Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/19/2009 10:03:24 AM PDT by Fractal Trader
Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today. It plans to invest more in biofuels which environmental groups blame for driving up food prices and deforestation.
Executives at its annual strategy presentation said Shell, already the world's largest buyer and blender of crop-based biofuels, would also invest an unspecified amount in developing a new generation of biofuels which do not use food-based crops and are less harmful to the environment.
The company said it would concentrate on developing other cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. It hoped to use CCS to reduce emissions from Shell's controversial and energy-intensive oil sands projects in northern Canada.
The company said that many alternative technologies did not offer attractive investment opportunities. Linda Cook, Shell's executive director of gas and power, said: "If there aren't investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won't put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Sheesh! I had to look up who that guy was.
Wife Swap is not among my viewing favorites. (never watched it or heard of Stephen Fowler before now).
Yikes — what an A$$!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXHXy4GVSw
.......Just because an investment isn’t attractive, is that reason for not doing research? .....
Recall if you will the decade of the 70’s. All the alternative energy sources we hear about today and many many more we don’t, have been incentivised, granted and researched to death. The research has been done already and found to lead nowhere.
That certainly does work — where you’re close enough to the hydro dams to schedule the loads appropriately.
The biggest wind power states are in the area east of the Rockies, tho — southeast (or southern) WY, ND, SD, MN, etc. Not much hydro in the area for storage.
So we stop research, and dump it on our grandkids and their kids?
If little things like keeping your kids fed and a roof over their heads is important to you, it's all the reason in the world.
You seem confused about business. The purpose of business is to make money. The purpose of business is not to engage in expeditions down blind alleys.
It is apparently not in the business interest of Shell to poke around under rocks and pour money down rat holes. In another post I mentioned Shell has developed new nitrogen gasoline additives. That took research.
They need not invest in nuclear technology either. That has been done by GE and Westinghouse/Toshiba who are in the electricity generation business.
If there are profitable avenues for research, someone will do it. Shell has elected to stay to it’s business.
You can’t build windmills, as they “hurt birds”. You can’t build hydro plants as they “hurt fish”. Solar is only efficient during a clear day, and doesn’t work at night (Supplemental only). What else is Shell to do? They have to remain profitable.
I’m just wondering how much the cost of transportation will be for our kids kids.
I understand business, but I also have concerns for our future generations. Which is more important?
Right. If organizations that do have a lot of money do not do the research, who will?
“...a new generation of biofuels which do not use food-based crops and are less harmful to the environment.”
Shell Green is people!
Just wait...
Your statements are confused. If you insist on condemning Shell to research on subjects that are not their business, you don’t understand business.
Their business is oil, not pie in the sky. That is to be left for others, for the market. May be they will succeed or maybe they will fail but that is not the concern of Shell.
Have you invested your money in alternative energy? Why not?
“Congress’s ethanol mandate rises to 36 billion gallons ethanol by 2020, which would consume more than 100% of US corn crop...if made from corn.”
I think nearly everyone realizes that ethanol from corn is not practical or cost efficient. Thats why there is push toward feedstocks such as grasses and waste cellulose. The problem is that there are many techical hurdles as well as the enormous volume of material that must be processed. Plus it simple cannot compete with something you can just pump out of the ground and distill.
If you question why others are doing costly research, I ask why don’t you commit some money to do such research. What you suggest is nothing but a variant of “not in my backyard”.
I wouldn’t call what I said a condemnation.
How would the market fund alternative energy research? Surely not through donations. It will have to be done by corporations with deep pockets or governments. We would all certainly complain about more taxes for research. I would hope that there would be a shred of altruism somewhere within some of the big energy conglomerates.
I don’t have enough money to invest in alternative energy, unless the few mutual funds I do have are doing it.
If I had enough money to be noticeable, I probably would. They can do any research they want in my backyard, it’s not very big though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.