Rockefeller Fund Dumping Fossil Fuels, Hits Exxon On Climate Issues (cnbc.com)

mdsolar quotes a report from Reuters: The Rockefeller Family Fund said on Wednesday it will divest from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and "eliminate holdings" of Exxon Mobil, chiding the oil company for allegedly misleading the public about the threat of climate change. The move by the U.S. based charity, which will also include coal and Canadian oil sands holdings, is especially notable because a century ago John D. Rockefeller Sr. made a fortune running Standard Oil, a precursor to Exxon Mobil.
Given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons," the fund said. Exxon did not immediately comment. In a letter posted on its website, the Rockefeller Family Fund said Exxon's conduct on climate issues appears to be "morally reprehensible."

Comments

Rockefeller CAME FROM fossil fuels

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything with the name "Rockefeller" on it originated from fossil fuels because that's where old John D. made his money.

Re: Rockefeller CAME FROM fossil fuels

[timesuredoesfly]

Its self preservation, they already pulled most of the money when oil was high. Its just common sense to divert to better prospects. There a different generation of Rockefeller they are mostly trust fund babys with well paid smart people managing the wealth(think one is investing in artificial meat so at least he is interesting). But some of the family, like any family, are human garbage saturated with entitlement. Its the old rich banker families like the Rothschilds that are a real bane on society. Some real selfish human haters in that blood line, a few countries have the worst slime bags under investigation.

RockEfeller?

[aglider]

Nice!

buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

They are selling because of emotional reasons, no matter how right they may be, in a capitalist sense it would be best to buy their shares up cheap. Only law or technology will kill big oil not bleeding hearts.

Re:buy oil

[cayenne8]

From this quote on the article:

"there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons,"

Well, I guess they want us to stop drilling and just let it all run out, which would take the world about what...a year or so tops?

Just great, lets all go back to pavemen in a year or so..since we just do not at this time, have enough valid, viable energy alternatives to run the world and modern life.

I can understand wanting to promote finding new energy alternatives to hydrocarbons, but hey....stopping before we have another options sounds pretty foolish to me.

Re:buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should go back to using the sustainable, eco-friendly fuel we used before Rockefeller: Whale Oil.

Re:buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

It would take more than a year. Probably several. But if exploration stopped the supply would go into permanent, accelerating decline within about 2-3 years, 5 years tops, and we'd have to make due with less each year after that turning point. The effect on prices and energy markets would be pretty severe, and you could expect food prices to soar correspondingly, not to mention lineups at the pumps. Imagine the oil crisis of the late 1970s all over again, but a little less sudden and a little harder to reverse because the 1970s crisis was an arbitrary constraint due to a political decision by OPEC. Once you abandon exploration for a while it would take you at least a few years to find new deposits and bring them into production, so it wouldn't be as simple as just reopening the taps again.

Re:buy oil

[kuzb]

In other news, Lyft and Uber invest 600 million dollars in rickshaws.

Re:buy oil

[BarbaraHudson]

Seriously? If all new drilling were suspended tomorrow, the current wells (many of them idled because there's TOO MUCH OIL already) won't magically stop existing.

Mind you, you also wrote this

I can't wait for the throngs of homeless in your scenario!

I dunno...Humans have been survivors since their beginnings on this earth.....

I somehow doubt that the masses will either give up and die on the streets or become criminals.

My thoughts are that if you force most people to get off the dole...they will do something to get work and survive.

I can't believe the majority will resort to crime or just give up...that's now how humans work.

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche".
-- Marie Antoinette.

She figured poverty wasn't something to lose your head over - the guillotine proved otherwise. Desperate people in desperate times resort to desperate measures. Even the Romans, with their bread and circuses, understood that.

Re:buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche".
-- Marie Antoinette.

Myth.

Re:buy oil

[blue9steel]

Monsanto & Con-Agra want a piece of that action. Genetically engineered aqua farming for purposes of whale oil harvesting, what's not to like?

Re:buy oil

[Darinbob]

The fund pays for charities too. They probably get a lot of pushback to have guilt-free income sources.

Re:buy oil

[mspohr]

I think you misread the "explore for new sources of hydrocarbons".
The problem oil companies have is that they currently have "discovered" and have counted as assets on their books more oil that could be possibly be burned without burning up the earth... probably about twice as much. This means that they will have "stranded assets" in the future as it becomes politically, economically, and environmentally impossible to sell all of the oil assets already on their books. They will have to write these assets off as a loss which means that these companies are actually worth a lot less than their "book value".
Rockefeller foundation is smart to divest now and sell their shares to some other sucker who still believes that these book assets are worth something.
In light of this, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons". We have already discovered many times more hydrocarbons than we will ever be able to burn.

Re: buy oil

[easyTree]

Presumably they'll be the ones buying them back after EM has been dragged through the press for a few rounds.

Re:buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that current production oil fields, along with oil sands would last much much longer than 5 years. That is why oil prices are so cheap right now. We're producing a whole lot because oil was so expensive for so long that it became sensible to start processing oil sands which are available in great quantity.

Some oil fields have been in production for 20 years, they most certainly would not run dry in another 5 or our oil prices should be skyrocketing right now.

Keep in mind, as prices of oil rise the economies for alternatives shift pretty dramatically.

Re:buy oil

[thinkwaitfast]

Most poor in the west have more wealth than Marie could have hoped to imagine.

Re:buy oil

[dryeo]

That's true, most poor have armies of servants on call, are raised in palaces and have never known hunger.

Re:buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer, how much would my house would be worth in 1790?

<majel-barrett>Your house would be worth two thousand three hundred forty one US dollars and three cents in 1790.</majel-barrett>

Holy shit. Marie could barely imagine owning a two bedroom home in flyover country?! I mean, sure, the indoor plumbing and forced air heating is nice, but at the same time if that's the only thing making me wealthier than her, I'll take my chances with chamber pots and fireplaces!

(Also replace the internetworked computer information system voiced by Majel Barrett with various personal servants to do the math and research for me.)

Re:buy oil

[rtb61]

It is odd that they would publicly announce it. They are rich and greedy and annoucing the sale of crappy shares that a likely to lose a whole bunch of value makes little sense ie you are driving down the price whilst you are trying to sell. I smell a little stock manipulation, they have already lost a bundle on the reduce price of fossil fuel stock. So attack the PR=B$ story that all is rosy in fossil fuel stocks, to really drive down the price selling lots early to help that trend. When it hits bottom, buy them back and when it recovers sell them again, helps if you pay of pension funds to buy to your sells and sell to your buys. Then at the top of the bounce sell out and hope to recover the money initially lost in the drop in share price that accompanied the drop in fossil fuel price. Also regardless of what the demopublican corporate whore said, coal is fucked, sell like there is no tomorrow.

Re:buy oil

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason to keep exploring is because many of the already-discovered deposits on the books could be more expensive to utilize than a newly discovered deposit, so they keep searching.

Re:buy oil

[oh_my_080980980]

Nice canard ass-hole. There are other options BUT there's been a lot of fucking opposition to them that it makes them hard to get going.

And...Rockefeller Family Fund is not required to feed your habit. They are making a choice, just like you. It' America, so fuck off.

Re:buy oil

[oh_my_080980980]

Somebody is dick sucking Exxon Mobile.

Re:buy oil

[thinkwaitfast]

I bet she would have traded all of her servants for the ability to fly around the world. Do you think Musk would give up his servants to be able to go to Mars tomorrow? And if you are hungry in a western country, you need more help than just food.

Re:buy oil

[dryeo]

Lots of people hungry in the western world. Kids who don't have breakfast/lunch is one that seems quite common. The food banks around here can't keep up with the demand, which has been steadily increasing and over 300 communities here where the water from the tap isn't save to drink.
I doubt that Musk or Maria would give up shelter and/or food (if they were capable of understanding what they were giving up) for a flight around the world/to Mars. Of course neither probably has never experienced hunger so wouldn't understand what they were giving up.

Fiduciary sense?

[Penguinisto]

I get the whole Greenwashing that happened there, but seriously - no matter the {whatever} you hold concerning AGW, three things are constant:

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

3) Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)

On the plus side, this is a decision made by a private company, and they're risking their own money to do so... at least government isn't pushing these decisions upon an unwilling populace. ...and yes dear pro-AGW crowd, please feel free to mod the post down in a massive knee-jerk reaction, but how about instead of lashing out, you do us a favor and show us all where the alternatives are. If you're reading this, you are most definitely a beneficiary of petroleum, so...

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[MightyMartian]

1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.

If you look at an IPCC report, you will see that no, what we do has quite an effect on the trend.

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

Normally mdsolar is a pain in the ass, but if there was ever a time for a response from them...

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[twotacocombo]

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

So, what's wrong with fission? Other than some people's overblown and misguided fear of it?

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fossil counts for some 90%+ of transportation energy, almost all of plastic and a lot chemical production, and something like 75% of all electricity.

There's nothing right now that can cover that scale of energy and production.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi there Exxon shill.

We're so terribly sorry!

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

1. Climate does not have to continue on its current trend.

Certainly, if we keep up the status quo, it will continue on its current trend.
However, we can do something about it and reverse that trend.

2. Hydrocarbons came from the sun.

Every single joule of energy derived from hydrocarbon sources originated in the sun and eventually got buried underground.
We can cut out the middle man (bacteria, plants, animals, dirt, millions of years of time, oil rigs, oil pipelines, refineries, etc) and just collect those joules directly ourselves.
Are there enough solar panels to provide for all of our energy needs right now? No.
Could there be enough solar power stations to provide for all of our energy needs? Absolutely.

Is there a way to keep doing what we're doing and not suffer any consequences? Absolutely not.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Geoffrey.landis]

I get the whole Greenwashing that happened there, but seriously - no matter the {whatever} you hold concerning AGW, three things are constant:

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do),

Yes to the first part: Yes, human sources of climate change are not the only source of climate change; the other sources are still there.

and will continue on its current trend.

...and no to the second. There is very very good evidence that the current trend is due to human activities. There simply are no natural sources of change that have this magnitude of effect this quickly that we would not be able to see. (Remember, we do measure solar output. One thing we know: the current trend is not due to solar variability. If we stop these activities, the current trend will stop. (Although it will take a while to do so.)

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy)

You just said "unless there are other sources of energy, we have to use the current sources of energy." That statement is a tautology.

OK, so it is desirable to develop new sources of energy if we don't want to use the current sources. Fair enough. Let's get to it.

...

Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)

1. Plastics account for so small an amount of the hydrocarbon usage that you can't even notice it on the pie chart.
2. ...and plastic isn't the problem, since turning fossil hydrocarbons into plastics puts the carbon into the plastic, not into the atmosphere.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Crashmarik]

You mean like this

Ivanpah Solar Plant May Be Forced to Shut Down
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iv...
if you don't subscribe
https://archive.is/nbsND

Power from the two Ivanpah units that serve PG&E last year fetched about $200 a megawatt-hour on average during summer months, and about $135 a megawatt-hour on average the rest of the year, according to sales data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
That compares to an average price of $57 a megawatt-hour for solar power sold under contracts signed in 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Power from natural-gas plants went for $35 a megawatt-hour on average in California’s wholesale market last year, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data compiled by the Energy Department.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Notorious G]

1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

1. It has changed just as radically and quickly before, there is nothing new here. Learn a little history.
2. No, but they are the best we have and a huge infrastructure is in place to support it. Proven reserves in North America alone will last at least another 100 years.
3. And they all suck compared to petroleum based and in no way viable on the scale needed.

So what we really have here is you posting patently obvious bullshit only remotely related to reality.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[future assassin]

I get the whole Greenwashing that happened there, but seriously - no matter the {whatever} you hold concerning AGW, three things are constant:

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

3) Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)

On the plus side, this is a decision made by a private company, and they're risking their own money to do so... at least government isn't pushing these decisions upon an unwilling populace. ...and yes dear pro-AGW crowd, please feel free to mod the post down in a massive knee-jerk reaction, but how about instead of lashing out, you do us a favor and show us all where the alternatives are. If you're reading this, you are most definitely a beneficiary of petroleum, so...

Well I'm ore than willing to pay extra for glass bottles and glass containers. So what if you can't stack glass jars.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[djsmiley]

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

Hi, and welcome!, you appear not to have used the internet before.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is wrong about plastics also in that is takes relatively little oil to make the plastics we use and plastics from oil aren't much of a problem for global warming in addition to being wrong about non-oil sources for plastics producing inferior products. The alternatives are merely more expensive.

There really is a lack of other sources of energy. In the future we have a bleak choice between using significantly less energy or continuing to burn fossil fuels where in one scenario we are already locked into significant climate change and in the other we cause even greater climate change. It is actually a really tough call which is the worse option, it is hard to weigh the pros and cons since it is comparing apples and oranges. It really depends what your priorities are. There is no happy outcome of energy abundance in the future while de-carbonizing the global economy. Even fusion power wouldn't get it done. The best bet is massive fission power production, but the inevitable outcome would be irradiating the entire planet due to greedy and shortsighted people mismanaging the waste, which would make global warming seem like a better option in hindsight. People who sell a vision of an energy abundant future similar to the energy abundance we enjoy now without fossil fuels are either dishonest are ill informed. If you honestly believe in it you are the latter.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The part where you're wrong is "will continue on its current trend". That's in the air.
2) Not true at all. First off, fission works and is a massive source of energy, second off, a significant amount of energy comes from hydroelectric and similar.
3) Agreed. Plastics are about 4% of oil use though.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is that we could save the world, but gosh I hate paying more for electricity?

There are some in poverty or near poverty that I'm sure it makes a big difference, but for most people, electric bills are not the most significant living expense and could pay more if it was worthwhile.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Transportation energy can go electric, and electric energy can go nuclear (in many situations, renewables are also viable). Plastics and chemicals are still important, but they'll be just fine if you remove the 96% of oil that is just burned.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[MightyMartian]

No, there isn't a lack of other energy sources. Even the lack of technology to access those other sources is being bridged. What there is is higher initial costs to accessing tidal, solar, hydro-electric, geothermal and so on.

Considering the most severe effects of AGW, which will have drastic effects on rain belts (read: large scale agriculture), this idea that we'll just keep barfing CO2 into the atmosphere, and that's just so much cheaper is beyond idiotic.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

If mdsolar was right that solar panels are just made from sand and that we can produce near limitless amounts of solar power capacity to satisfy all our energy needs that would be one thing, but he's not remotely right about that. The math says it is in feasible to satisfy our energy consumption demands with current renewable technologies and limitations on availability of the quantity of raw materials they would require. Unless mdsolar has information the rest of us do not have and is willing to share it I'd rather not hear from him.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[zdavek]

Absolutely nothing wrong with fission if done properly although even fission is currently more expensive than fossil fuels (between 1.5 and 2.5 times). I would suggest changing to something other the uranium based reactions though. Uranium was used because we could do it relatively easy with early tech, we have better tech and options now if the Government would allow it.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So what if you can't stack glass jars.

Lies. You should see my pantry I have a bunch of glass jars stacked in it, granted they are mason jars filled with delicious jams, stews, sauces, honey, maple syrup, and veggies so they have a pretty rectangular profile unlike most glass containers in stores that instead have long necks or disproportionately small openings to the main volume of the container.

That said I do prefer to buy things in a glass container especially if it will take a mason jar lid (regular or wide mouth) and will reuse those for storing other things I want to keep moisture or pests out of.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

do a little research before posting.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. No, it hasn't. Radically and slowly, but not radically and quickly. http://www.scientificamerican..... Nothing comes close.
2. They are not the best we have because of their polluting nature. Even aside from climate change they have large negatives. They do indeed have a huge infrastructure advantage.

The total amount of oil in North America is of minimal relevance; somewhat more relevant is the expected cost of extracting oil as time goes on since that makes oil seem ever-worse by comparison. Also your entire counterargument is moving the original goalpost, which stated that oil was inarguably the only option. This said I'm going to need a cite on proven oil reserves lasting 100 years. I've never heard of anything close to that, and couldn't find it from a quick search. In fact, it sounds like the *worldwide* estimate, from actual oil companies, is about half that: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world.... "North America alone" has a small slice of that.
3. I advocate we keep using oil for those purposes. It's not a major source of pollution -- at least, not the same kind of pollution -- and it's a small fraction of our overall oil use, so that use really can last hundreds of years. This said, given that this oil use is at a much lower scale, the "nothing else is viable at the scale needed" argument doesn't work as well.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[ComputerGeek01]

Regarding the alternatives to plastics; the increase in demand for the agricultural ingredient would cause an increase in its production. This would shift the demand for petroleum products from plastic production to fertilizer production and further contribute to soil depletion and groundwater contamination from runoff with the end result being an inferior plastic-like product. So no, there aren't any ways to produce plastic products that would yield a net positive result in the end. Not yet anyway.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[zdavek]

1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.
2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.
3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

1. WHAT radical and quick change? An increase of .8C in the last 40 years is NOT radical and it decreased .5C in the 30 years before that.
2. Sure there are but, except for fission, they are 3 to 30 times more expensive to create/use.
3. Yes, and once again they're roughly 3 to 20 times more expensive. That's NOT fiduciary responsibility.

So it sounds like MightyMartian is spouting the party line and has no real knowledge of the facts.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Doesn't mean we should give up. We can slow the damage and give us more time to adapt.

2. Hydrocarbons are the only cheap energy available. And even that's a false economy because pollution is an externalized cost. We've dealt with this problem before and it's easy to correct the market distortions caused by unfairly externalized costs. (Ex- We no longer have rivers that catch on fire created by companies that dump waste cheaply) Once that's achieved the market will shift to renewables by itself.

3. We'll be making plastics forever. They're amazing and their ecological impact is low compared to wood and metal. Nobody is advocating we stop doing that. Furthermore, petrochemical feed stocks are the foundations of many industries.. Saving the oil for plastics and other industries instead of burning them up is really a no brainier.

Funny how we have armchair experts blathering on along all day about how solar will never work even as China and the US see year-on-year explosive exponential growth in solar installs.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Penguinisto]

1. That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.

This is quite debatable, and highly politicized. It also does not invalidate my point, since you have provided nothing more than a vague allusion from your sentence, and have not disproven what you were replying to as it stands.

2. There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.

I have already said that. See the part where I specifically wrote "...for providing the majority of humanity's energy..." Therefore my statement is still true.

I'll help you out: Nuclear is still treated like some sort of venereal disease, solar and wind only work under limited conditions (and require hydrocarbons in their construction), and the more outlandish ideas (tidal/wave energy, biofuels, etc) are non-viable or far too costly to produce at this point in time. Fusion (which I also mentioned) is a good hope for a solution, but still just a hope at this point, since it has yet to be conclusively proven to work on a commercial basis.

3. There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.

I have already said that, and then mentioned the failings inherent in those "other ways". So your point was... what?

posting patently false things

No, I have not, and you have had to quite literally make things up about what I posted in order to make such an assertion.

In the future, if you're going to debate, please be at least somewhat honest about the task.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[tnk1]

It is true that plastics would be okay all by themselves. Many oil companies would prefer to make plastics over petrol. And in plastic form, they aren't really an AGW problem, they're a different problem.

However, I would not underestimate the amount of effort required to move all transport to electric. You're not going to move giant freighters to electric power unless you make them nuclear powered, and diesel freighters are down and dirty.

You can make the changes slowly and they will eventually take, but you're not undoing a century of fossil fuel use with any of the existing solutions in anything resembling a short period of time.

I will say this, hopefully the Rockefellers use their money to fund something other than fossil fuels, rather than just reinvesting in McDonalds or something. It's not like there won't be takers for ExxonMobil stock. They make money hand over fist. There's always a buyer for that stock.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Penguinisto]

So, what's wrong with fission? Other than some people's overblown and misguided fear of it?

I agree, wholeheartedly. Problem is that when you say "nuclear power" to populations and politicians, they immediately think "Chernobyl" and "Fukushima", and not "hey, that's a working technology we can improve on for efficiency and safety!"

It's a people problem, not a technical one. Problem is, until you overcome the former, the latter will remain stifled and stunted in progress.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Triklyn]

... electric cargo ships. electric tractor-trailers. electric rail?

electric planes oh mine. the only thing that's remotely replaceable with electric at this time is maybe passenger vehicle.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical 'murican attitude. The only cost that counts is the cost at the cash register.

So what if all your descendants curse you to the burning hell that you gave them for a planet? So what if the growth job market looks like a casting call for Mad Max?

As long as I can save money here and now, screw them all!

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that plastics would be okay all by themselves. Many oil companies would prefer to make plastics over petrol. And in plastic form, they aren't really an AGW problem, they're a different problem.

However, I would not underestimate the amount of effort required to move all transport to electric. You're not going to move giant freighters to electric power unless you make them nuclear powered, and diesel freighters are down and dirty.

Nuclear powered ships are a pretty mature technology. I mean we've been controlled-crashing airplanes (some times even ones loaded with explosives) into them on a daily basis since before I was born.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who in the world are you replying to?

