no longer be that monopoly. Its the govt's responsibility to look beyond short term profits and move us to something sustainable.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me say that firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant, it's a plant fertiliser.
By that definition, cow manure isn't a pollutant either. Just because plants enjoy it doesn't mean it won't cause us problems if there's too much of it.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:2, Insightful)
Flippant remarks aside, the grand-parent is incorrect, legally, CO2 is considered a pollutant. Here's [climateknowledge.org] a copy of the supreme court decision agreeing with the stance that CO2 is a pollutant. Also, in at least one case a Superior court judge [climateprogress.org] in Georgia has used the Supreme court decision to block the construction of a coal-fire power plant because the plans contained no provision for limiting CO2 emissions. The "CO2 ain't a pollutant" excuse doesn't work any more. That dog won't hunt.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:1, Insightful)
Let me say that firstly, CO2 is not a pollutant, it's a plant fertiliser.
Fertilizers and pollutants are not mutually exclusive categories. There are several plant fertilizers that are also considered pollutants. Different forms of Nitrogen and Phosphorous are necessary for plant growth and are included in fertilizer but in to high of concentrations cause environmental damage especially in aquatic environments.
Re:quick to savage the company... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, capitalism prevents evolution by concentrating control of economic resources into the hands of a few. Perhaps you're thinking of markets -- they're not the same thing at all.
If we had functioning markets that took all costs into account and didn't allow externalization, we'd never have developed a petroleum based economy.
We started our "jump" about 200 years ago at the start of the industrial revolution. If we continue on our current course, we'll go *splat* when we land. The question is whether or not we can change course in time.
"Yes, I brutally murdered twenty people, but people die...deal with it." See the flaw here?
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
less energy efficient != less profitable. When solar, wind, etc., become more profitable than oil, Shell will be clamouring to get back in, don't worry.
I've been saying for years that the only way to get the planet to switch to "green" technologies is to find a way to make the energy derived from them cheaper than the alternatives. Even now, the only reason we're still on coal and natural gas for generation of power is that they're cheaper politically (partially due to being the status quo) than nuclear power.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
Libs will have a field day (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Libs will have a field day (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no field day here. They'll say "SEE??? This is why we need the government to subsidize it! It's cost prohibitive up front, and you can't make a profit on it, until the government subsidizes the first part (say, research into more efficient panels), THEN it becomes worth spending the money on".
I haven't come up with a good reply to that...I say it's not worth the taxpayer's money, he says it is.
If they support it I don't see why they can't just fund it with their own money then.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
As it happens, one of the biggest sources of pollution for waterways is fertilizer. It gets washed from the fields into the water, where it promotes the growth of algae, turning a lake into a stinking pit. And the same happens in coastal areas where ever the conditions don't disperse it fast enough.
Your argument seems to be that something can't be both a fertilizer and a pollutant, which is wrong.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is that interference from the outside cause the problem in the first place, and interference from outside is continuing the problems. And the people of the poor countries (who have ALWAYS been that way) have nothing to do with the situation.
Yes, it is always evil white people's fault. Always!
I'm kind of sick of the people who blame everything on Western Eurpopean culture. It is a fallacy. Japan was nearly wiped out after WWII, practically nuked into the stoneage. And yet they figured out how to crawl out of it in less than one generation. AND they have almost no natural resources.
And yet, we leave places like Afgahnistan alone for twenty years, and the Taliban take over and take a relatively modern nation back to the Stone Age. Yes, that was all Colonialism's fault. Because the Taliban wouldn't have ever taken over if it wasn't for the Russian invasion ...
The problem is, that you can always blame the current problems on something else. Obama is taking the problems of the Bush (who sucked royal eggs IMHO) Admin and REALLY is making them worse. But nobody seems to care because he speaks so eloquently (teleprompter mishaps not withstanding) and has a pretty smile.
Re:quick to savage the company... (Score:3, Insightful)
functioning markets (Score:4, Insightful)
"If we had functioning markets that took all costs into account and didn't allow externalization, we'd never have developed a petroleum based economy."
