$50 Billion Divestiture From Fossil Fuel

[duff beer]

Originally Posted by Teleman52

I think the rockefellers are being honest here, it's both a moral move and an economic move.

Most likely contrary to what people here think, I actually do think a lot of good comes out of the climate scare. If we can start running the world off of renewable energy because a bunch of people got together for a cause, I'm all for it. We're eventually going to need to move to renewable energy anyway, might as well figure it all out now

People have been trying to figure it out for decades and there are plenty of alternative energy sources...the problem is that none of them are as efficient, portable, and cost effective as oil and natural gas. It's not like no one is trying, or that Big Oil has managed to supress new technologies, the fact simply is that nature has created an almost perfect source of energy that science can't duplicate with today's technology.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by duff beer

People have been trying to figure it out for decades and there are plenty of alternative energy sources...the problem is that none of them are as efficient, portable, and cost effective as oil and natural gas. It's not like no one is trying, or that Big Oil has managed to supress new technologies, the fact simply is that nature has created an almost perfect source of energy that science can't duplicate with today's technology.

"perfect"....

[seannx]

Originally Posted by buddyhu

"perfect"....

Natural gas is better than oil or coal, but none of them are perfect sources of energy. They are limited in quantity, have negative effects on the environment, and are not renewable. More perfect would be an economical, renewal source without a negative effect on the environment.

[mjz]

My thoughts on the sector being a poor investment have little to do with the free market concept of supply and demand.

I believe -- for whatever the reasons (global warming or clean air concerns) -- the public is beginning to understand the true cost of fossil fuels on society. Wars, impacts from fracking, unhealthy air, possible greenhouse gases affecting global climate change... I'm thinking all of this public sector pressure on the market will continue to drive prices up and move us away from fossil fuels. A carbon tax, environmental impact taxes, added taxes at the pump are likely in our near future. At the same time pressure is mounting to stop the subsidies for fossil fuel companies and move these subsidies to new energy research and delivery.

Investing in the infrastructure to procure and process fossil fuels may not be a very good bet if the change comes quickly. And I think some signs are beginning to point to radical change.

max

[Teleman52]

Originally Posted by mjz

My thoughts on the sector being a poor investment have little to do with the free market concept of supply and demand.

I believe -- for whatever the reasons (global warming or clean air concerns) -- the public is beginning to understand the true cost of fossil fuels on society. Wars, impacts from fracking, unhealthy air, possible greenhouse gases affecting global climate change... I'm thinking all of this public sector pressure on the market will continue to drive prices up and move us away from fossil fuels. A carbon tax, environmental impact taxes, added taxes at the pump are likely in our near future. At the same time pressure is mounting to stop the subsidies for fossil fuel companies and move these subsidies to new energy research and delivery.

Investing in the infrastructure to procure and process fossil fuels may not be a very good bet if the change comes quickly. And I think some signs are beginning to point to radical change.

max

Very well put, yes this goes a little beyond supply and demand. It's really something that hasn't happened before. I think pretty much everyone can agree that this industry is doomed sooner or later.

[duff beer]

Originally Posted by buddyhu

"perfect"....

No, almost perfect. Every energy source has its faults. For example, a single wind turbine requires 103 tonnes of stainless steel, 402 tonnes of concrete, 6.8 tonnes of fiberglass, 3 tonnes of copper and 20 tonnes of cast iron:

http://theenergycollective.com/rober...t-fossil-fuels

It takes 770 kilograms of coal to make a single tonne of steel.

Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and generates nearly a ton of CO2. About 10% of concrete is made up of cement.

[Basalt Beach]

Originally Posted by duff beer

No, almost perfect. Every energy source has its faults. For example, a single wind turbine requires 103 tonnes of stainless steel, 402 tonnes of concrete, 6.8 tonnes of fiberglass, 3 tonnes of copper and 20 tonnes of cast iron:

http://theenergycollective.com/rober...t-fossil-fuels

It takes 770 kilograms of coal to make a single tonne of steel.

Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and generates nearly a ton of CO2. About 10% of concrete is made up of cement.

aren't cement and steel used to build power plants too? both coal and gas powered?

[HHP]

Most green schemes save the planet in the same way that a hunting ban protects unicorns.

[RedJoker]

Originally Posted by HHP

Most green schemes save the planet in the same way that a hunting ban protects unicorns.

Ha! Though I don't totally agree with your statement (I would change the word "most" to "some"), that made me laugh.

[mjz]

Lots of old thinking here.

From the World Association of Steel as part of their efforts for the market to think about steel as part of a green sustainable energy model.

• Over 20 years, a 3 MW wind turbine can deliver 80 times more energy than was used in its production and maintenance.