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a factor of 6 in cost. Oh, and considerable natural gas consumption as well, over double the "limit" needed for the California cap-and-trade program. So it's a great plant, other than producing less power than intended, costing 6 times market rates, and consuming massive amounts of natural gas!

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[ganjadude]

sure it can...but not overnight which is what most of us people who get claimed denialists are saying

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[ganjadude]

yes because nuke powered big rigs on our highways and in our cities is the right idea

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[pr0t0]

1) Global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do),...
True. There are many forces beyond those attributable to the anthropogenic that cause climate to change. ...and will continue on its current trend.
Misleading since no time scale is given. The argument as presented appears to be that since corrective action has no immediate effect, no action should be taken. This is of course, absurd. Even if corrective action will not have an effect for multiple generations, it should still be taken now. We have established that our past and current actions have adversely affected the climate. It is therefore our responsibility as stewards of this planet, and of the future following generations will inherit, to take action. Anything else is selfish and cowardly.

2) ...hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy...
False, demonstrably so. It almost doesn't even bear a rebuttal, but since I'm doing a relative point-by-point dissection; I'll do it anyway. in 2011, 61% of Canada's energy came from hydro. 70% of Portugal's energy today comes from renewables. Germany is on pace to have 80% by 2050. And then there's Denmark with a renewable energy output of 140% of it's consumption. They actually make more than they need. There are simply no technological barriers to 100% energy consumption from renewable sources. There are only economic ones, which themselves are fallacious. A nation having a surplus of energy to sell, sounds much more economical than exporting billions of dollars to other countries where oil extraction is optimal. (incidentally, I'm pointing to the alternatives you were asking for here)

3) Plastics...
Strawman. No one is claiming a 100% end to petroleum use is the solution, much less the only solution. Many plastics also have the neat property of being recyclable. Stating that plastics are the "backbone of technology and civilization at this time", implies that they may not need to be at some future time. Many materials scientists and engineers are already looking right now for viable alternatives.

What your statement failed to address is that the action taken by Rockefeller is based on their belief that Exxon Mobile (et. al.) has willingly mislead the global community about the effects of oil consumption with respect to the climate. The article is light on details, but we can infer that the misleading has been going on for some time, according to Rockefeller. Are you not concerned? If it could be proven that Exxon Mobile has known about these effects for years, would you be concerned then? How about if it could be proven they actively promoted a campaign of misinformation to obscure this fact? Would you be angry, even if it didn't change your mind about how you lived your life or voted, but simply because they withheld information from you as a consumer?

But this is really my favorite...
If you're reading this, you are most definitely a beneficiary of petroleum, so...
So...what? People have often been the beneficiary of things that needed to come to an end. Slavery comes to mind; not just in the U.S., but across the globe and throughout human history. People enjoyed tangible benefits from having slaves, just not the slaves themselves. Humans have had slaves far longer than we've been consuming petroleum, yet it has been globally, or nearly globally outlawed. This is a possible example of an argument made against ending slavery in the U.S. If you're clothes are made of cotton, you are most definitely a beneficiary of slavery, so...

So you still end slavery!

This was a lengthy rebuttal. It required thought and a little research. You may consider that as evidence that it wasn't knee-jerk. You should consider applying thought and research into more of what you do. We all should, particularly where divisive issues are concerned.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Namarrgon]

Hydrogen is a solid option. Split from water using excess solar or wind power, burn it or use fuel cells on the sea. Another option is charged liquid electrolytes for a reflow battery (they're what ships crave!).

Powering ships is easy, they have much less rigid constraints on fuel weight or volume.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[ganjadude]

most people??? where??? in america? maybe.

how about the rest of the world?? id say there are 2 billion plus out there who either dont have electricity or have rolling brownouts on a regular

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT radical and quick change? An increase of .8C in the last 40 years is NOT radical

WTF?!! An ice age is only 3 or 4 degrees cooler than now. Either you are incredibly stupid, or you are a whore of the oil industry.

Do enjoy sucking the cocks of the Koch brothers? Does their cum taste like oil? Do they double end you? Do you get paid, or do you just enjoy the feeling of being a cheap worthless whore?

And that goes doubly for the all the denial trolls posting on this "discussion". Posting to deliberately deceive is morally reprehensible. You belong in the deepest circle of hell, along with the traitors and betrayers of humanity. I honestly pray that those who should know better, but who still act to deceive those around them about the truth, will end up in Hell for all eternity.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[c]

and will continue on its current trend.

...and no to the second. There is very very good evidence that the current trend is due to human activities. There simply are no natural sources of change that have this magnitude of effect this quickly that we would not be able to see. (Remember, we do measure solar output. One thing we know: the current trend is not due to solar variability. If we stop these activities, the current trend will stop. (Although it will take a while to do so.)

I don't think the gp was referring to the evidence of human activities being a major cause so much as the overwhelming evidence that we're not going to do more than talk about reducing those activities.

That's more or less my feelings on it. Arguing about causes is interesting and all that, but ultimately doesn't buy us much. We need to start seriously talking about how we're going to deal with the consequences, because we've largely wasted the opportunities we had to fix it.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[mirix]

You've never seen electric rail!?

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Type44Q]

rather than just reinvesting in McDonalds or something.

I'm pretty sure their fries are cooked in West Texas Intermediate though it might be Brent Crude...

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Darinbob]

Yes, you can stop using so much of it. Conservation can work. Turn off your lights, get energy efficient appliances, stop commuting with just one person in the SUV, buy locally produced goods and food rather than having it shipped from the other side of the planet, and so forth. For larger groups or countries they can stop cutting down old growth forests and slashing and burning rainforests. It's like a friend who complains that he's got no money left at the end of the month even though he's got a new laptop and playstation, start cutting back so that expenses don't exceed the income instead of complaining that you can't grow the income.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[mspohr]

Beyond the fear factor, nuclear also has a fundamental problem in that it has gone from "too cheap to meter (predicted)" to too expensive to matter. Solar and wind power are as cheap a coal plants now and keep getting cheaper. Nuclear is much more expensive and just keeps getting more expensive (even in low regulatory environments).
So, nuclear has a "banker" problem. Nobody will give money to build one because they can't pencil out a profit. The only nuclear plants being built are those who have massive government subsidies.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

No it's not. It still requires more energy to split it than you get from it. If you're going to split it with electricity you might as well just put that electricity into a battery instead.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Namarrgon]

That's right, it's a form of energy storage, not a pre-charged energy source like fossil fuels. What's more important here is convenience and efficiency, not so much where the energy comes from. And it's far faster & easier to top up some hydrogen or electrolyte tanks over a pipe than to recharge giant lithium batteries.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is saying to do it overnight so what you're saying is nothing. We have to start moving in a direction though if we're ever going to get there.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Gussington]

No mod points, but that was a good post....

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if my energy bill went up 6 times, I'd be in trouble no matter how much I attempted to conserve, which I already do. It would necessitate a drastic change in living accommodation, like one of those micro apartments mentioned in another article, or perhaps a cardboard box.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[rahvin112]

That article is a hit piece with no basis in reality. I read it a couple days ago and came away wondering if the author was paid to write it. The author uses data that is more than a year old, neglecting to mention that recent plant numbers are nearing the initial values projected. He ignores that the plant from day one has said that the time to ramp up of full production was an unknown because this is a new type of plant and all new technology takes time to figure out how to run it. It has taken longer than they projected to figure out how to run the plant and optimize it's systems, that isn't in dispute. The author is completely dishonest about the agreement details by selective use of parts of the agreement. In fact I dare say from the selective quotes he's put in the article he's completely rewritten it to say something completely different than it does.

Ivanpah isn't going to shutdown, it's reaching it's energy targets and it's generating power at rates that are competitive, though it does have a bit to go before it reaches optimal operation. IMO this article is a hit piece paid for by a carbon energy conglomerate or one of carbon energies sock puppets such as the Koch foundation. Anyone with any sense should read the article as such, and if anything it indicates how scared carbon based companies are of solar power. When you start seeing paid hit articles (particularly in things like the fox owned WSJ) like this the fear is real. Pay no attention to solar, it's bad, trust them.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Crashmarik]

I feel bad about doing this, but , source please ?

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be an American. They've never seen any kind of functional rail except in romantic period pieces set in the 19th century.

*sigh* I say that as an American.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[tsotha]

That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.

The onset of the last ice age happened in the space of a single human generation. Quite a bit faster than the gloomiest AGW predictions.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You just said "unless there are other sources of energy, we have to use the current sources of energy." That statement is a tautology.

Not it's not...one could decide not to use any energy...

"If we use energy, we must use available energy." is closer...but it's still not a logical truth in the way that "If we are using energy, we are using energy" is...

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2015 from all new electricity capacity introduced 90% were renewables. China nearly doubled their renewable investments in 2015, and now invest 2x what USA invest. Renewables revolution is already happening whatever people want it to or not.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL cry more, faggot.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

My dear narcissistic friend.

Roughly 5 of 6 billion people are using fossil fuels for transportation of commodities necessary for their survival.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

1) Barring thermonuclear warfare or a wayward asteroid, global climate will change no matter what we do (or don't do), and will continue on its current trend.

False.

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

False.

3) Plastics (made from petroleum) are the backbone of technology and civilization at this time - no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability. (e.g. yeah you can make plastic from corn, but it'll be much shorter-lived and will require massive up-scaling in agriculture, which presents problems of its own.)

False.

Any questions?

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

yes because nuke powered big rigs on our highways and in our cities is the right idea

Straw man. Nobody mentioned nuclear big rigs.

Try again.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

No it's not. It still requires more energy to split it than you get from it. If you're going to split it with electricity you might as well just put that electricity into a battery instead.

Your statement is a very good example of the tendency for smart people to say stupid things because they haven't grasped the fucking point. Nobody said Hydrogen was an energy source. Electricity isn't an energy source, either. Both are just a convenient form of energy that makes it portable, given the right container. This is, in fact, the main benefit that gasoline has -- not as a fuel source, but as an extremely dense portable energy form. The fact that gasoline is also an energy source gives it an obvious advantage over the others, but only if you're willing to ignore the side effects and the possibility that it might run out someday.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

There is nothing about hydrogen that makes it a convenient form of energy.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[dave420]

1. Only if you ignore the scientific findings you find so troubling. Otherwise it's patently obvious from the data what's happening. You choosing to not believe it is your problem, not anyone else's.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascinating.

And how did the 7bn people alive at that time cope? Did their civilisations survive and prosper? [this is sarcasm, in case anyone is too dumb to get it]

If you hadn't noticed, conditions now are a teensy bit different from then. Running a live experiment on all of us to see if we can escape the onset of significant rapid climate change relatively unscathed does not seem like a marvellous idea.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[0111 1110]

2) Barring the invention of commercially viable electrical generation from fusion (or some similar massive source of energy), hydrocarbons are pretty much it for providing the majority of humanity's energy, so unless someone at Rockefeller has information that the rest of us do not have...