Please. You make it sound like the first guy to develop an gasoline-powered automobile back in the turn of the 19th century actually knew all of those costs and externalizations and their cumulative effects. He didn't. He just wanted to get from point A to point B without stepping in horse manure.
They made their decisions based on the knowledge and technology and resources available to them at the time. We, on the other hand, have more knowledge and technology and resources available to us than they did.
As such, we can now do better.
Re:Libs will have a field day (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for Shell! They made a BUSINESS decision! It is NOT GOOD BUSINESS practice to "invest" in something that DOES NOT WORK. Wind & solar are (at this time) cost prohibitive!
Ummmmm... Did you happen to forget how your computer was created? Your cell phone? How about your car? Your TV? They were created because someone "invested" in something that didn't exist, through all the steps of the things that didn't work, until they reached a product that *did* work.
If/when the day comes where it is more efficient to produce wind/solar power, you will see the energy companies jump on it.
Same thing with these stupid "hybrid" cars. They are more expensive, use "more energy" to produce than a regular car.
Just how, pray-tell, are wind, solar, and "hybrid" cars ever supposed to get to a point where "they work" unless companies with MORE than enough money (like.. I dunno... Shell, perhaps?) invest in such technologies?
I happen to believe that Shell is shooting themselves in the foot. If they paid for the research, they'd be able to own many (if not all ) of the patents that go along with the tech, which means not only that they could have made money on selling the items, but they could make MORE in licensing their patents to other companies.
They, along with a small group of other companies, pretty much "own" the oil industry. Tell me, again, how it's NOT smart for them to "own" solar or wind technology in the same way?
Don't get me wrong. As a company, they can decide where to spend their money, no matter how stupid I think their decision might be. I just don't see how it's *not* a completely batshit-insane choice to exit some very potentially profitable markets knowing that your entire company profit center is based upon an item that is quite finite.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also worth considering which ones get subsidies. To me, giving subsidies to companies which deal with fossil-fuel energy sources (or even taxing it less than you would tax other things) seems ridiculous, as it just entrenches their place in our economy rather than giving us the flexibility we need to feasibly switch energy technologies.
Also, people need to ditch the idea of "technology will save us". We aren't entitled to fusion power or any other source of energy that will magically save us any more than we were entitled to flying cars 40 years ago. Everyone needs to simply accept that 1) fossil fuel prices will need to rise, or 2) they have to invest a lot of money now in the technology investment. Either way, you have to pay more money. It's just a matter of when and where you pay it. We can't expect anyone (much less everyone) to transition to these technologies while we're in our "comfort zone" (i.e., cheap gasoline prices). The masses take the path of least resistance, and hopefully the current path gets more resistance sooner than later, or we may not have time to establish the infrastructure for whatever our future energy source(s) requires. It would really suck if oil shortages happened again just as we were to launch a massive campaign to build a lot of new hydrogen/solar/fission/whatever facilities to make ends meet. Having the technology isn't enough. You have to know that you have enough of your old "dirty" resources left at feasible prices to build enough of the technology for everyone.
Re:Corporate culture (Score:1, Insightful)
The potential problem with bio fuels isn't concerns that wheat and corn and the like are going to be turned into fuel instead of food (well, with corn that has happened, boosting up corn prices). but biggest concern is that farmers, when looking at the market seeing that they could make $1/acre profit raising food, or $2/acre raising switch grass (or whatever the bio-fuel crop of choice is) will opt to grow the fuel crops instead. Eventually, the shortage of food crops will drive up prices (and food prices) until they match the price for fuel crops of course. Good for farmers (large commercial agribusiness at least). But not-so-good on the general population who face expensive food prices and a shortage of available food. For much of the 3rd world, its likely that a large portion of their lands will switch over to raising more profitable fuel crops for rich 1st world nations rather then raising cheap food crops for the local population...
It's all down to economics. the local poor populations can't afford to pay as much for the products of the local farms than the rich foreign nations, and so the local populations will lose out.