Slashdot Mirror

Big Oil is not investing in solar power, wind turbines or storage technology which will be the choice of alternative energy for now. Why should they invest in fusion?

Are you sure about that?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Big Oil is; The supermajors are considered to be BP plc, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell plc, Total SA and Eni SpA, with ConocoPhillips Company also sometimes described in the past as forming part of the group.

http://www.bp.com/en/global/co...
https://www.chevron.com/corpor...
https://lubes.exxonmobil.com/L...
http://www.shell.com/energy-an...

Perhaps you should get with the times, "Big Oil" has been investing heavily in renewables for years. But I guess that doesn't fit in your world view, so it is much more convinient to rage about how horrible big oil wouldn't invest in renewable energy. As for fusion, that is a harder question to answer, you would have to actually look into the investors behind each fusion energy project. My guess is that those nasty big oil companies are heavily investing into fusion, as that is what energy companies to.

As ray also points out, you are so far off base it is actually laughable. All those links above took me 30 seconds to find.

So, how much are you being paid to post this bullshit?

What bullshit? I asked you some questions. Important questions, given your extraordinary claims.

You've been ranting and raving about all over the comment section of this article about how Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the climate change scientists. I'm asking you why you are making these claims. I hope you'll understand that I'm a little confused about your claims since Shell, BP, and Chevron all acknowledge that climate change is real, and they have billions of dollars at stake. So, I'm curious why you don't believe in climate change, while virtually all of the experts do.

Even the U.S. Army considers climate change to be real and a potential threat.

Chevron 2011 profit = $26.5
Apple 2011 profit = $25.9 B
The difference is, Chevron will consistently post high profits, Apple is a bubble waiting to burst.

Your numbers are incorrect. If you just go straight to Apple's earnings statements and Chevron's earnings statements, you could quickly see that Apple posted $32.98B in profit in calendar year 2011 (i.e. Q2 2011-Q1 2012), whereas Chevron posted $26.8B in the same period (i.e. their Q1 2011-Q4 2011).

Granted, the AC you were responding to is an idiot, is clearly incorrect, and is trying to justify mistaken things he said by twisting words, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get the numbers right. ;)

As for your comment about Apple being a bubble that's waiting to burst, the irony is that Apple has shown a willingness to reinvent itself in recent years, making it more resilient to said bursting, whereas Chevron is a company with an obvious countdown hanging over it as most of the world calls for less dependence on its chief product.

I just found an interesting tool for visualizing Apple's earnings as I was researching this comment, and if you click on the "Revenues by segment" button, you'll see that the vast majority of Apple's money is coming in from sources that didn't even exist 5 years ago, let alone 10. Apple was plenty healthy when the iPhone debuted, and was even healthier by the time the iPad came out, so if one or both of those suddenly dried up, I suppose the bubble would have burst, but Apple would still be a player in a number of other markets.

In the more likely scenario that the iPhone simply became less desirable, Apple would have plenty of opportunity to adjust. It was reported a few months back (during a quarter where iPhone sales were dipping due to anticipation of the iPhone 4S, no less) that Apple is bringing in over 50% of the profits in the cell phone industry (that's for all cell phones, not just smart phones, mind you), despite their 4% market share in that market. That leaves them with a pretty big cushion for adjustment if something changes.

Even so, no company can continue an upwards trajectory forever, so it is inevitable that Apple will eventually fall. Given recent history however, I doubt it will be soon, though I wouldn't be surprised if their growth declines over the next few years, if nothing else. The iPad is in a good position to do well in the tablet market, and the tablet market is set to outpace the overall PC market within the next few years. That alone should ensure that they do well for awhile, assuming that the iPad continues to do as well as it has been.

As for Chevron, they're working on reinventing themselves, but big oil isn't exactly known for leading the way. And, just as their product took ages to be produced, so too does that industry seem to take ages to change itself.

Those darn oil companies. In summer, they screw you by serving you hot gasoline. In winter, they screw you by reducing the energy content of the gasoline. Someone should do something about it!

Seriously, what would be accomplished by accounting for expansion? If they install the sensors, then they would adjust their prices to compensate for temperature. Does it really matter that the volume is inexact, as long as all gas stations consistently use the same inexact method of measuring the volume?

Odd thing about the Canadian gas market -- the prices posted at gas stations are almost always identical when driving around town. The government claims that it's simply the result of an efficient market, but I notice that prices don't converge like that in the US. I know, US prices are per gallon, and Canadian prices are per litre, but still... in the US, it's common to see two gas stations at an intersection with wildly different prices, and that never happens in Canada.

Huh? You mean this Cobasys?

"Cobasys, the First Name in Nickel Metal Hydride Battery Solutions, provides commercial NiMH battery systems for the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), electric vehicle (EV) and 42 Volt transportation markets. The NiMHax brand for EV, HEV, HD HEV, and 42 Volt systems, provides flexible standardized architecture for a wide-range of vehicle solutions."