Actually fission would work too. It would just be a lot more expensive than coal. As in 2-3 times more expensive most likely. IOW it would be fine for rich people but would seriously suck for poor people and poor countries. If you make less than say $400 USD per month you may find you cannot afford to even use electricity if all or nearly all electricity is from a nuclear source. I have noticed that a lot of the AGW alarmists are not poor, at least not by my standard of 'poor'. Their electric bill is not a major portion of their budget.

Very few countries have the expertise and technology to actually build or maintain nuclear reactors. Some are lucky if they can manage to burn coal or oil and manage a reliable electrical grid infrastructure without frequent blackouts. Nevertheless I could picture a country like France with most or all of its power from nuclear fission plants and highways and even secondary roads wired up with either elevated wires or embedded road rails providing nuclear generated electricity to ground vehicles. No need to go back to horse and carriage transportation. As a planet we'd just have to fully embrace nuclear power as the only means we have for long term electricity generation. Fission fuels will eventually get used up as well, but it would take quite a few centuries and hopefully by then we'd have something better to replace it with. Fusion at least would use a different sort of fuel, generally hydrogen isotopes, and would likely extend our ability to generate electricity for eons.

Dealing with aircraft is a bit of a problem though. Maybe some air transportation could be replaced with transoceanic vacuum tunnels (hyperloops) with with maglev trains powered by nuclear generated electricity. I don't think even fuel cells have enough energy density to realistically power commercial aircraft and to the extent it may be possible such craft may be unbearably slow compared to what we are used to now.

Despite the problems and even without the emotionally driven hysterical alarmism so common these days there are very good arguments toward moving away from burning fossil fuels for electricity generation and toward fission combined with electric ground transportation. However these arguments will seem a lot less appealing to those who can barely afford coal generated electricity now.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[jandersen]

It is true that plastics would be okay all by themselves. Many oil companies would prefer to make plastics over petrol. And in plastic form, they aren't really an AGW problem, they're a different problem.

Well, sort of, -ish; plastic is one of those universally useful materials, like concrete, but the problem is that we produce enormous amounts of it to be used solely for things that are immediately discarded: carrier bags, wrappings etc. Plastic waste is a huge and growing problem, because there still aren't many organisms that can break down plastics, so it ends up as sharp, brittle particles that cause damage on a microscopic level - a bit like asbestos fibres, I suppose.

At the root of all these problems lie one things, ultimately: consumerism - the absurd idea that we must keep buying and throwing away far more than we need, even to live a very comfortable life. It is, of course, not sustainable and will come to an end at some point. Hopefully we manage to decide to do it voluntarily, in a controlled fashion. It always strikes me as strangely unambitious and void of vision, when people start talking about "we can't suddenly change away from fossil fuels and keep doing everything else as we do now" - well, of course not! The whole point is that we need to change our ways rather fundamentally - we have to stop doing things that rely on uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels, overconsumption, and pollution - I think everybody knows that, even those that try to convince everybody (including themselves) that it isn't so.

We don't even have to live austere lives in bleakness - we just have to stop being stupid and start making a bit of sense. There really is no need for producing huge amounts of cheap tat and transport it halfway arounf the planet; we could start looking into more localised forms of production - things like 3D printers are definitely a step in the right direction. Global consumerism isn't necessary for anything, except for those very few at the top, who are obcessed with constant growth of their own, massive wealth. There are better ways, I think.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[0111 1110]

More like electric trains and even electric big rig trucks powered by an overhead network of high voltage wires on the highways and by fuel cells or more overhead wires on secondary roads. The electricity could be generated by nuclear power plants.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[0111 1110]

You mean those highly speculative and completely unproven effects generated by simplistic (as compared to the immense complexity of an actual planet) computer programs? GIGO. I think we as a species should make decisions based on real science and not pseudo-science disguised as real science because the fake science happens on a computer.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[0111 1110]

Here is what we know from actual evidence.

Through burning fossil fuels and making cement and cutting down trees and other land clearing we are increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by generally around 2ppm per year resulting in an increase from 280ppm (pre-industrial 19th century) to around 403ppm now.

This increased level of CO2 has probably caused a temperature increase of around 0.8 celsuis since the 19th century and will very likely continue to raise temperatures by similar amounts each century. Although trying to figure out how much it will raise temperature is very difficult to determine. Maybe even impossible. If the same rate of increase is assumed then our planet would be around 8 degrees celsuis warmer than it is now in 1000 years. We have no evidence that a planet 8c warmer than it is now would be incompatible with human life. In fact there have been warmer times in the past where mammals not so different from us survived. In the past there have been times (Jurassic for instance) when CO2 has been much higher than it is now (7000ppm) and temperatures were indeed higher at that time and the world was full of life, including mammalian life. Studying those times with higher levels of CO2 can provide actual evidence of its effects and can represent actual science instead of computer program simulation pseudo-science and true believer AGW-alarmist-as-religion.

AFAIK there simply is no other scientific way to predict how much our gradual increasing of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temperature over the next millennium. Since we are just guessing I'd argue for simply extending the observed pattern we have seen in the past century of around 2ppm more CO2 per year or 3300 more years before we reach Jurassic levels of CO2 which were 100% compatible with mammalian life. Not the end of the world. Still if the observed temperature rise of 0.8 celsuis in just over a century continues it would result in a 24 degree c increase in 3000 years. That would be a very warm planet by human standards. It would probably be a good idea to phase out fossil fuels in no more than 1000 years. So we probably have some time, but eventually we will need to transition to mostly nuclear (fission and/or fusion) power and/or some other form of electric power generation we are unaware of now.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Geoffrey.landis]

I don't think the gp was referring to the evidence of human activities being a major cause so much as the overwhelming evidence that we're not going to do more than talk about reducing those activities.

Fair enough, you can read it that way.

I'm a techno-optimist; there are other energy technologies out there, and we can chose the ones we want to use.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[ganjadude]

we have started, years ago. every year more and more non carbon based energy is getting added to the grid.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

And if anyone is wondering what are some good uses for used glass jars I have done the following with them:
1. Store wooden strike anywhere matches in them up at my recreational property
2. A containers to put parts like carburetors in so they can soak in cleaner
3. Containers to hold vinegar with steel wool dissolved in it (used for ebonizing woods)
4. Containers to hold solvents for cleaning paint brushes
5. Containers to store rice
6. Containers to store pasta
7. Containers to store bulk spices
8. Containers to store honey
9. Containers to store maple syrup
10. Containers for tea staining wood before ebonizing

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[dywolf]

and therefore we shouldn't even try to make any progress....?
they also used to think it would be impossible to actually keep cars fueled, only ever be novelties.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Triklyn]

for cargo, should have specified. and no, we don't have electric cargo choochoos here.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

There is nothing about hydrogen that makes it a convenient form of energy.

Right. Except for the part where it can be easily converted to electricity via a fuel cell, or burned like gasoline for mechanical motion. And except for the part where it's faster to fill a hydrogen tank than it is to charge a battery. But you know, except for those aspects, it's completely useless.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mason jars are great to use just as drinking glasses too. They stack nicely, have nice wide stable bases, look good, and are cheap.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

Is that all you know about hydrogen, that we can burn it like gasoline, or use it in a fuel cell, and it fills up a tank quickly?

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[david_thornley]

The problem with hydrogen for energy storage is "the right container". While its energy density per kilogram is very high, energy density per liter at any reasonable pressure is way low, and getting into unreasonable pressures has its own dangers.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Renewable sources can only realistically be expected to fill in the shortfall in production of fossil fuel sources as reserves are depleted in the 2nd half of this century. The future of energy production and use is grim if you do the math. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160323152508.htm

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

That's right, it's a form of energy storage, not a pre-charged energy source like fossil fuels.What's more important here is convenience and efficiency, not so much where the energy comes from. And it's far faster & easier to top up some hydrogen or electrolyte tanks over a pipe than to recharge giant lithium batteries.

So much wrong here. Fossil fuels are a form of energy storage as well. In fact fossil fuels contain more hydrogen than liquid hydrogen per unit of volume. It is not pre-charged. I don't even know what that means. Is water pre-charged with hydrogen? Or do you mean you have to refine the water before you get the usable product? Oh. Have fun putting crude oil in your car. It's fun to cook over too. I didn't realize it's so easy to fill a hydrogen tank. You just put the hydrogen in over a series of tubes. Simple. To recharge a giant lithium battery, you just plug it in. The infrastructure is already there. To fill up a hydrogen tank "over a pipe", we have to refine the hydrogen (don't have infrastructure for that yet), compress the hydrogen (not simple, look it up), store the hydrogen (not really any good methods yet), transport the hydrogen (is there a hydrogen pipeline somewhere that I missed? Trucks and trains carrying hydrogen sounds like a great idea! crash, kaboom!), store the hydrogen yet again in efficient tanks that don't exist, transfer from those tanks to the tanks at your local hydrogen station, find a safe method to transfer from the hydro station to the gigantic tank in your car, which doesn't exist yet, and figure out how millions of cars can safely transport tanks of hydrogen without ever exploding.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

Is that all you know about hydrogen, that we can burn it like gasoline, or use it in a fuel cell, and it fills up a tank quickly?

Those are the things that make it relevant to the current conversation. If you'd like to know more, I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

At what pressure is the hydrogen stored in the tank in the car?

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

The problem with hydrogen for energy storage is "the right container". While its energy density per kilogram is very high, energy density per liter at any reasonable pressure is way low, and getting into unreasonable pressures has its own dangers.

Agreed. If it were easy, we would have done it already. I'm not arguing that hydrogen is the most ideal possible solution. Like any engineering problem, you have to choose what you're optimizing for. If zero tailpipe emissions and fast refill are at the top of the list, hydrogen is a candidate, even while producing lots of other engineering problems that need solving.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

At what pressure is the hydrogen stored in the tank in the car?

For current FCEVs, 700 bar.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

Cool, where can I fill up?

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

Just read this.

Why hydrogen is stupid as fuel for cars

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

Just read this.

Why hydrogen is stupid as fuel for cars

While you and others who think they're smarter than everyone else are poo-pooing the idea, us crazy ones out here in California are actually trying it out to see how well (or not) it will work. In point of fact, we've already got filling stations open, with more on the way. That kind of puts an end to the discussion of whether it can be done or not -- it already has been done.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

Cool, where can I fill up?

