Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: An4ximandros on June 14, 2014, 09:07:43 am
-
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/13/ohio_just_signed_its_terrible_anti_renewable_energy_bill_into_law/
This stupidity is saturating me with rage...
-
I very much want to raise my flag with you there but salon ugh.
But yeah, I think that now that renewables are becoming cheaper and cheaper, we will see a lot of this kind of lobbying against it. Sad, but inevitable.
-
repealing a mandate for renewable energy is not a law AGAINST renewable energy....
-
When said mandate has driven away business from fossil energy producers and apparently resulted in savings for customers, yes, it is.
-
This is embarrassing. I feel personally offended.
-
While I'm no fan of the renewable craze, it looks that it's actually been profitable for Ohio. That's what happens when you let politicians run the country...
-
While I'm no fan of the renewable craze, it looks that it's actually been profitable for Ohio. That's what happens when you let politicians run the country...
No, it's what happens when humans run the country. Specifically, humans that can be influenced by lobbyists. Do not delude yourself into thinking that the brand of dictatorship you prefer would be any more rational.
-
What really makes me lol is that the fossil fuel companies have decided to spend this money lobbying instead of looking into renewable energy as a diversification of their business portfolios, potentially increasing their annual profits
-
The money they could make investing in renewables would result in money being sucked out of their existing (much higher ROI) business so that's a major loser for them.
-
The money they could make investing in renewables would result in money being sucked out of their existing (much higher ROI) business so that's a major loser for them.
certainly short term, certainly would take a number of years to see a return worth the investment but then i suppose thats the crux of the problem, piss off the investors/shareholders/stock markets for the long view or keep them happy in the short term
-
This shows how dysfunctional corporate system is. Long term gains are all too often sacrificed for short term, shareholder-pleasing "solutions" that solve nothing, but net the CEO a hefty bonus for keeping stock high.
No, it's what happens when humans run the country. Specifically, humans that can be influenced by lobbyists. Do not delude yourself into thinking that the brand of dictatorship you prefer would be any more rational.
Well, the idea is to have humans (or even just a single one) who can not be influenced by lobbyists and bribery (isn't the former just the latter by another name, anyway?). Whatever system of government you chose, it's important that it works towards the benefit of the country, not towards gains of it's own members. And politicians are a particularly poor choice to run anything; they're only good at winning elections and staying in power (because that's what politics amounts to), not actual management. And I noticed democracies have an annoying habit of electing politicians and not actual administrators.
-
Your thesis is at odds with history. Democratic elections have produced numerous capable leaders and administrators. Comparative outcomes analysis between democratic and authoritarian states does not favor the authoritarian regimes in effectively any respect.
-
The money they could make investing in renewables would result in money being sucked out of their existing (much higher ROI) business so that's a major loser for them.
certainly short term, certainly would take a number of years to see a return worth the investment but then i suppose thats the crux of the problem, piss off the investors/shareholders/stock markets for the long view or keep them happy in the short term
I think that these companies do all individually weigh their short and long term priorities and have probably determined that "make as much money as possible while you are in a dominant position" is a better overall strategy than "invest heavily in technologies that might become dominant in the future." They're sitting on a mountain of gold and you're trying to push bitcoin.
-
Except that fossil fuels are going to run out someday. If they were smart, they would look for other sources of income, and do it now, before someone else grabs them. If they were very smart, they'd start pushing for nuclear power, because unlike renewables (which are only good as a suplement), it'll definitely become dominant as extracting oil becomes more expensive and as power demand rises. And it will rise, there's no stopping that.
-
Having a really huge pile of money is probably the best way to guarantee that you will be able to secure sources of income in the future (way better than the crapshoot of actually funding research yourself). Fossil fuel companies will probably be in as good of a position as anyone to jump on the next primary energy source when it actually becomes a reality.
-
What really makes me lol is that the fossil fuel companies have decided to spend this money lobbying instead of looking into renewable energy as a diversification of their business portfolios, potentially increasing their annual profits
This strikes me as odd as well. Shell actually does invest in renewable energy (since they want to keep existing as a company in the next 100 years, basically), it strikes me as odd that some of their competitors would choose a different path.
-
...as extracting oil becomes more expensive and as power demand rises. And it will rise, there's no stopping that.
What is no stopping is demand rise, which has (and will continue to) drive prices of oil up, up, up. If you have no competitors, they will go even more up. Pressure from extraction costs will only add to the troubles, they will lobby as much as they can to destroy any competition.
