ABC: Exxon spends 1 percent of profits on alternative energy.

[ChrisFromNJ]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/abc-exxon-spends-1-percent-of-profits-on-alternative-energy/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSaUztwF93Y

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yet another good reason for a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

[MODU]

Why?  It's not Exxon's job to develop future tech.  The fact that they spent a billion dollars on alternative energy this year should be praised, not punished.  Just because the Congress can't act means that they should punish those that do.

[2952-0-0]

Why?  It's not Exxon's job to develop future tech.  The fact that they spent a billion dollars on alternative energy this year should be praised, not punished.  Just because the Congress can't act means that they should punish those that do.

It's okay. They're spending their profits on buying back stock so once the sh!t hits the fan they'll be fine.

[jokerman]

Why?  It's not Exxon's job to develop future tech.  The fact that they spent a billion dollars on alternative energy this year should be praised, not punished.  Just because the Congress can't act means that they should punish those that do.

That's 100 million, not a billion.

[MODU]

Why?  It's not Exxon's job to develop future tech.  The fact that they spent a billion dollars on alternative energy this year should be praised, not punished.  Just because the Congress can't act means that they should punish those that do.

That's 100 million, not a billion.

hahaha . . . sorry, I misread the profit figure.  You're right.  Still, that's more than many others are spending.

[Bono]

So, why should an oil company spend money in its competitors' business?

[2952-0-0]

So, why should an oil company spend money in its competitors' business?

To not go the way of GM or Chrysler, maybe?

[MODU]

So, why should an oil company spend money in its competitors' business?

To not go the way of GM or Chrysler, maybe?

Oil will be in demand for decades (oil is used in so many things), and it doesn't require to be retooled constantly like a car.

[War on Want]

So, why should an oil company spend money in its competitors' business?

To not go the way of GM or Chrysler, maybe?

Oil will be in demand for decades (oil is used in so many things), and it doesn't require to be retooled constantly like a car.

MODU you do know we are running out of oil at alarming rates and that most of it that is left is shale oil, which means you have to spend 2 barrels of oil to get it out, and get 3 out of it compared to the 1:20 ration in most other oil fields. So pretty much all oil companies are screwed and they know this but they will still tout that there is much oil left or there would be a big investor shift from them.

[King]

Oil companies have no reason to switch to alternative energy production.  Even if the gasoline market dries up, they'll still have plenty of money to make in the diesel and natural gas industry.

Plus, I'm sure if something like electric or hydrogen powered vehicles become popular that there will be plenty of revenue left over from oil for ExxonMobil to just buyout a hydrogen or lithium battery company and join that market.

[War on Want]

Oil companies have no reason to switch to alternative energy production.  Even if the gasoline market dries up, they'll still have plenty of money to make in the diesel and natural gas industry.

Plus, I'm sure if something like electric or hydrogen powered vehicles become popular that there will be plenty of revenue left over from oil for ExxonMobil to just buyout a hydrogen or lithium battery company and join that market.

Natural gas is also running out in alarming rates so that is a fail too. Oil companies have every interest to start switching now but really MODU is right in some aspects that it is more of the government's fault because I do agree it is not the oil companies' job to invest in alternate energy but it would be smart if they did.

[dead0man]

Yes, it's a great idea to have the govt tell businesses what to spend their money on.  It's worked so well in the past.

[Verily]

Oil companies have no reason to switch to alternative energy production.  Even if the gasoline market dries up, they'll still have plenty of money to make in the diesel and natural gas industry.

Plus, I'm sure if something like electric or hydrogen powered vehicles become popular that there will be plenty of revenue left over from oil for ExxonMobil to just buyout a hydrogen or lithium battery company and join that market.

Which is, of course, the whole problem: The realities of the market clash with the realities of, well, reality. The market continues to provide pressure for more oil production and for investment in oil (and natural gas and diesel and whatnot) over alternative fuels. But that doesn't mean that these are the correct solution. The real question is how to make the market align with reality; by the time the market comes around naturally, things will be a lot further into crisis than they are right now.

[MODU]

MODU you do know we are running out of oil at alarming rates and that most of it that is left is shale oil, which means you have to spend 2 barrels of oil to get it out, and get 3 out of it compared to the 1:20 ration in most other oil fields. So pretty much all oil companies are screwed and they know this but they will still tout that there is much oil left or there would be a big investor shift from them.

Easily accessible oil will not be running out any time soon, especially if the government gets their act together and starts getting more nuke plants online.  No one here is advocating an "oil only" future, which would be the only way for oil to run out "at alarming rates." 

[War on Want]

MODU you do know we are running out of oil at alarming rates and that most of it that is left is shale oil, which means you have to spend 2 barrels of oil to get it out, and get 3 out of it compared to the 1:20 ration in most other oil fields. So pretty much all oil companies are screwed and they know this but they will still tout that there is much oil left or there would be a big investor shift from them.