Doesn't look very blocked to me. Let's search for more info. The company is greatly expanding...

http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2005/2005-05-18. asp

"ORION, MI, May 18, 2005 -- Cobasys, a leader in advanced Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) battery technology, today announced the grand opening of its new 84,000 square-foot headquarters in Orion, Michigan. The engineering, development, administrative, sales and marketing facility currently houses 175 of the company's 220 employees, and is expanding to accommodate anticipated employment growth of an additional 25 percent through 2006."

Further searches reveal that all sorts of cars are using Cobasys batteries -- for example, the Saturn Vue. Two companies also produce batteries on license from them -- Panasonic and Sanyo, which produce other hybrid car batteries. It looks like the negative press Cobasys has earned is because it aggressively enforces its patents against NiMH interlopers (one of which happened to produce the EV1's batteries). Looks, by all means, like they want to be the only ones selling NiMH in the US, and selling them in bulk -- not that they don't want anyone selling them.

From what I've seen, I have to agree with Wired.com's automotive blog:

"Chevron should be lauded for investing in technology that reduces the demand for its main products (gasoline). The company realizes that hybrids are a great opportunity, so following the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em), they are profiting from the growth of hybrids."

Oil companies will either adapt (by becoming "energy" companies) or die as the world slowly changes energy sources. That doesn't seem to stop the "it's a conspiracy to suppress energy-saving technology!" nuts.

Last I checked they did. I work for the company and I know for a fact they don't oppose this bill because of its goal. They oppose the bill because it's not well thought or managed. There is no means of measuring success, meaning they can spend four billion taxed dollars and not have to show anything for it. Gas will go up. Imports and dependency on overseas oil will go up and because Chevron is the largest oil producer in California they are the most concerned. Not ExxonMobil, not BP. I Challenge you to research the facts on both sides. Don't just listen to the pro propisition commercials that make vague statements about Big Oil made billions last year, let them pay their fair share. Bull, other industries made a lot more of you people, like pharmaceuticals as an example. Chevron spends millions each year on alternative fuel research... Look
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-06-15. asp
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-09-19. asp
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.bloomberg.c om/apps/news%3Fpid%3D20601082%26sid%3DagBZ87o5myWU %26refer%3Dcanada&e=15206&sa=X&oi=news&ct=result&c d=1&sig=__8Fx-YfGJf8Lz6E_CjwtgDu6XPac=

Last I checked they did. I work for the company and I know for a fact they don't oppose this bill because of its goal. They oppose the bill because it's not well thought or managed. There is no means of measuring success, meaning they can spend four billion taxed dollars and not have to show anything for it. Gas will go up. Imports and dependency on overseas oil will go up and because Chevron is the largest oil producer in California they are the most concerned. Not ExxonMobil, not BP. I Challenge you to research the facts on both sides. Don't just listen to the pro propisition commercials that make vague statements about Big Oil made billions last year, let them pay their fair share. Bull, other industries made a lot more of you people, like pharmaceuticals as an example. Chevron spends millions each year on alternative fuel research... Look
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-06-15. asp
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-09-19. asp
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.bloomberg.c om/apps/news%3Fpid%3D20601082%26sid%3DagBZ87o5myWU %26refer%3Dcanada&e=15206&sa=X&oi=news&ct=result&c d=1&sig=__8Fx-YfGJf8Lz6E_CjwtgDu6XPac=

The black smoke hasn't been a problem for properly maintained engines ever, but much cleaner diesel's should be available in the US this fall. Refineries have been producing S15 Low Sulphur diesel since June and all retail outlets should have it by October 15th according to EPA requirements. This means that manufacturers can start importing designs from europe that are designed to run on ultra low sulphur diesel fuel. These designs are MUCH less polluting then engines designed for low grade diesel. For more info see link

Do you even know what volatile means?

Tell you what, why don't you take a look at this:

The key gasoline characteristic for good driveability is volatility -- the gasoline's tendency to vaporize.

Maybe you should go tell Chevron that Gasoline isn't volatile. They've only made tens of billions of dollars on their understanding of gasoline, perhaps your new information would allow them to make more.

The preceeding message was brought to you by Chevron Corporation, The UK Coal Authority, and the Kentucky Coal Education Organisation.

For example, you can start at Chevron's main site and easily find images that look familiar...

What is in a barrel of oil?

To some, a barrel of crude may look like a gooey liquid whose only redeeming virtue is to be eventually refined into gasoline.

Researchers broke down a typical barrel of domestic crude oil into what may be produced. By the way, the average domestic crude oil has a gravity of 32 degrees and weighs 7.21 pounds per gallon.