What really makes me lol is that the fossil fuel companies have decided to spend this money lobbying instead of looking into renewable energy as a diversification of their business portfolios, potentially increasing their annual profits
This strikes me as odd as well. Shell actually does invest in renewable energy (since they want to keep existing as a company in the next 100 years, basically), it strikes me as odd that some of their competitors would choose a different path.
It only looks odd as long as you don't look at the figures they have every quarter for oil, coal or ... ahhh.. solar, wind. Once you skim over those figures, you'll understand everything.
-
It only looks odd as long as you don't look at the figures they have every quarter for oil, coal or ... ahhh.. solar, wind. Once you skim over those figures, you'll understand everything.
Luis, when you make statements like this, can you please please please provide links?
-
Do I really need to? Do you remotely believe their revenues on renewables are more than a tiny percentage of the total? It's like you're asking me evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese.
-
I thought this was a thread about the Godzilla film :nervous:
-
Do I really need to? Do you remotely believe their revenues on renewables are more than a tiny percentage of the total? It's like you're asking me evidence that the moon isn't made of cheese.
How tiny a percentage then? <0.1%, 0.1%, 0.5%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%?
-
This is tiresome. Really, you have no idea?
Well, a really quick digging confirms that while Shell is a 451 billion buck revenue sized company, the only solar-based **** they have right now is from a company they bought in 2006, SolarWorld, which has a staggering 1 billion revenue. It's big. But, 0.2%?
-
Instead of being smugly all-knowing and assuming that everyone else is on the same page, please consider that the rest of us peasants would really appreciate it if you would divulge the pieces of knowledge that lead you to your conclusions. This may sound dull and boring to your ears, and I humbly beg forgiveness for my lowborn ignorance, but explaining where you're coming from will be much less aggravating than you spending a whole post on "I thought this should be obvious to everyone!"
-
I'm sorry I just thought it was overwhelmingly obvious that oil companies's 99% revenue came from fossil fuels, and that any investment in "renewables" and so on were just green washing, marketing or just small hedges for the future. Are people this unaware of the orders of magnitude of difference between fossil fuel economies and renewable economies in terms of scale? Well I guess they are, I learned that.
-
Well, it's actually this obvious for me. They're oil companies, aren't they? :) They wouldn't be calling themselves that if they had a major "green" source of revenue. They do have a share in renewables, but it's tiny.
...as extracting oil becomes more expensive and as power demand rises. And it will rise, there's no stopping that.
What is no stopping is demand rise, which has (and will continue to) drive prices of oil up, up, up. If you have no competitors, they will go even more up. Pressure from extraction costs will only add to the troubles, they will lobby as much as they can to destroy any competition.
Except that oil can't keep up with the rising demand for power. We're relying more and more on electricity, and at the same time, people don't want new coal or oil burning plants, not only because of some nebulous "ecology", but also because they're bloody stinky. People don't appreciate a layer of soot deposited on their balconies every morning (well, the plants are cleaner than that nowadays, but still not as good as nukes). Power demands will not only continue to rise, but so will the rate at which the consumption increases. And the old-style plants can only be upgraded so much. In perspective, nuclear is the only way to power the future society.
Also, since oil extraction is gonna be getting more expensive, nuclear companies will have more and more of an edge. They can give more power, handle more demand, and do all this for a fraction of the price of a classic power plant with the same capabilities. Oil companies should be investing in nuclear technology if they want to stay relevant. Also, I don't believe even oil company lobby can kill fusion power that is now on the horizon. The advantages are just too great, and fusion is pretty much immune to "nuclear bomb" card so called "ecologists" keep playing against fission plants.
-
This is tiresome. Really, you have no idea?
Well, a really quick digging confirms that while Shell is a 451 billion buck revenue sized company, the only solar-based **** they have right now is from a company they bought in 2006, SolarWorld, which has a staggering 1 billion revenue. It's big. But, 0.2%?
Other way around. They got rid of their solar business in 06, for the most part, and completely exited it a bit later. And you're right, it should be common knowledge that these oil companies are basically ignoring renewables, and if people didn't already know... well, try the first link on Google for "Shell Annual report" and that pretty much tells the story.
-
Am I reading this thread as more potentially hostile than it is?
-
Nope, it reads about as hostile as it is.
And it stops now.