Here are a list of currently open or soon-to-open stations in California: http://cafcp.org/stationmap

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

How much did each of those stations cost? You've got what, like 20 of them? They must be making money hand over fist, and that's why more of them are popping up so quickly. Why am I not surprised that you live in Cali? What kind of FCEV do you own?

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

I was too generous in my estimate. There are 13 Hydrogen stations open to consumers.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on the internet do people insist that the lack of a silver bullet means we shouldn't even try. Even if we replace 10%, it will improve our society's future, but we can certainly do much better... And we won't do better unless we try.

Speaking of fiduciary sense, read through any personal finance thread and replace "compound interest" with "atmospheric CO2". Part of the urgency is that every little change can grow into a huge impact over time. Let's maximize the time our alternative energy effort returns dividends toward our well being.

One of the arguments floating around is that the electrical grid won't handle more than 30% renewable energy. Fine, let's work toward that 30%. That process will drive up research and drive down costs. The closer we approach that limit, the more incentive there is to figure out how to raise it.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what we really have here is you posting patently false things as if they were true.

So what we really have here is you demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension.

There are no lack of other sources of energy. Hydrocarbons are hardly the only solution.

OP didn't say there was a lack of other sources. Note the words "Commercially viable".

There are other ways to produce plastics and similar materials.

OP never claimed there wasn't. Note the words "no viable replacement has yet arisen that doesn't require even more damage to the ecosystems, or can last nearly as long when the requirements call for longevity/durability.".

That climate always changes doesn't mean it changes so radically and so quickly.

OP didn't make any claims regarding the speed of climate change, rather he said "will continue on its current trend".

Take a course in reading comprehension. You're embarrassing people on your own side, and you're likely to be nominated for today's debate to get an Other-Team-Most-Valuable-Player award.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[zieroh]

How much did each of those stations cost? You've got what, like 20 of them? They must be making money hand over fist, and that's why more of them are popping up so quickly. Why am I not surprised that you live in Cali? What kind of FCEV do you own?

Outrageous amounts of money. But that's not really the point -- this is an experiment, an attempt to jump start the chicken-vs-egg infrastructure problem. Just as California led the way with electric cars, and now we're seeing those cars appear elsewhere in the nation. The hydrogen experiment might very well be a total failure. Or it might take 10 years to catch on. I don't profess to know.

The point, though, is that many of the things you think are non-starters have already been overcome. I can tell by the questions you're asking that you weren't even aware of that, still fixated on the energy source vs. energy carrier issue. The filling stations exist. The fuel cells exist. The hydrogen tanks already exist. The cars exist. You may not personally approve, but California doesn't need your approval. You can poo-poo it if you want, but you kind of look like an idiot when Exhibit A is functioning FCEVs and a functioning (albeit small) infrastructure.

As for me, I own a rather ordinary electric car, which fits well into my life and I'm perfectly happy with it. Yet elsewhere in the US of motherfucking stupid A, people like you still seem to believe that electric cars aren't viable, despite the fact that I see hundreds of them on the road every day on my way to work.

So get over yourself. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

No, they don't exist as infrastructure. They exist as a very expensive experiment. That's like saying flying cars exist. Technically yes, they do.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick thank you for your comments, pr0t0; this a great example of why I read Slashdot.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Namarrgon]

I'm not sure what any of all that has to do with the topic, which was alternatives to fossil fuels & nuclear for shipping, not cars & trucks.

No argument that diesel is easier & requires less input energy, but we want something with less drawbacks, and hydrogen is absolutely a viable alternative. By "pre-charged" I simply meant "has usable energy"; fossil fuels have this (from the sun), water has none but e.g. excess grid power can unbind the hydrogen by electrolysis, which can then be used.

While there are already many hydrogen vehicles, shipping is particularly suited as ports can electrolyse seawater and store hydrogen on site, no special outside infrastructure required. Ships have no trouble carrying heavier hydrogen tanks, which can be refilled much more quickly than an equivalent-capacity Li-Ion battery - and hydrogen has far better energy per weight & volume than Li-Ion.

Cars have completely different constraints, and arguably batteries may be more suited for them.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Bartles]

You don't get it. None of this exists yet. There is no hydrogen infrastructure. All of these things can be done, but they're not done yet. And they won't ever be done unless it makes sense monetarily. And hydrogen will never make sense monetarily unless there's a monumental breakthrough in production methods. It's inefficient to split it. It's inefficient to transport it. And it's inefficient to convert it back to electricity. Why convert electricity to hydrogen only to convert it back to electricity again? It's ridiculous. Just use the electricity instead.

Re: Fiduciary sense?

[Namarrgon]

If you genuinely want to know why, try reading what I posted. There's more at issue than only energy efficiency.

Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

For large vehicles and planes bio-diesel could be used as an alternative.

How amazingly ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

[nt]

Re:How amazingly ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

or hypocritical.

In other words

[PeeAitchPee]

They know that petro stocks will be depressed for some time and are using their need to dump them as an opportunity for a feel-good, look-how-green-we-are presser. Just rich Wall Streeters doing what they do . . . nothing to see here, folks.

Re:In other words

[Solandri]

If they were dumping their petro stocks for financial reasons, the time to drop them would've been back when oil began falling from $100/bbl.

Selling off stocks after they've seemingly hit their nadir is a common mistake rookie investors make. When a stock bottoms out, that's actually the best time to buy them. So the fact that they're selling it now actually lends credence to the backstory that they're doing it for environmental reasons. Only way your theory would fit is if they thought oil was going to go even lower than the current $40/bbl. The inflation-adjusted 70-year average price of oil is $42/bbl.

Re:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

In cased you missed it, the way to get rich is "buy low, sell high". If petro stocks are "depressed for some time", the sensible thing to do is buy them cheaply now and sell after "some time", when they recover. Nope, Wall St is selling because there's no recovery in sight. There simply is more coal and oil in reserves than we can afford to burn, which means that somebody will get stuck with rather worthless reserves. The Rockefellers are just making sure it's not them.

Wait for the other shoe to drop

[Crashmarik]

What you see as voluntary today, will be mandatory tomorrow, and it will be enforced. What's more these people will buy the politicians they need to make it happen.

Re:Wait for the other shoe to drop

[dave420]

Paranoid nonsense. I'd expect nothing less from you - these discussions always bring out your bad side. Remember when you didn't know the difference between ice on the sea and ice on the land? You kept on arguing your damaged logic for all to see, completely unaware of just how wrong your grasp of basic science was.

Re:Wait for the other shoe to drop

[Crashmarik]

Are you trying to troll or just go for flamebait ?

Oh Really?

[HighOrbit]

Rockefeller Fund: Now that oil has dropped from $120 per barrel to $30/$40 per barrel and oil stocks are no longer profitable, we've suddenly developed a sense of moral courage. Our decision has nothing to do with oil investments no longer being a money-spewing spigot.

Re:Oh Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exxon Mobile is still quite profitable.

And oil is expected to rebound next year. As it is, consumption has been picking and there have been quarters where there hasn't been enough production to match consumption - imports are increasing.

The Rockefeller's charity will come out fine.

Re:Oh Really?

[rahvin112]

The Rockefeller fund is heavily invested in Hydrocarbons and ALWAYS has been. It is extremely difficult for a fund with that much money not to be invested in hydrocarbons because there are so few companies that have a capital worth such that investments by the fund would see profitable returns.

To attribute this change in investment strategy as a short term maneuver due to market performance is very shortsighted. The divestment of the Rockefeller fund from hydrocarbons is going to affect the stocks of each of the companies the fund is invested in as their holdings are massive. The very act of divesting these assets will be expensive and raise the funds costs because the dollars will need to be spread among far more stocks and monitored more heavily. But what this divestment means is that the people that made all their money on hydrocarbons no longer see it as a long term growth market. That is very significant and should not be ignored.

The writing is on the wall about hydrocarbons particularly in trends in energy production and this is visible in the long term investing market. Divestment is becoming a big deal because when hydrocarbon stocks collapse it will happen far too quickly (look how fast coal stocks collapsed) for these large investors to be able to divest, and divesting early is going to be in their interest even if it results in short term losses. Those investors remaining in hydrocarbons should do so as a much higher risk short term investment with the understanding that the investment will need to be monitored closely and the investment abandoned as quickly as possible when the eventual reckoning comes.

Re:Oh Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. With the value of oil being somewhat artificially low, this is the absolute best time to invest in it! And terrible time to sell, actually.

Re:Oh Really?

[hawkfish]

Rockefeller Fund: Now that oil has dropped from $120 per barrel to $30/$40 per barrel and oil stocks are no longer profitable, we've suddenly developed a sense of moral courage. Our decision has nothing to do with oil investments no longer being a money-spewing spigot.

Yeah, its not like the funding of climate change denial by Exxon is recent news...

Predictions on what this will do the price of oil?

[mark-t]

[nt]

Water is WET!

[danaris]

Well, yeah. We all know that. Hell, it's in the story summary.

The point is, even Rockefeller is divesting from fossil fuels. It would be like Bill Gates saying, "Y'know, Windows really is pretty terrible, and is likely to get you infected and turned into a bot. Everyone should ditch it and use Linux."

And, frankly, about time, too.

Dan Aris

Re:Water is WET!

[tnk1]

The old money Rockefeller descendants and their foundations are not the same people as those who made the money. They're pretty much the poster children for old money guilt. John D. Rockefeller would probably make ExxonMobil look like a Green Party front organization if he was still alive.

Re:Water is WET!

[kuzb]

It's easy to be morally lofty when you're already obscenely rich. Most of us don't have that luxury. I'll continue to pump dead dinosaurs in to my car until someone comes up with an alternative that:

1) has the proper infrastructure to support it everywhere

2) gives me all the same advantages as oil

and

3) isn't either severely gimped or priced like a luxury item

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Electricity can do it. So could E100

2) What do you consider those to be? The pollutants out the tailpipe?

3) If you had to pay for the costs directly for burning gasoline, you'd switch in a heartbeat.

Re:Water is WET!

[kqc7011]

Is this a Fund that is used for tax purposes? Or is it a Fund that some of the Rockefeller's actually invest their money in?

Re:Water is WET!

[kuzb]

1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.

2) range. it's still not even remotely as good in affordable consumer models. I don't want something that's going to leave me high and dry after 75 miles, and I don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long-range trips.

3) No, I wouldn't because the electric vehicle that currently fits my criteria is still an $80,000+ vehicle. Nobody seems interested in producing something practical for regular people yet.

Re: Water is WET!

[Type44Q]

John D. Rockefeller would probably make ExxonMobil look like a Green Party front organization if he was still alive.

Consideringit was Standard Oil who equipped the Nazi war machine with their ability to turn coal into oil... yeah.

