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?"

Comments

Re:Bah

[szundi]

The surface of Earth is hardly enough to give people food they want. Why would anyone think it's enough to drive the much more hungry cars and super-computers? :)

Anyway some regulation wave of 5% of fuel should be bio-ethanol drove the food prices to the skies just 1-2 years ago.

Re: Firehose:Shell ditches wind, solar and hydro

[dotancohen]

Well, gee, I don't think _that_ has been posted before
- kdawson, 2006

Well, gee, I don't think _that_ has been posted before
- kdawson, 2007

Well, gee, I don't think _that_ has been posted before
- kdawson, 2008

Well, gee, I don't think _that_ has been posted before
- kdawson, 2009

Re:Corporate culture

[Anonymous Coward]

The only source for funds for the development of cheap renewable energy has to be the government, there is no profit in it and the real benefits are the free benefits of a cleaner healthier environment, lower medical costs from a healthier population and of course cheap 'free' energy(beyond initial capital outlay and maintenance).

If I take your wallet, then use your money to buy you candy, are you getting "free" candy? No, you're obviously not. If the government takes your money and buys something with it you're not getting it for free then, either.

The government going into green energy is a dumb idea. It would do a shit job, kill innovation, discourage anybody else from trying, and decrease freedom. But hey, at least all the unhealthy fatasses would be breathing clean air, right?

On a side note, I love how it's generally the same group of people who bring up the "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither," quote when talking about shit like illegal wire taps turn around and demand the government protect them from pollution.

Re:quick to savage the company...

[sumdumass]

The penny has started to drop. Good. Comments that would have been true in other contexts are often called "jokes".

Joke usually have the distinguishing characteristics of being funny or noticeable as a joke. You on the other hand made it appear as if you couldn't tell the difference between 2 centuries ago and today. I'm sorry, but don't blame me for your poor delivery.

Say what? I didn't say anything about them.

You said "fossil fuels have already caused enormous damage/illness/death". You can't make that claim unless you are talking about them. There is no evidence that fossil fuels caused any of that when used correctly. There is plenty of evidence that it may have aggravated it but no caused.

Did I say "direct"? Define "direct". And then tell me why I should care. "Oh, the death was due to exhaust via a well-understood mechanism that does not meet sumdumass's definition of 'direct', so we're innocent!" Exhaust emissions have repeatedly and conclusively been shown to do damage of various sorts. Asthma, various cancers, poisoned ecosystems, smog, global warming, ... and that doesn't even consider the environmental costs of extraction, transportation, refining... And then there are the costs of making war on nations who control the oil that we need in order to prop up a crumbling economy that was based on the assumption that energy was essentially free...

Yes, you did say direct. You said it caused X. That means it directly caused X. If that wasn't what you meant, then you should have explained your thoughts better. Unfortunately, this is the second time you have failed to do that. First with the joke and now with the direct that isn't direct. Again, don't fault me for taking your words as you wrote them and not interpreting them in some other way.

And no, they don't rise to the problem you are making them out to be. That is of course if your not once again writing one thing for everyone to understand and meaning something different again.

Good call. Sorry. I assumed wrongly that you were talking about the USA. Of course, the little data in the tip of my brain tells me that the more secular the society, the more emphasis it places on moving away from burning fossil fuels. The possible reasons for this vary between very simple and very complex, and are a little irrelevant here.

Actually, the more secular the society, the more it seems to want to grab something to believe in. Take global warming for instance, it has become a religion on some parts of the world and non of the rituals surrounding it will do anything to cure it. They blindly accept the Kyoto accords, Carbon offsets, and all that shit without realizing that to date, it has done nothing but caused the pollution to be created elsewhere. Their reductions only shoved it into another area which isn't a reduction at all. Either Carbon is a problem or it isn't.

Sorry, I don't understand the analogy. Could you explain it? What does making a comment about a bunch of religious nitwits have to do with assuming that your comment was about a bunch of religious nitwits?

That wasn't exactly an anaolgy. I was saying that you aren't mentally acute enough to understand the claims you chastise which was obvious with your statement. Normally, that isn't a problem until you attempt to share your disadvantage with others and then I have to spank you for it. Either learn something about what your bitching about or shut the fuck up like all the other ignorant asses out there.

Incidentally, I understand rather well what Christians are claiming, as plenty of my Christian acquaintances will admit if forced. So what if their saviour is a magical zombie? If you don't think he is, perhaps looking up the definitions of "magical" and "zombie" will help. Chr