• And at the end of its life the wind turbine can be re-manufactured for reuse, extending the useful life of the turbine, and eventually recycled. Steel is 100% recyclable without loss of properties.

• They claim that wind could provide a quarter of the world’s electricity by 2050.

I'm not sure why some folks hop on the negative right away when it comes to green energy.

Most green schemes save the planet in the same way that a hunting ban protects unicorns.

There's no substance there. No information. No justification as to why..... Just a proclamation.

Yet just look at the example of wind here. Wind turbines massively outproduce their energy needs over their lifespan and have the potential to power 25% of the world's energy needs in 35 years.

Some scheme.

max

[duff beer]

Max: No one is really against clean and sustainable power, but a lot of people are against massive subsidies, hidden costs, and exemptions from environmental standards that all other industries must comply with. Taxing carbon will have zero effect on the world's climate, but will have a massive effect on the economy.

If the government can put measures in place to "control" CO2, then they can control/tax virtually everything that moves. CO2 is not a pollutant, in fact, it essential for life on Earth to exist. The CO2 currently in the atmosphere is far, far less than it used to be in the past and life on the planet flourished.

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.c...n-perspective/

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.c...nhouse-effect/

[seannx]

"No one is really against clean and sustainable power, but a lot of people are against massive subsidies, hidden costs, and exemptions from environmental standards that all other industries must comply with."

The above holds true when applied to companies and programs on both sides of the issue. For example there are hidden costs, subsidies, and exemptions from environmental standards in the fossil fuel industries as well. IMO, it would be interesting to calculate the per barrel of oil cost in money and lives from our efforts to protect and provide security for US companies operating there. Not for political purposes, but to reveal a bigger picture of the true costs of doing business in that part of the world.

[Tyeetime]

This dollar amount and the source of it illustrates how important alternate energy research is becoming. We are experiencing the beginning of the turning point, much like the late 1800's.

Something to consider; The millennial generation is a larger generation than the baby boomers, soon they will be calling all the shots. And they have lived their entire lives where environmental issues (among other things) have been at the forefront of conversation. Make no mistake, the landscape is going to change a lot in the next few decades. And I think it is going to be good. We (baby boomers) had our go, but times and priorities change. As they always have, and always will.

[mjz]

Originally Posted by duff beer

Max: No one is really against clean and sustainable power, but a lot of people are against massive subsidies, hidden costs, and exemptions from environmental standards that all other industries must comply with. Taxing carbon will have zero effect on the world's climate, but will have a massive effect on the economy.

If the government can put measures in place to "control" CO2, then they can control/tax virtually everything that moves. CO2 is not a pollutant, in fact, it essential for life on Earth to exist. The CO2 currently in the atmosphere is far, far less than it used to be in the past and life on the planet flourished.

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.c...n-perspective/

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.c...nhouse-effect/

The government is We The People. So what you mean is when your friends and neighbors tax CO2 you disagree with them. And that's your right. But let's not wash away the fact that an ever growing number of people -- a majority -- or soon to be -- are beginning to realize the true cost of the energy source. A carbon tax aims to devalue the source so the market develops new sources. This is change. And I suspect that's what most people do not like.

I remember the same argument about trying to control acid rain It will have no affect and hurt the economy. The SO2 Cap and Trade was signed into law in 1990. Here we are more than a generation later and there is no gloom and doom -- just cleaner air.


max

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by mjz

The government is We The People. So what you mean is when your friends and neighbors tax CO2 you disagree with them. And that's your right. But let's not wash away the fact that an ever growing number of people -- a majority -- or soon to be -- are beginning to realize the true cost of the energy source. A carbon tax aims to devalue the source so the market develops new sources. This is change. And I suspect that's what most people do not like.

I remember the same argument about trying to control acid rain It will have no affect and hurt the economy. The SO2 Cap and Trade was signed into law in 1990. Here we are more than a generation later and there is no gloom and doom -- just cleaner air.


max

Good to read your words, Max.

I know that it is axiomatic that some (many?) respond to any movement in the realms of the environment or energy policy with, "it won't work, and even if it could work we can't afford it". Yet the past decades have revealed that proposed interventions often work very well, and the costs are usually less than projected and have always proved manageable.

This is a bit of a sidetrack: I was in a hardware store in Massachusetts recently, and the guy behind the counter was ranting about the gradual elimination of incandescent bulbs, and from there he continued to rant about low flow toilets and having to flush twice on some occasions (he made it sound like it was ALWAYS necessary), and the evils of "the government" intruding into his life that way. I left shaking my head, amazed that someone would be so unwilling to endure even a minor inconvenience to preserve such a precious resource as fresh water (those who have lived in California are perhaps more alert to how precious water is, and how this becomes prominent in consciousness during times of drought).