Re:Water is WET!

[westlake]

John D. Rockefeller would probably make ExxonMobil look like a Green Party front organization if he was still alive.

They called it Standard Oil because its products were safe and predictable in use and sold in honest weights and measures --- at a time when it was not at all unusual to be widowed by the explosion of a kerosene lantern. Look at pictures of a Standard Oil refinery and what you see is a recognizably modern chemical plant and a vast improvement over what came before.

The reformer may have blasted the old man night and day for his ruthless consolidation of the industry, but when it came time to tank up he went to the Standard dealer like everyone else.

Re:Water is WET!

[Hylandr]

This right here.

They are going to drive themselves destitute In their bid to make an impact by joining the chicken little squadron in such a grandeur fashion.

Re:Water is WET!

[mspohr]

1) electricity can do it, but the infrastructure to charge is simply not there in many places. With multi-hour charge times in some cases, it wouldn't take much to get stuck somewhere waiting for hours for a person to be done charging their car.

Have you notice that electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous... it is literally everywhere and it is trivial to install a plug to charge a car. (Unlike oil infrastructure which relies on "gas stations" fed by tanker trucks.)

2) range. it's still not even remotely as good in affordable consumer models. I don't want something that's going to leave me high and dry after 75 miles, and I don't want to have to own a second vehicle for long-range trips.

Do you drive more than 75 miles a day? Most people don't and they can just plug in at home. If you need to take a long-range trip, it's easy and cheap to rent a car. Or... you could wait. Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.

3) No, I wouldn't because the electric vehicle that currently fits my criteria is still an $80,000+ vehicle. Nobody seems interested in producing something practical for regular people yet.

Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.

Re:Water is WET!

[sumdumass]

Not really. It would be more akin to Sarah gates saying that. Who's Sarah you ask? She is some distant relative in charge of Bill's fortune generations after he is dead.

Re:Water is WET!

[kuzb]

>Have you notice that electrical infrastructure is ubiquitous... it is literally everywhere and it is trivial to install a plug to charge a car. (Unlike oil infrastructure which relies on "gas stations" fed by tanker trucks.)

Sure, it is everywhere. However the places to charge are not. It's like having hundreds of gas tankers around and no gas station. There are space limitations to consider as well - it takes a few minutes to fill a gas car. It takes substantially longer to charge a car, meaning you need a lot more charging stations than you do pumps. I need to be assured that not only will I be able to charge, but that there will be a spot available to charge at which isn't going to be occupied for the next several hours. Given how rare those spots are around here, it's not uncommon to see the same EV parked in a charging spot all day long while someone is at work.

>Do you drive more than 75 miles a day? Most people don't and they can just plug in at home. If you need to take a long-range trip, it's easy and cheap to rent a car. Or... you could wait. Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.

It's not a question of what I do daily, it's a question of having the freedom to go further when I need or want to. It is not economically viable for me to buy another vehicle just for the range trips, even if they are less frequent than short-range city driving. As for "just plugging in at home" you still need infrastructure at home for that which is another added cost. it also does not help people who do not own their own houses, or live in apartment buildings.

>Next year, Tesla, Nissan and Chevrolet will introduce longer range cars which are affordable.

They've been saying this for years now. I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Water is WET!

[Bartles]

These days it's much more lucrative to be green, or pretend to be green, because that's what gives you access to endless supplies of smugness, taxpayer subsidies, deductions, and grants.

Re:Water is WET!

[Bartles]

People often make the mistake of assuming that the old monopolies were created by evilness and killing. Really when you look at it, every one of them made huge advance in technology and innovation. They did it by being better than the competition.

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying only oil is profitable? There are quite a few other places they could choose to invest instead.

Re:Water is WET!

[mspohr]

It's too hard to install an electrical plug?!
It's too hard to find a place to park?!
(There are now more public Tesla charging stations in NYC than gas stations)
Every car has limitations. Most people can't afford to buy the biggest car that they might ever want to use for a once a year trip. Most people buy something that's economical and practical for their daily use and look at other options for their family vacation or visit to grandma. My daughter lives in the city and doesn't even own a car but finds it easy to rent one for the weekend when she visits... that's her definition of "freedom".

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the US does not live in NYC. How many charging stations are there in northern rural Alaska? I know of plenty of gas stations.

Re:Water is WET!

[__aanbvm4272]

During the texas oil glut when independent oil producers were selling for cents a barrel John D bought them out for very cheap money and cornered the oils market and created one of the 1st monopolies. They were ultimately forced to break it up into Chevron etc. but you ought to know about that since its ancient history right? Have we learned what happens when we allow buyouts? I applaud the Rockefellers for ridding themselves and showing the world a better way is fast approaching.

Re:Water is WET!

[Gussington]

It's easy to be morally lofty when you're already obscenely rich. Most of us don't have that luxury. I'll continue to...

So it's someone else's problem to solve? I think this is the crux of the problem...

Re:Water is WET!

[danaris]

Not really. It would be more akin to Sarah gates saying that. Who's Sarah you ask? She is some distant relative in charge of Bill's fortune generations after he is dead.

That's fair.

However, I doubt that the Gates fortune and dynasty will last in the way that the Rockefeller has.

I would also say, though, that I wouldn't be at all surprised if John D. Rockefeller himself, if he were alive today, would react very similarly.

Dan Aris

Re:Water is WET!

[bane2571]

You seem to be being intentionally dense here.

It's too hard to install an electrical plug?!
Yes, in fact it is actually ILLEGAL for me to install an electrical plug in any place that would be accessible to an electric car. I live in an apartment block so the ownership of the parking spots are shared. In addition these vehicles often require specialist charging equipment .
It's too hard to find a place to park?!
It's too hard to find a place to park with normal cars and I can park them on people's front lawns if I'm feeling like a dick, given a vehicle that requires a specialised charging bay to park in, parking becomes damn near impossible as adoption approaches 100%
(There are now more public Tesla charging stations in NYC than gas stations)
And if the utilisation on those stations is 10X higher than the utilisation of gas pumps, then you will need not more, but 10X the number of. I suspect the figure will be much higher than 10X though I have no data to back that up.
Every car has limitations. Most people can't afford to buy the biggest car that they might ever want to use for a once a year trip. Most people buy something that's economical and practical for their daily use and look at other options for their family vacation or visit to grandma. My daughter lives in the city and doesn't even own a car but finds it easy to rent one for the weekend when she visits... that's her definition of "freedom".
I deliberately don't own a car either but if I was to buy one, for any purpose, I'd be looking at spending around $5000-$10000 for one. That is around the same price as a replacement BATTERY for a tesla vehicle. Cost is a seriously prohibitive factor for non-fossil vehicles right now.

Re:Water is WET!

[LynnwoodRooster]

How much time does a typical Tesla spend at its charging station? Is it less than 5 minutes, the average time needed to fill a tank of gas? It's not the absolute number of slots needed, it's the ability to support a large number of customers. Twenty charging stations, ten gas stations - you can fill a LOT more gas-powered cars than Teslas even with half the number of stations.

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rich people strike me as "hate the game, not the player". They push for higher taxes, but will take advantage of every loop hole they can find. If you don't like the loop holes, vote for better politicians.

Re:Water is WET!

[jp_831]

I'd vote for a politician who sends out death squads to kill you and your family.

That would be a truly moral act.

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh.. Rockefeller wouldn't likely be in Oil today. House of Saud has too much control globally. We've seen their power over the last year, when it dipped below $30 a barrel. Unimaginable honestly.

Can't say what Rockefeller would be in, maybe still energy, or tech, but modern civilization today wouldn't allow an Global 'Oil overlord', equivalent to what Rockefeller was with Standard Oil.

Re:Water is WET!

[westlake]

They were ultimately forced to break it up into Chevron etc. but you ought to know about that since its ancient history right?

Well, yes and no.

Standard Oil was replaced by its regional operating companies.

But Rockefeller retained ownership of 25% of the shares in the regionals --- which prospered mightily. The small independents faded from view and while the Standards had to share a slice of the pie with Texas Oil and others, Big Oil was well on its way to becoming even Bigger Oil.

Re:Water is WET!

[Gavagai80]

it's easy and cheap to rent a car.

This is very untrue for anyone but the wealthy. To rent a car I'd have to change my insurance to add comprehensive coverage, and the rental cost for just one day would be more than I spend on my car in a typical month.

Re: Water is WET!

[camg188]

The top shareholders of Exxon are mutual funds. If you have a 401k, you are most likely (at least indirectly) an Exxon shareholder.

Re: Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

Coffin

Re: Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably pissed for being buried alive. Most likely insane. Crazy immortals, is that what you want, because that's how you get crazy immortals.

Re:Water is WET!

[oh_my_080980980]

Jesus are irretrievably stupid. Rockefeller Family Fund is a charitable foundation. As a fund they have investments. Some of those investments are in fossil fuels. Having investments in fossil fuels, which promotes the usage of fossil fuels, goes against the Rockefeller Family Fund's mission. Therefore they've decided to divest from fossil fuels. What's so fucking hard to understand. You can keep using fossil fuels but don't expect someone else to pay for it. ass-hole.

Re:Water is WET!

[oh_my_080980980]

So I guess you are irretrievably stupid. The infrastructure to support gas powered cars was BUILT UP OVERTIME. It did not happen over night. Therefore to expect electric power stations to be available from the get go is fucking stupid.

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

avg time spent at gas station is 10 minutes.

supercharger stations have a higher minimum time spent, but the average time is similar, because people often go in to use the loo, buy a snack, etc.

Re:Water is WET!

[Geoffrey.landis]

People often make the mistake of assuming that the old monopolies were created by evilness and killing. Really when you look at it, every one of them made huge advance in technology and innovation. They did it by being better than the competition.

That's true for some monopolies, but not Standard Oil. John D. Rockefeller put Standard Oil together by driving competitors out of business and buying them up. The main "innovation" he pioneered was that of making deals with railroads to ship his product at rates not offered to his competitors.

But, to be fair, collusion wasn't illegal until after the Sherman act, and wasn't nearly as vicious as some of the other shady business practices going on in other industries.

Re: Water is WET!

[Bartles]

No. That was a very small part of his success. If you spent 5 minutes looking at this you'd realize that was the case.

Re:Water is WET!

[LynnwoodRooster]

According to the people who sell ads at gas pumps, it's closer to 5-7 minutes. And they are probably inflating it as longer time there allows them to sell ads for higher prices. And here they talk about 20 to 40 minutes for charging. So it's about a 4:1 to 6:1 ratio of time. Meaning you can have 1/4 the number of gas stations relative to Tesla charging stations - and still satisfy needs.

