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.

The Shell Prelude vessel is larger:

Once complete, the facility will have decks measuring 488 by 74 metres (that's more than 1600 feet long and 243 feet wide).

It is built in Goeje, South Korea, and this will be the largest hull ever sent to sea.

The Shell Prelude vessel is larger:

Once complete, the facility will have decks measuring 488 by 74 metres (that's more than 1600 feet long and 243 feet wide).

It is built in Goeje, South Korea, and this will be the largest hull ever sent to sea.

1. German wind production is known to periodically drop to essentially zero during the day. Here's the facts showing that.
2. Including solar doesn't help this either, as total production from both together varies by as much as 25x. Fact.
3. German daily peak power demand is around 80 GW. Again, fact.
4. The goal is 80% renewables at latest 2050. Fact.
5. 80% of 80 GW is about 60 GW (I stress the word "about" here - these are ballpark figures).
6. As such there will be days when Germany hits peak or close to peak demand with essentially the bulk of the REE resources being unavailable, hence the 60 GW figure.
7. Your proposal was to import this shortfall from other places where the wind blows, as it always blows somewhere (I didn't dispute that). However, this carries several problems: (1) there's no such large-capacity transmission infrastructure and any expansion projects are being heavily opposed by land owners, (2) this requires installing surplus capacity at remote locations, (3) dealing with the transport losses and complex line control (oversized lines introduce severe problems with lots of reactive power, etc, and finally (4) being willing to absorb the political risks of having the power come from out of the land on really short terms.

You might counter that a portion of that energy can come from hydro & biomass. Hydro is unfortunately already nearly maxed out (*) and biomass has problems with cost and repurposing of lots of farm land for energy crop production (and questionable CO2 benefits due to the excessive use of industrially produced fertilizers and use of heavy agricultural machinery running on fossil fuels; though there is room for improvement here, so no biggie). Still, this requires installing extra capacity, which must be counted against the cost of RE sources of energy. The alternative is to install energy storage on a massive scale to smooth out the intermittent sources and deliver power when needed - not an easy proposition either.

(*) Source: "23% of total technically feasible hydropower potential is exploited in China, 82% in USA, 65% in Canada, 73% in Germany"

Really? What happened to 4/5 of the wind production in the month of August here? I guess you know how to wave a magic wand and transfer 60GW worth of power from some magical wind farms on a different continent.

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/ecomarathon/events/americas/results.html

Because I was expecting to find an article about a large number of shell subsidiaries. http://www.shell.com/

. http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current_records/ [shell.com] http://www-static.shell.com/static/deu/downloads/aboutshell/media/news/shell_eco_marathon_press_kit_2009.pdf [shell.com]

a) The CalPoly is an IC Prototype (futuristic) entry; as some noted, the record is held by the Microjoule, St Joseph La Joliverie, 3,771km/l (8870mpg per wolfram Alpha) b) There are categories for Urban Course - realistic quasi street legal modifications, with significant economy wins by the Norwegian and danish teams (fuel cell and ic engine

. http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current_records/ [shell.com] http://www-static.shell.com/static/deu/downloads/aboutshell/media/news/shell_eco_marathon_press_kit_2009.pdf [shell.com]

a) The CalPoly is an IC Prototype (futuristic) entry; as some noted, the record is held by the Microjoule, St Joseph La Joliverie, 3,771km/l (8870mpg per wolfram Alpha) b) There are categories for Urban Course - realistic quasi street legal modifications, with significant economy wins by the Norwegian and danish teams (fuel cell and ic engine

Shell's got quite an impressive challenge running for many years, achieving way more than 2750 mpg on a regular basis : http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current_records/

Ok, links you shall have.

• Eco Marathon article by The Grauniad
• 9,845 MPG car, BBC
• Official site for EcoMarathon
• Microjoule (in Fronch)
• Wikipedia article on Microjoule, stating the current record for the car is 10,127.9 miles per gallon

Although the 25 watt car deserves a mention, it's not petrol/gasoline powered and therefore not what I'm talking about, which is the upper extreme of where you can take internal combustion engines.

