Slashdot Mirror
Shell Ditches Wind, Solar, and Hydro
thefickler writes "Shell has decided to end its investment in wind, solar and hydro projects because the company does not believe they are financially sound investments. Instead Shell is going to focus on carbon sequestration technologies and biofuels. Not surprisingly, and perhaps unfairly, bloggers have been quick to savage the company: 'Between Shell's decisions to stop its clean energy investments and to increase its debt load to pay for dividends, the company is solidifying an image of corporate greed over corporate responsibility.' Is Shell short sighted, or is it just a company trying to make its way in an uncertain world?"
i think it would be bad anyway if the companies whose primary business is selling fossil fuel also controlled a large chunk of the renewable energy market.
I mean can you say 'conflict of interests'?
Leave it to the little guys that are better (specialized/core business) at it anyway.
And at least now we truly know where they stand.
Personally, I am happy that they are doing this. First, Solar PV IS CURRENTLY THE MOST EXPENSIVE generator going. Solar THERMAL is a different thing. It is cheaper than coal is currently, if you do not include salt storage. They are looking at co2 sequestering. Ok. My guess is that shortly, somebody else will create a plant that uses Solar thermal for daytimes and then switches to Natural gas for cloudy/night. Mostly clean, EXCEPT for CO2. Sequester it, and things are good. The nice thing about such an approach is that it WILL lead to more AE.
Likewise, there are MANY other companies doing hydro and wind. Their pulling out will do nothing to harm them. IOW, they will continue.
That brings up the issue of bio-fuels. Far too many of you are thinking in terms of ethanol via corn, sugar cane, etc. That is a red herring (just like hydrogen production is). Skip that garbage and instead focus on converting crap (literally) to gas; ALGAE. There are several companies that are scaling up right now; Solix and Sapphire. Sapphire is doing gas production directly and they currently have it at less than 100/bl oil equivelence. BOTH of these companies need the price of oil to go up to around 80-85/bl and we are approaching that. These companies will likely get money from US and scale quickly. US MAY be a gas exporter within 4 years because of bio-fuels, combined with American cars moving towards electrical powering.
Even now, I look at the dependency that EU has on Russia for Natural Gas, and how Russia has used it. Shell can help break that. Ppl just need to think big and long term.
With that said, I am amazed that Shell, is walking away from things like hydro, and even wind. Foolish on their part. BUT, it still works out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sure, if Shell were the only company in the world, they wouldn't have any incentive to invest in alternative energy. But if they don't, someone else will. So while a solar panel sold may be a lost oil sale, Shell would sure as hell rather be the ones profiting on the solar panel.
The problem here is that there is no profit in the alternative energy business, at least not on the scale Shell operates on. One day that will change, but there is still too much oil in the world for that to happen yet.
Another issue at play is the tragedy of the commons. The free market model relies on every transaction reflecting the true value of the good changing hands. Thats the idea behind a subsidy; one party is selling a good or service to another party, but the public as a whole also benefits from the service, so the public helps pay for it.
Thats also the idea behind the failed-as-implemented idea of carbon credits. When I buy a gallon of gasoline and burn it, I just paid a company to pump the oil out of the ground, refine it, ship it to me, etc. I even paid taxes for the roads I drive on. But I went and blew all those toxic fumes into the atmosphere, a public resource, without paying for that resource.
The only viable solution to this is to impose a tax on every gallon of gasoline equivalent to the cost of removing a gasoline-gallon's worth of exhaust from the atmosphere. By forcing consumers to pay the true cost of gasoline we will allow the free market system to eventually correct the situation and make renewable energy a viable business model that much sooner. Of course some subsidies won't hurt either, but you can't just subsidize "good" without penalizing "bad".
There is more free, clean energy in hot rocks 3-5km below the surface than all coal, oil and nuclear fuel combined. It cost nothing to extract other than the initial capital investment, and produces no harmful by-products other than the electricity that you an I take for granted in this modern age.
A bit more research money toward the economic construction of geothermal plants would see us free of fossil and nuclear fuel for the foreseeable future, and that is many, many generations of our species.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Shell is an oil company. Hands down.
Now, this is where I have a problem with the vast majority of the posts on this article, including yours. Everyone is quick to make Shell out as the big bad oil company and for being shortsighted. I certainly take your comment, "future express way" and "dead end street" to mean exactly that.
Why?
I don't believe in Hydro, Wind, or Solar either. Not on a large scale. I think those technologies are perfect supplements. Point source implementations on single houses and small communities. It will just never scale to the point it can provide power for industry or transportation.
Hydro, Wind, and Solar are also being researched and developed by a heck of a lot of people. New technologies and patents are being developed at a rapid pace. There is a LOT of competition here.
Once again, Shell is an Oil Company.
They are sticking to what they know best. That is drilling and fuel. Carbon sequestration technologies are sorely needed. We have to put it somewhere. Why not a company that has a lot of experience drilling and fraccing? Sounds like a perfect match to me.
Biofuels are the other area that Shell has decided to concentrate on. Every time I pass one of their gas stations (note I said pass) they are always more than the competition. They have patented technology for fuel. These are people that have expertise in creating fuel. Why not have them work on new biofuels? Seems reasonable to me.
I am practical person and just as much a pro environment as anybody else. Let's just take a deep breath and be reasonable about it. I see no reason to make Shell out as the enemy here simply because they want to concentrate solely on two areas of environmental technology.
What they are doing is helping. So why all the hate from all the posters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
Oil was 100:1
As the quality of the oil declines (e.g. to tar sands), so does the energy return (e.g. 5:1 or 3:1) and we have to spend more of our time simply trying to generate energy.
And if 30% of our time and energy are going into producing more energy... There isn't much time and energy available to do other things, like run a civilization.
Wind seems to average approximately 20:1 over the lifetime of a turbine.
What is interesting is that in the short term because of our sunk investment in oil, it is more profitable for companies to produce bio-oil at 8:1 EROEI than it is to produce wind turbines or solar panels.
Deleted
I would say that 70,000 homes is pretty large scale, and the energy is completely free.
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/02/25/world%E2%80%99s-largest-solar-power-plant-coming-to-arizona-in-2011/
The entire midwest is ideal for Solar. Death Valley? Thousands of acres sitting empty. Who'd want to live there? Solar...
Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't be or shouldn't be.
You're modded as funny, but I'm not sure if that was your intent or not.
Companies evolve and survive. Nokia has been around since the 1800's, long before anyone ever heard of a cell phone.
You know, I live in Finland, which was first Sweden's and then Russia's colony until 1917, underwent a devastating civil war right after gaining independence, and was attacked by the Soviet Union twice in World War II, and had to resettle 400,000 people and pay $300,000,000 in war preparations. And yet, after all this, we're somehow overproducing relative to our needs, despite the fact that the country sits on the Arctic Circle rather than at the equator.
At some point blaming some long-ago event for your problems becomes ridiculous. African countries have been independent for decades now, and even the Cold War ended over a decade ago; if they remain hellholes incapable of feeding their own population, the blame now rests on said population.
"Our forefathers were oppressed so we must keep on killing our farmers or at least stealing their land." Victim complex at its finest. Besides, Africa seems to be the only former colony to be having this problem...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.