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's all about you, eh?

Re:Water is WET!

[Ranbot]

I own a Nissan Leaf, so I figured I would chime in. You make very good points. Electric car technology today is not ready for everyone, but I think many people pre-maturely write off EVs. I would NOT recommend an electric car (today) to anyone who meets one or more of the following:
- single car household
- does not have a garage or home charging option
- every driver in the household drives more 70 miles each day

However, there are many households that don't meet those criteria and that could benefit today from an electric car. My wife and I have pretty typical single-family home with a garage and we own two cars - a Honda Accord and a Leaf. I'll break down the main concerns with EVs and my experiences:

RANGE: My wife or I both have jobs we commute to and other errands to run. If one of us needs to drive more than 70 miles in a day that person takes the gas car that day. In a year of owning the Leaf there was only one day we both needed the range of a gas car and we traded a car with my wife's parents for the day. No big deal.
CHARGING: I charge my Leaf overnight on a standard 120V outlet, so I did not install any special charging equipment. I have never needed to charge at a public station. The concern about public charging infrastructure is overblown because the vast majority of all EV charging is and will be done at home [or for some lucky people at work]; charging elsewhere is infrequent or for emergencies.
COST: The Leaf is much cheaper to run and maintain than any gas car, and I bought the Leaf used (1.5 years old) for ~$15k with plenty left on the warranty, so it was/is quite affordable.* In fact, affordability to buy and maintain and EV was a much bigger selling point to me than anything related to it being green.

I think if more people took a harder look at their household driving habits/needs many would be surprised to find how well an EVs could work and save them a lot of money.

* - I know I might have to replace a battery someday. Assuming it doesn't happen under warranty and based on current prices I think a battery replacement balances out well with the long-term fuel and maintenance savings, but there's good chance the costs to a replace a battery will come down too... a couple years is a long time in EV/battery technology.

Re:Water is WET!

[kuzb]

Only a clueless tubesteak would make this kind of argument. Obviously infrastructure takes time to build, but that doesn't change the fact that if it's not there now it's not useful to anyone.

I expect you won't be a problem for too long though, because anyone this dumb will find a way to accidentally strangle themselves with their own shoelaces.

Re: Water is WET!

[mspohr]

Right now there are several thousand times as many ICE cars as Tesla's so NYC is good with more chargers than gas stations

Re: Water is WET!

[mspohr]

Sucks to be you.

Re:Water is WET!

[Anonymous Coward]

From last night's PBS Newshour

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/videos/#175623

Just before the 36 minute mark, Charles Murray states

"Until the last few months, it did not hit home to me the degree to which the immigration policy that I as one of the elites find is good is good only because I don't pay any of the price for it."

Bull.

[gurps_npc]

I find your lack of knowledge disturbing.

The fact that the ROCKEFELLER fund came to the conclusion is the news. Rockefeller made his money by creating the modern oil industry. He monopolized oil, beating up anyone that refused to sell their oil wells to him.

Basically, it's the equivalent of Bill Gates's charities selling all their Microsoft stock and buying Apple shares.

Re:Bull.

[DNS-and-BIND]

That would be a sound idea, were Bill Gates long dead and Microsoft stock in the toilet. We all do know that oil prices are way, way down and not going up anytime soon, right? Right? That makes this a poor performing asset and the cash raised will be put to better use elsewhere. Plus they get to lie about why they're doing it! What, you actually believe elites like the Rockefeller Foundation when they tell you something? Think critically, you dumbfuck!

Re:Bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rockefeller made his money by creating the modern oil industry. He monopolized oil, beating up anyone that refused to sell their oil wells to him.

And I thought the idiots shouting "Evil Micro$oft Monopoly!" were living in the past. Rockefeller has been in the "green" dogma for a decade (and the SJW scene for a while now as well). What someone did a century ago to make money and what his descendants do now to keep money will almost always be very different things.

Re:Bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rockefeller is dead. The name hasn't meant much in decades.

Re:Bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

The federal reserve is about to raise interest rates putting the economy in to a recession which will depress commodity prices. PeeAitchPee is right. This is a thinly veiled smokescreen to liquidate a large institutional investment position without TOTALLY spooking the market. $100 says they buy back every position they are selling within 10 years. $10 says they do it within 3 years.

Re:Bull.

[misexistentialist]

Gates has been selling probably as fast he can without crashing the stock, don't know about Apple, but he has gone big into onions.

Re:Bull.

[tlhIngan]

The fact that the ROCKEFELLER fund came to the conclusion is the news. Rockefeller made his money by creating the modern oil industry. He monopolized oil, beating up anyone that refused to sell their oil wells to him.

Yes, Standard Oil (S.O.) became a monopoly and it was how the anti-monopoly laws came into being.

Standard Oil's retail chain still remains today. The oil distribution network became Exxon, while the retail chain kept its name SO, somewhat - Esso. (Which is where that funny name came from)

Re:Bull.

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason I keep reading Rockefeller Foundation as Romefeller Foundation. I suppose it's all the same, one based on the other.

Not a company

[Archfeld]

The Rockefeller Fund, otherwise known as the Rockefeller Foundation is NOT a company but a foundation, or a grant funding organization, AKA a charity. They are not in 'business' to make a profit but rather make donations to worthy causes and hopefully set a socially responsible example for others to follow. In reality it is probably an attempt to balance out the horrible karma John D. generated on his rise to riches, and maybe shave some time from the sentence in hell he is serving for being such a bastard robber baron in his life time.

Re:Not a company

[Tailhook]

It's a tax shelter that buys influence through contributions to the "non-profits" of Rockefeller allies so they can employ the daughters and sons of the powers-that-be for $350k+/year. Oil hits $80+/bbl and they'll quietly buy back in, and no one will post a story about it on Slashdot.

Note to millionaires:

[Anonymous Coward]

Spend your money while you're alive.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Charity my butt.

If you believe this BS then I've got the one and only ever lasting gobstopper from the Wonka factory. Any bidders?

Bad time to be a geology major.

[AJWM]

"there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons,"

In related news, across the nation's university campuses the entire freshman class of geology majors looked at each other and said "shit, now what?".

(I joke because I have sons at two of the big petro-geology colleges (Colorado School of Mines and U of Oklahoma), and although one is taking geology, it's with an eye to paleontology. He already knows he's not going to make any money. (grin))

Virtue signalling

[Tailhook]

So they were vested in Exxon for the years of high oil prices, but now that oil has tanked they're pulling out for better opportunities. As a bonus they get to do a little climate grandstanding. Brilliant. That's the sort of thinking that insures the Rockefellers make the big bucks.

Lap it up. Your training is working as intended.

Re:Virtue signalling

[mspohr]

It would have been much better to sell a few years ago before oil tanked. (Remember the old saying "Buy low, sell high"... they seem to be selling low.)

Re:Virtue signalling

[tsotha]

Good point. A fund to keep an eye on when the price goes back up.

Brilliant !! Buy High and Sell Low...

[Tulsa_Time]

Rockefeller would be proud.

Symbolism without substance

[Anonymous Coward]

Divesting itself of direct investments in fossil fuel companies, in an efficient market, will have virtually no effect on the investment returns of them or anyone. It certainly will not harm anyone who leads or works for that or any other organization.

If the Rockefeller Fund really wanted to demonstrate a meaningful action, they would require none of their leaders or employees use any product or service containing or deriving from any fossil fuel product.

Try that and see how long you last, fatcats.

What a load of utter bollocks.

[Fragnet]

The real reason they're dumping stocks is because of the oil price crash. The climate bollocks is just spin. And Slashdot is an idiot for publishing it.

Re:What a load of utter bollocks.

[HornWumpus]

Sell low? You don't seem to get the whole investment thing.

Re:What a load of utter bollocks.

[Fragnet]

Opportunity cost, dividends. You don't seem to get the whole investment thing.

Re:What a load of utter bollocks.

[Boronx]

The news here is Exxon's decades-long cover up of its own climate research. This has been a story for months, but apparently many Slashdotters were unaware.

Re:What a load of utter bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dividends in much of the oil sector have been cut, but there is still a nice average return. Then of course there are ruinous capital gains taxes. Prices are very low. COP is my favorite. I'll give it 2 years and it will be over 100. All I can see are dollar signs! My portfolio is strong this year, like many people's. But the energy laggards provide a lot of potential energy.

Nothing new, the Rottenfellers have been

[Anonymous Coward]

trust-fund-baby leftists for decades - they have that luxury as a pack of spoiled descendants of the Rockefeller who actually MADE the mountain of money, and like many such bums, they likely know they do not deserve their unearned wealth and therefore are carrying a heap of guilt.

Super-rich leftist who inherited everything, turning against something all leftists agree to heap hate upon is a "dog-bites-man" story - not worth noting. Had they turned anti-green, or had the original Rockefeller who created all that wealth from oil turned against fossil fuels, THAT would be a "man-bites-dog" story worthy of a headline.

Re:Nothing new, the Rottenfellers have been

[Locando]

Just out of curiosity, what mechanism do you propose to keep people like the Rockefellers from attaining the unearned wealth that you do not feel they deserve? Or do you believe that they have the right to keep their money, even though they do not deserve it...?

Don't forget Chevron

[Anonymous Coward]

That too was a successor company from Standard Oil( Kentucky, purchased by Standard Oil of California ) and don't forget to look up their ownership of the NiMH patents. And especially how the EV-95 NiMH battery used in the short lived Toyota Rav4 EV went off.

Divest fast or keep it in the public and maybe others will finally get the hint and follow.

regardless of the true motive,

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear on the horizon
"Heck Ya!!!"

if the public outcry wont get them, perhaps the hands that feed them may be more effective.

for those caught in the middle.. I am sorry for your all, but your company is a not very honest..
I feel for whats about to come, but no one held guns to your heads and forced you stay on..

but then again, maybe someone did?

who knows.. but
for those with the 6fig salary, I have no compassion. I wish i could see u all squirm as the sales of your estates proceede to cover your overwhelming debt that we simply cannot endure..

Snoochie Boochie,
Baby

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche

[Tenebrousedge]

If you know enough to quote the original French (brioche is delicious btw) why did you bother attributing it to M. Antoinette?

Sane rationale

[Anonymous Coward]

"there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons,"

I'm sorry was there an energy breakthrough I had not heard about yet?

good for rocky, will not change exxon

[WindBourne]

Seriously, this is smart for Rockefeller's fund, because oil and coal will really plummet in another 5-10 years. Keep in mind that while EVs in 2 years are likely to destroy new ICE vehicle sales, current cars/trucks will be around for a LONG TIME. In addition, oil's greatest and best use was never for energy, but for chemistry. As such, it will never go to zero, but close.
Exxon's value is going to go way down, but oil use will simply continue a slow downward spiral to about 1/3-1/4 of current usage.