I would love to find some links

They're not exactly stock and not driven at normal road speeds, but here's what I was able to find:
http://www.netcomposites.com/news.asp?3291
http://www.shell.com/home/content/eco-marathon-en/europe/faqs/faq.html#6

http://www-static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/responsible_energy/ecomarathon/SEMA_2009_Final-Results.pdf

I'm surprised. Why does this 3rd place winner get this attention? If the numbers are anything to impress with, take a closer look at the winner, the Norwegian contribution, clocking in at 1246 km per 1 liter of fuel equivalents. Official Results: http://www.shell.com/home/content/eco-marathon-en/europe/2009/results/app_results_2009.html

Oh... you mean like when shell stole all of Changing World Technologies tax credits?

http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_business/oil_products/fuels/biofuels/biofuels.html

"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, these have been published for some time, and give insight to what Shell are doing today.

Exactly. Consider their Energy Scenarios 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.

See shell. On a see sure. Or something...

I don't think Shell et al are quite as evil as popularly supposed. Sure they're making virtually all their massive revenue from oil currently, but that's because it makes economic sense; they're not in denial about the bigger energy picture. See their scenarios document - I've only skim read it but it seems pretty fair and realistic. Amongst other things, they basically predict the start of peak oil around 2015.

Because both vehicles' power can be measure in watts, e.g. a gallon of gas contains around 60 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy.

That raises an interesting next step in this sort of challenge : getting the maximum fuel efficiency for a set minimum speed. Assuming that you want to have a vehicle that will get you there significantly faster than a pedal bike (otherwise, you'd just use a bike), then a minimum speed of around 30km/hour seems reasonable (Wikipedia suggests 15-25 km/h as typical cycling speeds, which gels with my experience). Checking the rules for the up-coming European version of the event, they say "Minimum speed: For their attempt to be validated, teams shall complete the seven laps at a minimum average speed of 30 km/h." for the prototype phase. There are other indications of pushing towards road-usability in the rules for that phase of the competition : "During each leg, vehicles shall make three pit stops for a duration of 10 seconds each. [snip] During the pit stops, drivers shall use their stop lights and their turn signals."

I suggest people look at the UK competition, where the winner got over 10000 mpg (and there were 13 that got over 2843)...

It's fundamentally not a fair comparison. For example, per kilogram, hydrogen has a lot more energy than gasoline. And fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Of course, to make that hydrogen, a lot more energy was wasted than when making gasoline. And that hydrogen is bulky, hitting range. But that wouldn't hurt it here; by your rules, hydrogen vehicles would win easily.

Anyways: to those who think these vehicles are whimsical and whose tech can't readily be applied to streetlegal cars: As I posted over on Autobloggreen.com, compare This eco-marathon winner with this car due out this fall.

Of course, you see the problems with commercializing these eco-racers as-is. They're not stable enough for high speeds (hence Aptera's need to broaden the front wheelbase, increasing the drag coeff, as well as wider tires for better handling), there's too much ground turbulence at high speeds (hence the higher body), they're not comfortable for passengers (hence the larger cross section), and they're not streetlegal (hence things like the truncated, not-completely-tapered tail). Also, there's the fact that by their very nature, things like "normal driving cycles" and "highway speeds" greatly increase drag. And all of this adds weight, too. Hence, "thousands of miles per gallon" turns into "130 miles per gallon" (in the Typ-1h). Still impressive, mind you.

The team profile on the Shell.com site itself is pretty damn lacking in details. It's a 3 wheeled vehicle in the "combustion" class.

http://www.shell.com/static/us-en/downloads/ecomarathon/2008/mater_dei_6th_gen_final.pdf

from the Shell website
rules
I haven't read all of the rules, but it appears they only go 15 mph.

It could be something far less nefarious, for instance how do you measure mpg on a vehicle that doesn't run on a liquid or gaseous fuel (e.g. Solar)? Shell also manufactures solar panels: http://www.shell.com/home/content/shellsolar/about_shell/who_we_are_0129.html

Tulips, Cannabis, Absinthe, Prostitutes,
(on a more serious note): Oil, M. C. Escher, Vincent Van Gogh, Peace Treaties (a plurality, even), and Really Nice Airlines that could benefit from this technology.