Easily accessible oil will not be running out any time soon, especially if the government gets their act together and starts getting more nuke plants online.  No one here is advocating an "oil only" future, which would be the only way for oil to run out "at alarming rates." 

Facts, Data etc. Besides you do know that nuclear power still does not fix the problem of our transportation industry and the fact that there is increasing global demand. Also there are very few new places to drill, really only ANWR, a few offshore drilling sites and a few areas in ND and MT.

[??????????]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, and the worldwide taxes that were paid by Exxon was $32.3 Billion. Don't tell me that oil companies make to much damn money.

[MODU]

Facts, Data etc. Besides you do know that nuclear power still does not fix the problem of our transportation industry and the fact that there is increasing global demand. Also there are very few new places to drill, really only ANWR, a few offshore drilling sites and a few areas in ND and MT.

You have roughly 60 years of easily accessible domestic oil supply (both onshore and off the coast) at the current usage rate.  You have another 80 years of natural gas.  This does not include the shale oil which can be harvested like coal for consumption (it does not have to be liquified and extracted as Shell was attempting).  There's your data.

As far as nuclear power and transportation, if you are ever going to get off of gas to power vehicles, you are left with either electrical cars (which currently run off of electricity provided through burining oil and natural gas) or hydrogen.  While Hydrogen will be the gas/oil of the future, current electrical cars can run off of power provided by nuclear power.  AND, converting a car to be electric is cheaper and easier than converting one to run on hydrogen, so if someone cannot afford to go out and buy a new electric car outright, they can convert their current vehicle.  This would reduce roughly 10% of our oil consumption in 10 years (since it will take time to get more nuke plants up and running), and probably 30% in 20 years when people start buying new vehicles (typicaly life cycle of a car is 10 years).

Anything else you need to know?

[opebo]

As far as nuclear power and transportation, if you are ever going to get off of gas to power vehicles, you are left with either electrical cars (which currently run off of electricity provided through burining oil and natural gas)

Actually no, over half of american electricity is generated by the burning of coal.   

[MODU]

As far as nuclear power and transportation, if you are ever going to get off of gas to power vehicles, you are left with either electrical cars (which currently run off of electricity provided through burining oil and natural gas)

Actually no, over half of american electricity is generated by the burning of coal.   

... and trash, solar, wind, and nuclear.  I was highlighting how oil and natural gas is used in part to create electricity.  I didn't say "... through ONLY burning oil and natural gas." 

[2952-0-0]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope you know that only a fraction of a field's oil will be tapped due to the inherent costs of drilling.

Therefore it's purely academic to say "we have X years of oil reserves".

You may also need to consider the fact that since the 1960s the new oil discoveries have been declining year after year, despite massive advances in exploration technology.

You may also need to consider that King Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak in 1970, and was laughed at when he said it in the 1950s.

Turns out he was right. He also predicted that world oil production will peak in the early 21st century.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where does H2 come from? Electricity, perhaps?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So demand on the grid will soar, even when power generators are priced out of using oil for power. Our current grid is still incredibly fragile as it is.

What happens to power rates and availability?

[MODU]

I am well versed on the oil industry, exnaderite.  I'm discussing accessible oil, not total potential.  Hello!?!?!  "MODU" stands for Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit . . . aka the ships that go out and do the exploring for oil and extraction.  Want to see a picture of one?  Here you go.

Here's a platform similar to traditional stationary rigs (typically used for extraction):



This variant is more for the exploration process:



I can write a lengthy post regarding offshore drilling and oil repositories similar to the one I did regarding port security 4 years ago if you like.

As far as hydrogen goes, as I've discussed numerous times on here in the past, there are practical ways to generate and recover free hydrogen ions within each cities waste water recycling plants.  Instead of infusing oxygen into the slurry to create water which is screened off and placed back into the water supply, you can inject a small electrical current (a solar panel provides enough power for the process) to release the hydrogen that would typically bond with the oxygen.  Collecting the hydrogen and transporting it locally is far more practical than having a remote processing plants.  Also, there is a process currently in testing phase to simply use a bank of solar panels and the process of reverse ossmosis to break the bonds of water to release hydrogen and oxygen for collection.  We currently use natural gas since it is a commercially viable process, but new technology and thinking is opening the doors to the new fuel economy.

Yes, our electrical grid needs updating, which (shockingly) can be done at the same time as nuclear power plants are being built.  Yes, I know . . . I was stunned too when I found out that we can do more than one thing at a time.  Scary isn't it?

And what about rates?  You address that with more power supply by building the nuke plants.  I don't see what you are questioning there.  More supply to meet demand means rates stay level.  Basic microeconomics.

[dead0man]

Hydrogen will never be our major source of energy for transportation.  It's much to inefficient.  Pure electricity should be our goal.