Re:good for rocky, will not change exxon

[goose-incarnated]

Keep in mind that while EVs in 2 years are likely to destroy new ICE vehicle sales,

No. They haven't even gotten the infrastructure in place yet, so... no. There are too many things still to fix to make that a reality; I'll just point out one.

At peak periods a single fuel station on a popular holiday route (to the coast) where I am sees roughly 2500 fill-ups per hour; this is in the middle of a 600km drive. If you take 60 mins to charge the car up (best-case scenario) you need parking bays for at least 2500 cars. Doable, but at many times the cost to the charging station owner who won't be making as much off electricity as he will off fuel. Even if the owner is willing to run at a smaller profit or at a loss, because, well... reasons... it's going to cost to supply the current required to quick-charge 2500 cars at one go. Standard electricity supply isn't going to cut it and an industrial (factory) municipal supply will be needed.

The nice thing about the dead-dino fuel is that it takes less than 5 mins to fill up, and then you can make way for the next car who needs to fill up. And, the typical driver would only spend that 5 mins maybe twice a month - say 10 mins a month, total, to make the car go. Spending a only minute a day to plug the electric car in takes more time than that; typically it takes more time than a minute a day to even find a charging spot.

So, no... electric cars aren't going to be more than a statistical blip in sales for at least 4 or 5 years until *after* the infrastructure has started building out. Saying "2 years" is asking for ponies and rainbows - it isn't going to happen.

Re:good for rocky, will not change exxon

[WindBourne]

You may wish to re-read what I wrote. I said that NEW ICE sales will be destroyed. That means that they will drop a great deal when Model 3 hits the market. That does not mean that it will stop all sales. Nor does it mean that everybody will instantly stop driving ICE vehicles.
However, I would be shocked if ICE sales are not down by 25% before end of 2018. In addition, by that time, all of the major car makers will be screaming bloody murder about how much sales are down and that they need new money from their govs to move to electric (though German car makers are currently being forced by their crimes combined with their gov forcing them).

And if you do not think that M3 will make a splash, then simply watch what happens in the next 10 days.

LENR

[xtal]

There's another theory on this..

sifferkoll.se has some compelling analysis of price moves as more information and more replications of various low energy nuclear reaction type technologies happen.

2016 will be an interesting year.

What ever happened to "News for Nerds?"

[mkoenecke]

I'm sure I will get modded down for saying this, but Slashdot has turned into "All About Climate Change - All The Time." I guess that's the passion of the moderators, but I am finding it very tedious. I am less and less inclined to view Slashdot these days, but then again, I expect that's the idea: to change the participating group to those passionate about climate change and environmental activism, versus those who really like technology. Ah well.

Re:What ever happened to "News for Nerds?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mind mdsolar. He's just a shill for Big Green and the fraud that they are perpetrating on the public by vastly exaggerating renewable energy's utility. He probably doesn't realize it, but he's an advocate for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. Actually for making almost everybody poorer except for the rich. He's kind of dense that way.

Some Data

[Roger W Moore]

It's too hard to install an electrical plug?!

It is if you want to install one which can charge your car rapidly. This is not just your standard wall socket and if you only plug it into a standard wall socket it you get 46km range per hour from Tesla's own figures (so that might be on the optimistic side) so if you ever forget to plug it in you will be 1-2 hours late for work. Even then the 240V socket only doubles the recharge rate.

The comparison of petrol stations to charging spots is also highly disingenuous. For a start a single petrol station has multiple pumps, typically 8-12, so you would need an order of magnitude more charging stations than petrol stations assuming the charging stations are for one car at a time. Then there is the time requirement. A typical tank of petrol will let a vehicle drive ~7-800km. So since most public stations only support the slow recharge rate (again a claim from Tesla's own website) what takes me ~5 minutes at a petrol station will take me 15 hours (=700/46) at a public charging station. Hence if each petrol station has 10 pumps then you need approximately 1,000 charging stations to be able to provide the same number of kilometres of range in the same amount of time.

Electric cars are the way of the future but there are still significant hurdles to overcome before they are ready for mainstream use. The most likely use-case at the moment is for a run-about-town vehicle but for that to happen the cost needs to drop to the ~$20-25k range. I doubt the next generation of "affordable" vehicles will be that cheap...but if they are I may be getting one!

Of course they do! Just Like the Rothschilds'

[Anonymous Coward]

The Rockerfellers' want to join up with the Rothschilds' so they can tax your carbon footprint

Thats right, the Rothschilds and people like the Rockefeller know its far more profitable to tax someones carbon footprint. Imagine being able to tax a perfectly healthy natural gas human beings expel? You could make a far bigger fortune than on oil.

I also suggest you do some serious independent investigative journalism into how evil David Rockerfeller is. Once you realize this, you'll realize the alternative , far more profitable agenda.

Don't know much about history.

[westlake]

Consideringit was Standard Oil who equipped the Nazi war machine with their ability to turn coal into oil... yeah.

The geek takes hold of a meme and can't let it go.

Direct conversion of coal to synthetic fuel was originally developed in Germany. The Bergius process was developed by Friedrich Bergius, yielding a patent in 1913. After World War I several plants were built in Germany; these plants were extensively used during World War II to supply Germany with fuel and lubricants.

Indirect coal conversion (where coal is gasified and then converted to synthetic fuels) was developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923.

During World War II, Germany used synthetic oil manufacturing to produce substitute (Ersatz) oil products by using the Bergius process (from coal), the Fischer --- Tropsch process (water gas), and other methods.

Synthetic fuel

The US Bureau of Mines first studied the extraction of oil from oil shale between 1925 and 1928.

Between 1928 and 1944, the Bureau experimented with coal liquefaction by hydrogenation using the Bergius process. A small-scale test unit constructed in 1937 had a 100-pound per day continuous coal feed.

Between 1945 and 1948, new laboratories were constructed near Pittsburgh. A synthetic ammonia plant Louisiana, Missouri (Missouri Ordnance Works) was transferred from the Army to the program in 1945. The plant was converted into a coal hydrogenation test facility. By 1949 the plant could produce 200 barrels (32 m3) of oil a day using the Bergius process.

Part of the personnel were German scientists, who had been extracted from Germany by Operation Paperclip.

Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program

Just one fund, not the foundation

[hlee]

Rockefeller family is big - note that only RFF made that announcement, not jointly with all their other funds or the foundation. It is still a grand gesture, and clearly makes a strong political statement, but I doubt the monetary impact is anywhere close to the Rockefeller foundation.
The Rockefeller Foundation - Founded in 1913, this is the famous philanthropic organization set up by Senior and Junior. Endowment of 3.4 billion.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund - Founded in 1940 by the third-generation's five sons and one daughter of Junior. Endowment of 811 million.
The Rockefeller Family Fund - Founded in 1967 by members of the family's fourth-generation. Endowment ?

Scientific fraud

[mdsolar]

News for nerds because the action is motivated by Exxon's role in perpetrating a fraud on the public by undermining climate science it knew to be correct.

Well, not being a Marxist...

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally have no problem with people passing on what they earned to their kids...

However, that does NOT mean I have to switch off my brain and not notice that hereditary wealth, particularly at 3rd generation and beyond, TENDS (does not ALWAYS, but mostly) to lead to utter foolishness and stupidity - something centuries of European royals have made abundantly clear.

At most, IF I were to concede that some mechanism were needed to "solve" this "problem" (a point I would NOT, given that I see government people as no better then non-government people) I would suggest that tax policy should favor a person who legitimately EARNS money, and even favor him/her passing it on to his/her kids..... BUT perhaps no tax benefits to THAT money being passed-through to later generations (with some minimum threshold to minimize the accounting burdens for the upper-middle class and middle class while dealing with the uber-rich). Again, I was NOT actually proposing taking the money away from the members of a family several generations removed from the last productive member.... just observing that there is nothing of news value in spoiled rich kids with a guild complex going a bit loopy.

Old News - bubble ready to burst

[Anonymous Coward]

This is something that is readily known for a while - and the Rockefeller's action just confirms that we are reaching the point of the burst of the oil bubble...
http://www.carbontracker.org/report/unburnable-carbon-wasted-capital-and-stranded-assets/

I am not looking forward to the 'interesting' times this is going to induce.

Dumping oil to cause climate change?

[Z80a]

This title sounds like if rockfeller funding is purposefully dumping oil at the sea or similar to cause a climate change that hits exxon mobil.

Rockefeller Fund Dumping Fossil Fuels

[robi5]

Then they should certainly clean it up!

Reserves [Re:buy oil]

[Geoffrey.landis]

With no new exploration, oil production would eventually decline... but not "within 2-3 years, 5 years tops". It currently takes typically ten years to go from discovery to production! Oil exploration now won't have any effect whatsoever for ten years (although if the incentive were high, it could be shorter).
In any case, proved reserves (the oil that we already know is there, no exploration needed) are currently estimated at 1656 billion barrels, while world usage is 96 billion barrels per year. So with no new oil fields developed at all, it would take 17 years for production to stop.

data:
Reserves: https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipd...
world consumption: https://www.iea.org/aboutus/fa...

Incompatible with Human life [Re:Fiduciary sense?

[Geoffrey.landis]

Your numbers are low. However, the more egregious statement I'll take exception to is this one:

We have no evidence that a planet 8c warmer than it is now would be incompatible with human life.

No, 8 degrees C is not "incompatible with human life"!!

That's a strawman argument. Eight degrees C of warming would be a catastrophe in pretty much every way-- people are currently arguing about how bad two degrees of warming would be-- but if you are hearing people say that it would be "incompatible with human life," figure out who those people are and stop listening to them.

Mature technology?

[DarthVain]

Well yes it is a mature technology. If you are a warship. If you are an American or Russian warship. With the one exception being Russian Icebreakers.

Also if you have MASSIVE amounts of money. Compare relative costs of either, and who can afford to build them (i.e. Russia and America).

Also if you want some Somali pirates to obtain nuclear material to sell on the black market (though probably irradiating themselves in the process). Unless of course you start providing them all with escorts, and weapon systems.

The one exception being Russian Icebreakers again. However 1) There are no pirates (Ice Pirates?) that I am aware of in the arctic, it isn't like seals or polar bears are much of a threat, and 2) They are Russian, and they probably are armed. Personally I think Canada should have ordered some Russian Icebreakers in the recent past, they are quite awesome.

Anyway, on the surface it might make sense to use nuclear freighters, but it really isn't all that feasible realistically. For large scale shipping no one is getting away from diesel anytime soon.