I recall 10 years ago when an oil & gas company was in the process of re-branding themselves and wants to call them "The Energy Company" given that the thrust for organizations and governments were geared towards reduction of greenhouse emissions caused by fossil fuels. This was also promoted heavily by environmentalists and climate change advocates who have added to the mounting pressure that these companies have to tackle. Not to discount as well the heavy tax burdens for these companies to operate.
But the sheer reality is that whilst there is technology available to harness these clean sources (solar, wind, wave, etc.), these companies cannot easily abandon the investment that they already have in terms of infrastructure, process and technology in the extraction of current sources. It goes alongside that the demand for fuel fossils is in essence a never-ending demand that needs to be supplied, for which supplying them makes a lot of business sense.
Look around the street corner and count the number of vehicles that rely on traditional energy source (gas, diesel) as opposed to the vehicles that require other form of energy (electric). The ratio is probably 100:1. Even with the advancements in the field of being able to fully harness the energy provided by fossil fuels (and thereby minimizing consumption), it is still a stark reality that the demand for it is there.
Oil companies are certainly looking beyond fossil fuels, but until there is an actual business incentive to go full thrust on renewable energy vs gas/diesel/fossil fuels, then the latter is here to stay in the long run.
>Look around the street corner and count the number of vehicles that rely on traditional energy source (gas, diesel) as opposed to the vehicles that require other form of energy (electric). The ratio is probably 100:1
The experts say that around 2012-2025 EV's are going to become cheaper than ICE's, and the market is going to shift radically. The oil companies are looking to the future.
For reference, ExxonMobile controls 70 BILLION barrels of oil. That's 70 billion * $70 ~= $5 trillion at current prices. On top of this, most years, their reserves increase, not decrease.
No company is going to walk away from $5,000,000,000,000 in potential revenue unless the margins are very negative.
I work at KOC (Kuwait Oil Company) which is like one of the biggest producers of oil second to Saudi aramco in the region! Recently the whole oil sector in Kuwait is pushing an strategy where most of the electricity consumed by all the oil companies in the country is going to come from solar. But the cynic in me thinks that it has more to do with cost and adhering to worldwide standards than environmental reasons
The solar resources in Kuwait are exceptional--this may be more about pragmatic cost optimization than anything else. With the falling cost of solar, if they can save the oil that would otherwise be used for operations and then sell it, I imagine they come out ahead.
The irony is that the same forces creating this profit opportunity for them will eventually lead their customers to seek new energy sources as well, and shrink their market.
These companies are responsible for creating a catastrophe on a global scale. We might literally go extinct because of them. All their assets should be seized to repair the damage, and people responsible should be tried for crimes against humanity.
If you seriously believe that, then you are equally guilty of crimes against humanity for being an accomplice to these acts with your consumption of their products. After all, they haven't forced you to buy their goods.
Humans will not go extinct even in the worst version of global warming. I really hate this hyperbole because it's easily disproven and simply gives fuel to deniers. Please don't use such hyperbole.
Solar, wind, and storage can do the job, too. Storage is tricky, but it can surely be done with enough R&D.
And nuclear isn't a magic wand. We either need to suck it up and use plants that can fully burn the fuel (by reprocessing or otherwise) to eliminate long-term waste or we need to come up with something useful to do with the long-term waste. The USA has failed pretty badly on the latter, and the former needs engineering and, as I understand it, some degree of willingness to accept increased proliferation risks.
The problem is education. Most people are afraid of the word "nuclear," reacting with knee-jerk fear and dismissal. Most people don't understand how radiation works or the difference between different kinds of waste.
Even people who have a reputation for "knowing better" spread misinformation, like John Oliver, who did a video on nuclear power with a bit essentially saying, "Look at all this nuclear waste we have! It covers a whole football field to three stories!" Without any context of other waste from solar panel manufacturing, or even easy ones like the X billion tons of particulate matter we breathe out of the coal plants.
The other problem is humans are famously bad at estimating risk, combined with the "everything is a profit-investment" mindset we all have. When people say "nuclear is so expensive" what they really mean is "it's hard to turn a profit before twenty years, I want my money back sooner than that, lets build some more gas wells."
We need some kind of national organization, with lots of capital, to take on the initial financial risk and spread it around so no one person is left on the hook in a life-destroying way. Imagine if that organization had a department with decades nuclear operations experience.
(I'm talking about the government, and the Navy, btw)
I agree. Outside of energy, we'll still need oil for asphalt, plastics and other synthetic materials. It doesn't seem like those needs are going away anytime soon.
30 minutes to charge still reduces the throughput of the gas station (because filling up with gasoline only requires 10 minutes not 30), meaning that now they'd have 1/3 of customers, meaning that they'd need to make their charging prices really high to make up for the lost revenue.
ExxonMobile has ads in my Instagram and Facebook feeds almost daily showing ads for how plastics make the world better (ehhhh) and showing green tubes trying to look like they're making algal oil fuel and saving the world.