That's nice, except neither position exists.

Link to the board of directors :
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=investo r-en&FC2=/investor-en/html/iwgen/company_informati on/group_managing_directors/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/inve stor-en/html/iwgen/company_information/group_manag ing_directors/dir_group_managing_directors_2609200 3.html

European companies have basically ignored the alternatives and just switched to diesel acting like it is the solution.

Get off your high horse. Besides, maybe if american cars were gulping down less gas per mile we might be able to save a few years to develop alternatives. Just a thought.

I don't think we should kid ourselves. $5/gal gasoline is coming. Sooner than most probably hope. Personally, I think the sooner it arrives, the sooner my fellow Americans will quit buying SUVs.

As always, we can do better ;-)
Shell Eco-marathon teams from across Europe continue to chase Swiss record (PDF)
However, the vehicle used a fuel cell. Several friends of mine were in the project team and a lot of money went into that project.

Last year at the Shell Eco-marathon.

My university took part this year with very limited money, only undergraduate students working on the project and they achieved around 1200 MPG. Minimum speed for the competition is set at 30 Km/h. The external design is very similar to the one depicted.

Not that impressive. In the european competition they would have finished at the 20+ position.

That's not even near the real World Champions.

See the latest Shell Eco-Marathon results:
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_results/Nogaro_May_2006/Race_classificatio n.pdf

And please note the column "Best test / Meilleur essai" is in the kilometers/litre.
Thus the winners result 2885 km/litre eguals about 6834 miles/gallon !
(Gallon=3,79 litre, mile=1,6km)

Rules: http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_events/nogaro/rules/rules_2006_revised.pdf

That's not even near the real World Champions.

See the latest Shell Eco-Marathon results:
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_results/Nogaro_May_2006/Race_classificatio n.pdf

And please note the column "Best test / Meilleur essai" is in the kilometers/litre.
Thus the winners result 2885 km/litre eguals about 6834 miles/gallon !
(Gallon=3,79 litre, mile=1,6km)

Rules: http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_events/nogaro/rules/rules_2006_revised.pdf

A similar competition was recently held in Europe, contested by student teams:

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=eco-mar athon-en

The winning entry ran on biofuel (Ethanol) and achieved 2885 km/liter, which should correspond to about 6800 miles/gallon:

(Warning: PDF file)
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_press/Nogaro%20May%202006/press_release_se m_210506.pdf

Terje

A similar competition was recently held in Europe, contested by student teams:

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=eco-mar athon-en

The winning entry ran on biofuel (Ethanol) and achieved 2885 km/liter, which should correspond to about 6800 miles/gallon:

(Warning: PDF file)
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_press/Nogaro%20May%202006/press_release_se m_210506.pdf

Terje

• Regular unleaded : 121.9c/L
  
• Premium unleaded : 128.9c/L
  
• 5% ethanol premium unleaded : 138.9c/L
  

France did that because Yahoo and Amazon had legal presence in France, i.e. set up as companies in those countries. Those FRENCH branches just like every other legal entity in France have to follow FRENCH LAWS.

The French authorities simply requested that the content be removed from the FRENCH content providers (amazon.fr, yahoo.fr).

Just as US authorities have the right to request that illegal content be removed from US content providers.

This is just like US authorities have the right to make sure that foreign companies with legal presence in the US obey US laws.

You don't think that Shell, a Dutch company gets away with breaking US laws just because they're a foreign company in the US?

Judging by your username, you're from the Netherlands, like I am. Prices over here are about half of what you say, currently around 1.55 EUR a litre. Still high though. (Over 7 USD per gallon.)

American scientists and engineers have always been among the leaders in improving, extending, and revising the metric system.

OK Since I'm the one who submitted the article, please allow me to clarify some logical errors in your statements.

So, in order to have a large-scale hydrogen "economy", you need an alternate power source to make all that hydrogen in the first place.

News for you. Hydrogen is not "made". It's extracted. OK, putting the word jokes aside, I understand that what you mean is that *PURE* hydrogen is not found *NATURALLY* on Earth.