-
Also, since oil extraction is gonna be getting more expensive, nuclear companies will have more and more of an edge. They can give more power, handle more demand, and do all this for a fraction of the price of a classic power plant with the same capabilities. Oil companies should be investing in nuclear technology if they want to stay relevant. Also, I don't believe even oil company lobby can kill fusion power that is now on the horizon. The advantages are just too great, and fusion is pretty much immune to "nuclear bomb" card so called "ecologists" keep playing against fission plants.
I agree with much of what you say, but I think you are not interpreting correctly the oil companies' best interests. They are oil companies, and they will continue to do so. Demand will rise faster than production will ever be able to keep up, which will create a slow squeeze of the oil market, thus rising its price. This has been going on for more than 10 years now, and its effect is that oil companies are doing really really well. Now there might be individual companies whose best strategy should be hedging quite a lot due to them not having access to enough wells, but generally the companies that do have access to the oil will only benefit from this increased shortage.
What happens in the market then is that this price increase will benefit renewables or alternatives as well, giving them an "umbrella" that will enable them to compete more efficiently. This is what is supposed in "free markets" (although I am well aware this is hardly one). The price of oil goes up, signalling everyone that we should look up other kinds of energy sources for there is big money to win.
Given this, it is optimal strategy to undermine every state benefit to alternative power sources to stop these companies from benefitting from this "umbrella", so that they don't lose custumers, so that they don't lose money.
-
They can't drive the price too high, either. This is business, afterall, if they made oil prices too high, suddenly silly stuff like burning weed in a powerplant becomes viable (this was actually done once, after a particularly massive drug seizure). Shortage will drive the prices up, up to a point people won't be able to afford oil at all. And it will also drive the costs up, pretty much without regard of anyone being able to afford the stuff. Your assumption works on short term, but remember, this can't quite go on forever. Lobby is one thing, but at some point even bribing everyone won't do. While I know plenty of politicians that would ruin their own country to make a quick buck, someone is going to realize oil has literally no advantages when it's more expensive than (ridiculously expensive today) solar power. This is going to happen someday, simply for the reason of people generally wanting to spend less money. You can see it now with hybrid cars. Prices became too high, and suddenly companies like Tesla became a smashing success. Not because they're clean, because electricity is cheaper than gasoline. If at some point oil is gonna cost more than LH2, then someone will, sooner or later, start selling LH2 conversion kits for cars and powerplants. And then start selling LH2, and making profits off that. Instead of driving oil prices up, oil companies should begin acquiring nuclear technology, otherwise they're going to come crashing down when someone else brings it into market. It's a bubble, and it's going to burst, eventually.
-
No one said "forever", these companies work thinking in the next quarter, not the next decade. And considering "next quarter", it's always the optimal strategy to undermine any competing technology or energy source, even if in the long run the "battle" is "lost", so to speak. In real terms, the battle will never be lost. The oil price is mostly optimal in managing demand and supply, which means that if the price of oil goes up, it just means that the demand is bigger than the supply, and that demand is to be "cut short", IOW a means of rationing a scarce supply to a worldwide surge of demand (developing countries are skyrocketing their demand for the past 10 years now).
While you are right that an increase of oil prices will cut demand, the fact is that is the whole point. The price rose and will rise even more because the demand has to be rationed down to the supply level. Peak Oil is not a catastrophe, but its general point should be acknowledged: oil supply will not be able to increase to 150 million barrels per day, and so one thing has to give, either demand or price. And demand is not slowing down sufficiently, thus price has to increase. And it has. Just look at the historical price for the past 20 years.
[attachment kidnapped by pirates]
-
No one said "forever", these companies work thinking in the next quarter, not the next decade.
This is the whole problem. "Next quarter" is short-term thinking, a strategy that will not survive if not backed by a viable long-term one. There are companies who are thinking in the next decade (anything by Elon Musk is, for example, known for that), and by the time this decade rolls around, they might suddenly register galloping profits, while oil companies tank. Yes, generally, there's a relation between demand, supply and price that allows oil companies to bring demand down to supply level. But the world is going to need more energy, and at some point, more than oil companies can provide. And if oil companies can't deliver (or are unaffordable), they'll simply turn away towards other ways of generating the required power. If the same companies don't offer this kind of services, they'll simply be ditched, while those that did look that far forward will start raking in money, which they could then spend on R&D and marketing, turning the tables on oil suppliers and taking away a fair share of their market. While there's still a lot of animosity regarding nuclear power, it's generally decreasing, and even "renewables" are consistently improving with time. I don't think oil companies will be able to buy those firms by the time their long-term value becomes short-term one.