[2952-0-0]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not just cut out the middleman and plug the solar panel into the gird?

You know, Second Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

An MIT scientist has just found a simple way to exploit solar energy, which goes off a tangent to your idea:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure. What's the EROI? If it's not positive it's not happening. Especially if it ends up as a green facade to business-as-usual, like corn ethanol.

But it's all okay, since we can always depend on rainbows and fairies to sustain an energy-intensive lifestyle.

You still haven't answered my question: why has the total amount of new oil discoveries declined since the late 1960s even with massive advances in technology? Isn't it a bit obvious what this will mean?

What about the high seas? No doubt there are massive reserves under the high seas, but who will administer them? No one is eager to give the UN or someone control over them, so they won't be explored before fossil fuels are on the way out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nukes are at best a bridge to something else, since uranium deposits will peak sooner than anyone may realize. And a global rush to nukes will...you know...deplete supply even sooner. Fine, you could tap into Thorium, but that's not infinite either.

Cold Fusion will only be here by the time I'm your age.

Not to mention uranium can still be a reason for conflict. In the 1970s the French military sent air support (without white flags) to assist someone's coup in Central Africa all in exchange for a free flow of uranium.

[MODU]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not just cut out the middleman and plug the solar panel into the gird?

You know, Second Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

That would be a waste of energy potential, since the potential for power from the hydrogen extracted is less than that of what is being provided from the solar panel.  As far as the Second Law goes, all you are doing is breaking the weak bond within the sewage, which does not translate to the power potential from a hydrogen fuel cell.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, there are many exporations into this field.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure. What's the EROI? If it's not positive it's not happening. Especially if it ends up as a green facade to business-as-usual, like corn ethanol.

But it's all okay, since we can always depend on rainbows and fairies to sustain an energy-intensive lifestyle.[/quote]

Considering that this is a piggyback service (referring to the sewage treatment process), there is low start-up costs associated with modifying the existing sewage treatment plant.  And since you are not having to buy the raw resource, the potential for the return on investment is high.  No fairies required.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There hasn't been many explorations into the protected waters since the law was in effect, and before then, there was an ample supply of land-based oil which was already identified.  Remember, it was just 3 decades ago where WE were the equivalent to the Middle East of today because it was easy to gain leases for production back then.  Today it is more difficult and the leases are limited.  As far as the high seas go, that is up to how the UN's International Laws on Resources wish to administer the fields.  There are currently a few rigs operating in international waters in the North Atlantic, and there are currently hearings underway discussing the latest land grabs by Russia and Canada in the Artic Circle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nukes are at best a bridge to something else, since uranium deposits will peak sooner than anyone may realize. And a global rush to nukes will...you know...deplete supply even sooner. Fine, you could tap into Thorium, but that's not infinite either.[/quote]

True, but as France has demonstrated, the recycling potential of spent fuel rods can lead to an 85% reuse rate, meaning the life of the raw resource can be extended.  Nuclear power is a near-term solution, meaning it will probably last as a main source for about 50 years.  At our current technological advancement rate, there will be new sources which we are just now barely considering let alone experimenting with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That being one of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The risk of conflict will always exist over raw resources that have to be extracted.

[2952-0-0]

That would be a waste of energy potential, since the potential for power from the hydrogen extracted is less than that of what is being provided from the solar panel.  As far as the Second Law goes, all you are doing is breaking the weak bond within the sewage, which does not translate to the power potential from a hydrogen fuel cell.

Whether this can provide more than a minuscule percentage of energy demand is another matter. Whether *all* existing technologies can replace the fossil fuels as fast as they're declining is another one. Everything points in the negative direction given the world's reliance on oil.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe there are far fewer oil fields *worth* leasing.

And don't blame red tape for the fact that oil production has been declining in the North Sea, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Indonesia (which is a net importer of oil despite being in OPEC), Iran (which will become a net importer within 10 years), and a gaggle of other places. Or the fact that *demand* has been soaring globally so much that the Arab states are restricting exports for their own rising usage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we can agree that no one is willing to submit to UN authority on the areas outside an EEZ (maybe I made a bad distinction here).

But since you're 100 times more knowledgeable in this area than I'll ever be, where are those rigs?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that Nuclear power supplies about 7% of global energy sources, and given that global oil output will peak around 2010 with coal and gas peaking around 2025, and that combined fossil fuels currently produce 90% of total energy sources, you'll need the grandmother of crash courses to completely rebuild the entire world's infrastructure and just sustain energy output.

Once thing's for certain: we won't have a gradual and easy transition and there will definitely be a large fall in living standards before things get better. If we wanted an easy transition we should have continued what Jimmy Carter started before Asia and Latin America started industrializing. A bonus: the Saudis would be living off other countries' generous donations. In 30 years everyone will be too busy to give them food stamps.

But at least the problem of global warming will no longer be relevant.