So we need an ALTERNATIVE power source to obtain it. So what? Electricity is not energy either! It's a bunch of electrons and possitive ions waiting for us to mix them together. We use turbines in dams to produce it. (kynetic energy -> electrical energy). We need engines (kynetic->chemical) to take out the oil from the deposits below Earth.

Didn't you study physics in high school? Just climbing some stairs transforms the kinetic energy you use to move, into "potential energy". And by falling you turn it into kinetic energy, too. And guess what, we're made of protons,electrons and neutrons, and all of these are made of quantums, which are discrete packets of *energy*.

EVERYTHING's energy, dude! So what's the mystery if hydrogen needs some alternate energy to be extracted from water or other compounds? Don't forget your thermodynamics lessons from college. All engines do is transforming one form of energy into another. And since no engine is 100% efficient, then we have what is known as "entropy", which constantly is increased across the universe.

So, what power source can we have to extract pure H2 from other materials? Well, we can have, for example, solar power.

Hydrogen can be built *instantly* with some electrolysis (either chemically or solar powered). I did it myself at home when i was a kid. You put these water-filled tubes in a bucket (upside down) ,insert the electrodes, add some acid as catalyst, and plug the wires into a battery. Voila! Oxygen in one, hydrogen in the other. Now Try making oil from wood with your chemistry kit.

The H2-generating process is sub-optimal right now (as was the vacuum tube in the 70's to act as a current switch), but technology always improves with time. And don't forget that big companies like Shell are investing millions of dollars into research.

The point with using hydrogen, is that:

a) It's combustible and can produce energy when reacting chemically with other elements/compounds.
b) Unlike fossil fuels, it doesn't require millions of years to be produced/extracted/whatever.
c) It's clean, it doesn't produce CO2 when burned.

Did you RTFA by the way? How do you think fossil fuels are made? Plants transformed H2O + CO2 + SOLAR POWER + nutrients into wood (and O2 as a byproduct). And these with time were transformed into hydrocarbons. Which consist of long hydrogen and carbon chains (not to be confused with carbohydrates - sugars -, which have oxygen in them).

The real energy in hydrocarbons is stored in the chemical bonds between the carbon and hydrogen atoms. By burning them, the combustion process releases these bonds. O2 + (long chains of C + H) ---> H2O + CO2. See? There's the hydrogen, and the C. What we're wanting to do, is get the carbon out of the equation. O2 + 2H2 ---> 2 H2O.

So, is hydrogen economy all that far-fetched? No, it isn't! We've been using hydrogen in our cars for a lot of time. The problem is that we're also using carbon.

Frankly, I'm amazed why your post was moderated as "insightful" (someone MOD it as overrated, please!). More mysterious than the universe is the human ignorance.

P.S. If this post is modded up, please do so as "informative".

Since they never do anything like that on their own...

The Microjoule team achieved 10,705 MPG in the 2003 SHELL competition. See here
for more info. They only managed a mere 9737 in the 2004 competition.

The Microjoule team achieved 10,705 MPG in the 2003 SHELL competition. See here
for more info. They only managed a mere 9737 in the 2004 competition.

No everyone there is trying to run a scam, but the government is so corrupt that doing business there must be risky. Unless that is you're Shell Oil . For balance, here's their PR puff

What happens to the people who use the shell: feature? shell.com?

It's very rare today to hear of a major company throwing money at a research project since the '80s.

Of COURSE it's rare for an oil company to fund any research into alternative energy sources.

It really demonstrates the effect that these large oil corporations have on our world, when there are much better cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels, yet these are being ignored for the sake of the oil companies.

Oil companies like BP, ChevronTexaco, and Shell, right?

Except in this current age something too good to be true could be true.
A vehicle that gives off water as its waste product. true
Food that can sit of the self for years, you then mix some water with it and it heats up 80 degress C. true

Even with the mention Cold Fusion claim, a university in Texas said they had duplicated it.

http://www2.shell.com/home/fr-fr/downloads/eco_mar athon/palmares.pdf

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?