Many of the prevailing climate advocacy groups are heavily influenced & financed by the hegemonic oil interests. The strategy is control over markets. With carbon credit, a global (trans-national) governance, legal, & financial framework can be placed over a large percentage of the economy. Select companies, that have access to enough capital to adhere to compliance, can be deemed "good corporations" & get preferential treatment in their respective markets, shutting out small entities that don't have access to large capital.
Notice that localized movements that focus on pollution prevention (e.g. reducing pollution in a watershed) are often de-emphasized, unless there is strategic value to large players. Instead, the call is always for more centralization, into the hands of large capital. Citizen led local efforts are allowed to grow & be taken over by agents of these large interests, who then redirect the efforts of the local entity toward the goals (e.g. carbon credits) of the environmental hegemon.
The transition from fossil fuels does not hurt the owners of the oil companies, because these same entities are leading the transition. Instead they seek to use different technology, legal frameworks, & economic frameworks to consolidate & prolong their positions in the global world order.
They are trying to squeeze every last ounce of profit they can out of the carbon economy with the full knowledge that it must be dismantled within the next few decades. It’s a cynical game, externalizing the catastrophic costs of climate change on to billions of current and future people for the benefit of shareholders and executives, a tiny minority.
[+] [-] AngeloAnolin|7 years ago|reply
But the sheer reality is that whilst there is technology available to harness these clean sources (solar, wind, wave, etc.), these companies cannot easily abandon the investment that they already have in terms of infrastructure, process and technology in the extraction of current sources. It goes alongside that the demand for fuel fossils is in essence a never-ending demand that needs to be supplied, for which supplying them makes a lot of business sense.
Look around the street corner and count the number of vehicles that rely on traditional energy source (gas, diesel) as opposed to the vehicles that require other form of energy (electric). The ratio is probably 100:1. Even with the advancements in the field of being able to fully harness the energy provided by fossil fuels (and thereby minimizing consumption), it is still a stark reality that the demand for it is there.
Oil companies are certainly looking beyond fossil fuels, but until there is an actual business incentive to go full thrust on renewable energy vs gas/diesel/fossil fuels, then the latter is here to stay in the long run.
[+] [-] woodandsteel|7 years ago|reply
The experts say that around 2012-2025 EV's are going to become cheaper than ICE's, and the market is going to shift radically. The oil companies are looking to the future.
[+] [-] mywittyname|7 years ago|reply
No company is going to walk away from $5,000,000,000,000 in potential revenue unless the margins are very negative.
[+] [-] dreamer_soul|7 years ago|reply
Please note that this is personal opinion
[+] [-] johnny99|7 years ago|reply
The irony is that the same forces creating this profit opportunity for them will eventually lead their customers to seek new energy sources as well, and shrink their market.
[+] [-] austincheney|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yogthos|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcranmer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ianai|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlindner|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _FKS_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amluto|7 years ago|reply
And nuclear isn't a magic wand. We either need to suck it up and use plants that can fully burn the fuel (by reprocessing or otherwise) to eliminate long-term waste or we need to come up with something useful to do with the long-term waste. The USA has failed pretty badly on the latter, and the former needs engineering and, as I understand it, some degree of willingness to accept increased proliferation risks.
[+] [-] CptFribble|7 years ago|reply
Even people who have a reputation for "knowing better" spread misinformation, like John Oliver, who did a video on nuclear power with a bit essentially saying, "Look at all this nuclear waste we have! It covers a whole football field to three stories!" Without any context of other waste from solar panel manufacturing, or even easy ones like the X billion tons of particulate matter we breathe out of the coal plants.
The other problem is humans are famously bad at estimating risk, combined with the "everything is a profit-investment" mindset we all have. When people say "nuclear is so expensive" what they really mean is "it's hard to turn a profit before twenty years, I want my money back sooner than that, lets build some more gas wells."
We need some kind of national organization, with lots of capital, to take on the initial financial risk and spread it around so no one person is left on the hook in a life-destroying way. Imagine if that organization had a department with decades nuclear operations experience.
(I'm talking about the government, and the Navy, btw)
[+] [-] mytec|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] standardUser|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RodericDay|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|7 years ago|reply
Problem of charging electric cars solved! Existing gas stations will add 1-2-3-4...-X charges as needed.
[+] [-] warkdarrior|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmercer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] khana|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] briantakita|7 years ago|reply
Notice that localized movements that focus on pollution prevention (e.g. reducing pollution in a watershed) are often de-emphasized, unless there is strategic value to large players. Instead, the call is always for more centralization, into the hands of large capital. Citizen led local efforts are allowed to grow & be taken over by agents of these large interests, who then redirect the efforts of the local entity toward the goals (e.g. carbon credits) of the environmental hegemon.
The transition from fossil fuels does not hurt the owners of the oil companies, because these same entities are leading the transition. Instead they seek to use different technology, legal frameworks, & economic frameworks to consolidate & prolong their positions in the global world order.
[+] [-] smadge|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esarbe|7 years ago|reply