Here's what just one barrel of crude oil can produce:
Enough liquefied gases (such as propane) to fill 12 small (14.1 ounce) cylinders for home, camping or workshop use.
Enough gasoline to drive a medium-sized car (17 miles per gallon) over 280 miles.
Asphalt to make about one gallon of tar for patching roofs or streets.
Lubricants to make about a quart of motor oil.
Enough distillate fuel to drive a large truck (five miles per gallon) for almost 40 miles. If jet fuel fraction is included, that same truck can run nearly 50 miles.
Nearly 70 kilowatt hours of electricity at a power plant generated by residual fuel.
About four pounds of charcoal briquettes.
Wax for 170 birthday candles or 27 wax crayons.

There are enough petrochemicals left in that same barrel to provide the base for one of the following:

View Larger Image

39 polyester shirts
750 pocket combs
540 toothbrushes
65 plastic dustpans
23 hula hoops
65 plastic drinking cups
195 one-cup measuring cups
11 plastic telephone housings
135 four-inch rubber balls

The lighter materials in a barrel are used mainly for paint thinners and dry-cleaning solvents and they can make nearly a quart of one of these products. The miscellaneous fraction of what is left still contains enough by-products to be used in medicinal oils, still gas, road oil and plant condensates -- a real industrial horn of plenty.

Anyone remember these commercials?

In places with air pollution problems, summer blend gasolines or reformulated are formulated for lower vapor pressure to reduce evaporative emissions. They don't use the summer gasoline in the winter because the lower vapor pressure makes it hard to start in the cold.

I stand by the statement that nobody will be specficially growing biomass for fuel conversion. You are completely correct, most energy we have used was from plant matter: heck, the average person is running at about 120W based completely on plant and animal sources (2500kCal/24hr). That is a LOT of energy. However, the average CAR uses something like 120kW (~162HP) src Thats a lot of bio-fuel per second.
Lets have some fun:
If we assume that you have your numbers above (2.5% efficient conversion of an average of 400W/m^2) and we use the average car then that 10W per meter squared gives us a requirement of ???
With an average commute distance of about 10 miles (real is more like 13 ref) . I'll assume that means that the average commuter burns about a gallon of gas per day, 5 days a week.
A gallon of gas has an energy content of about 118MJ (Ethanol has about 80MJ) ref So we need
5*5*118MJ ~= 2.95E9_J per week.
In order to produce this in 7 days (allow production but not use during the weekend) we need to average
2.95E9_J/(7 days) ~= 4.88kW per car
which comes to a total area of
4880W/(10W/m^2) = 488m^2
This represents a patch of plant life about 25 meters on a side. Doesn't seem too bad, I suppose. The average family needs about a football field out on the ocean in order to drive to work everyday.
However, I am going to repeat that accounting in brief using the numbers I believe to be accurate: that is 0.1% efficient transformation of solar energy into ethanol (for why, read my the upper reaches of this thread).
So, 0.001*400W/m^2 = 0.4W/m^2. Lets call it 0.5, then my earlier calcs become
4880W*(2m^2/W) = 9760m^2
Which is a plot damned near 100m on a side. Now, what is the value of the fuel? Well, that would come to the profit to the seller of 5 gallons of fuel. Given that gas goes for about something like a dollar a gallon, wholesale, you are requiring some entity to manage a crap load of these floating plant boxes for
$5*10/7days = $7.14/day/km^2
So for less than 10 bucks per square kilometer per day! Or, with the 10W per meter squared figure:
25m*40 = 1km; 5$*40 = $200/km^2/7days
= $28.5 per day.
And I'd bet a lot that even MY number is about 10 times higher than is realistic. Hell, we haven't even factored in litigation: and I think we can be certain that if a company or government offered to cover a few million square km of ocean with plant boxes, there would be PLENTY of litigation.

Err, scientists have known that oil comes from mainly unicellular life for years. There is nothing for creationists to be right about.

Hydrogen is a lot less dense, though. Any idea how many tanker trucks of hydrogen it would take to be equivalent to one tanker truck of gasoline? Not a flame, an honest question...

Okay, I got curious so, I decided to try and figure this out. I pulled some references and looked online, and the answer really surprised me.

This reference gives the energy content of Gasoline as 115,000 BTUs/Gallon = 32 MJ/liter

This reference says that very cold, highly compressed liquid hydrogen has a density 71 g/liter

Adding to that my reference value of 918 kJ/mol for hydrogen combustion, I arrived at an answer of 130 MJ/liter, or 4 times that of gasoline. We should consider that it takes about 40 MJ/liter to compress and cool the hydrogen down to a liquid form (and more energy if you need to keep it cool for a long time), and also that tanks would likely be smaller in order to accomodate cooling and other apparatus. But that still leaves us with the surprising result that transporting liquid hydrogen is around 2-3 times more efficient than transporting liquid gasoline.

The key of course is that liquid hydrogen is so much more dense than room temperature gaseous hydrogen (by a factor of nearly 1000, 71 g/L vs 0.089 g/L gaseous at 20 C). Consumer uses will probably focus on compressed hydrogen or extraction from fossil fuels, since liqifying hydrogen is hard to do, but there is no reason energy suppliers couldn't ship liquid hydrogen if it really is that much more efficient than shipping gasoline.

Please do check my math since this was only just cobbled together.

Normal fuel probably meaning regular unleaded at the pump for cars. Jet fuel has much higher octane rating than "normal" fuel so it has more energy, and you don't have to put as much of it in the plane.

Chevron gives these values for energy density:

• Aviation Gas: 4.371 x 10^7 J/kg
• Wide-Cut Jet Fuel: 4.354 x 10^7 J/kg
• Kerosene Jet Fuel: 4.328 x 10^7 J/kg

I'm just typing our loud here, but it looks to me like a plane loaded with gasoline would have been about the same problem.

From my own experience, gasoline burns faster (bang!) than diesel (woooosh!). I gather that jet-fuel is similar to diesel (perhaps incorrectly, in this case). Using my ultra-scientific method, I note that they smell very similar.

For jet A-1 fuel, the energy density is 42.8 MJ/kg (http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/av iationfuel/3_at_fuel_specsandtest.shtm), and has a density of about 800 kg/m^3. The 767 holds 90,770 l of fuel. So using the fact that Density=mass/volume, (800 kg/m^3)*(90770 l)=72616 kg. So (42.8 MJ/kg)*(72616 kg)=3107964.8 MJ

No. I don't think people generally want to take from artists, but they don't seem to mind getting what they can from 'the man'. When did this seem acceptable? At what point did a schism between people and corporations occur? I think it is borne from the abrogation of a social contract between corps and people. Once they were perceived to act in their most craven interests to the detriment of people, people turned on them. What the hell, Welcome to the Machine. I don't think corporations know how to restore people's faith in them; in any case it would be bad business. The best way to regain power, for the people, is to undermine that profit-driven system. It is an anti-capitalist concept, but it is not necessarily evil, though it may be a serious threat to the status-quo. For instance, the rise of communism was at least partially a result of the fears of Eastern Europeans about capitalists. If you read Das Kapital you will learn that the persuasive argument of Marx centered on stories of sweatshops and usury and indenture: basically human misery at the hands of capitalists. Only the sound of lady garment workers hitting the sidewalks reached the government's ears. My point is that people perceive corporations as being craven, self-interested, and dangerous, no matter how many "People Do" ads we see.

So we feel justified, nay, in fact Glorified! when we beat the system and stick it to The Man. Tell me: why is Courtney Love suing the RIAA? Why did Pearl Jam try, unsuccessfully, to stop Tickemaster's monopoly on concerts ticket sales?

What true artist who hasn't lost his soul to the capitalist ideal wouldn't attack the current system?

Here, I want you to read what Robert Fripp of King Crimson has to say: Go Here. And then try to understand why we believe that once the distributor is out of the picture, then the artists will be better off than ever.

The reason is, to use Marx's words, that the distributor once possessed the "Ways and Means of Production", whereas in this day and age we all possess them, on our desktops. So the threshhold should have come down. But corps somehow convinced our elected officials to be their personal pit-bull lapdogs. I hope that it is a case of a desperate and futile trying to hold back the floodgates that will soon prove too time- and energy- consuming for our government to continue to fight, but, when I realize that this generation has allowed for more of their rights to be taken away than any other, I have less hope for the outcome. People are losing power daily.

I remember when this Napster thing was in it's infancy, before the dotcom gold rush, the attitude here at /. was one of hubris: "Those idiots can't figure this internet thing out like we can and we can always remain a step ahead of them." But I suspect that that attitude has been mollified somewhat, as the descending team of lawyers, entrepreneurs, con artists, and newbie hackers without a code, without loaylty to an ideal, took the net and re-made it into something I frankly should have, but didn't anticipate: a cultural wasteland as vapid as a TV with a mouse attached.

Well, heh, it's not all that bad just yet; the net is a great source of raw information, but I don't like the trend I'm seeing...

I think you can figure out why.

While it is true that you don't pump crude oil into your car, the refining process (as I understand it) breaks down the crude oil into its component parts and then selectively reconfigures them into the desired products. The current average product mix is about 45% gasoline. (19.5 gallons per barrel) This can be compared historically to 70 years ago when only 25% was refined into gasoline. All told 80% of a barrel of oil is used for transportation or heating purposes - for which alternative energy sources are feasible. In scanning several petroleum organization websites I was disturbed to find that even they claim that there is only 80-90 years supply of oil left at current consumption levels. Taking this as the most optimistic estimate I believe my concerns are legitimate.