Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Shell
From The Times
March 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.
He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.
Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”
A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.
Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Oil and gas ARE the future. Shell is just smarter then most to recognize the facts. Facts: global warming is a myth check the data no warming since '98, Fact: China/India are the growth engines of the future as the west fights myths and stupidity. China/India will run on fossil fuel.
Dan, Boise Idaho , USA.
They should be developing methods for separating hydrogen out cheaply and efficiently, so that the next generation of hydrogen fuel cell cars can be developed. Of course that won't happen until all the oil has run out and they are forced to go into this market.
Chris, Adelaide.
If the green power is so great why does Green Peace not invest time and resources. I am sure lots of supporters could be called upon to help with technical issues and suggest ways forward. If 1000 scientists get together on a project and have some financial backing then these projects should work.
joe, edinburgh, scotland.
Only way to get companies investing in "clean energy" is to offer govenment incentives. Easy choice if I was PM - tax oil companies HEAVILY, and provide tax breaks/incentives for the "green coys". Let market forces take over - I can't believe that a litre of petrol costs less than bottled water!
Dan Carroll, Brisbane, Oz.
The real problem is that there are no green energy solutions that are anywhere near commercially competitive. If governments want companies to invest in improving the technology they're going to have to make it worth their while. Green energy development will need tax driven support.
patrick, London,
The programmes for investigating renewable energy are expensive and produce low power output considering the expense. In addition, there is little world market for using them, except for western governments to postulate their green credentials. Wise choice from Shell. US Exxon wouldn't even bother.
Peter, Twickenham.
The problem is liquid fuels. Shell is making the right investment choice in this financial climate.
Ben Saunders, London, UK.
March 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor
Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
“I don't expect them to grow much at Shell from here, due to portfolio fit and the returns outlook compared to other opportunities,” he said, speaking at the Anglo-Dutch group's annual strategy briefing.
He said that instead Shell would focus its remaining renewable energy investments on biofuels, where it is conducting research into “second generation” fuels, so far with little commercial success.
Linda Cook, who heads Shell's gas and power business, said that wind and solar power “struggle to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio”.
The announcement, which comes as Shell is fighting to maintain its commitments on dividends (which it will increase by 5 per cent this year) and its core oil and gas business in the face of a more than $100 slide in the price of crude since last summer, triggered a furious response from green groups.
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said that Shell had “rejoined the ranks of the dirtiest, most regressive corporations in the world ... After years of proclaiming their commitment to clean power, they're now pulling out of the technologies we need to see scaled up if we're to slash emissions.”
A spokesman for the Department for Energy and Climate Change said: “We believe renewables have a strong future as part of the UK and global energy mix in the fight against climate change.”
Shell has invested $1.7billion on alternative energy in the past five years, compared with total capital expenditure of $32billion this year. It holds stakes in 11 wind power projects, mostly in the United States, with the capacity to generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity. It also operates research programmes into thin-film solar and hydrogen technology.
Shell also said that it will maintain its spending on carbon capture and storage projects in Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Australia and America - most of which also receive state support.
Oil and gas ARE the future. Shell is just smarter then most to recognize the facts. Facts: global warming is a myth check the data no warming since '98, Fact: China/India are the growth engines of the future as the west fights myths and stupidity. China/India will run on fossil fuel.
Dan, Boise Idaho , USA.
They should be developing methods for separating hydrogen out cheaply and efficiently, so that the next generation of hydrogen fuel cell cars can be developed. Of course that won't happen until all the oil has run out and they are forced to go into this market.
Chris, Adelaide.
If the green power is so great why does Green Peace not invest time and resources. I am sure lots of supporters could be called upon to help with technical issues and suggest ways forward. If 1000 scientists get together on a project and have some financial backing then these projects should work.
joe, edinburgh, scotland.
Only way to get companies investing in "clean energy" is to offer govenment incentives. Easy choice if I was PM - tax oil companies HEAVILY, and provide tax breaks/incentives for the "green coys". Let market forces take over - I can't believe that a litre of petrol costs less than bottled water!
Dan Carroll, Brisbane, Oz.
The real problem is that there are no green energy solutions that are anywhere near commercially competitive. If governments want companies to invest in improving the technology they're going to have to make it worth their while. Green energy development will need tax driven support.
patrick, London,
The programmes for investigating renewable energy are expensive and produce low power output considering the expense. In addition, there is little world market for using them, except for western governments to postulate their green credentials. Wise choice from Shell. US Exxon wouldn't even bother.
Peter, Twickenham.
The problem is liquid fuels. Shell is making the right investment choice in this financial climate.
Ben Saunders, London, UK.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
An Inconvenient Truth
There were several plus points about the film, viz:
(1) The graphics, in general, were excellent, e.g.
(a) fitting the east coast of S. Amerca onto the west coast of Africa;
(b) cartoon of Mr Sunbeam & greenhouse gases;
(c) graphics of Lake Chad & stranded ships in Aral Sea;
(d) pictures of Kilimanjaro & various glaciers around the world very powerful;
(e) graphs showing 1,000 years of CO2/global warming & 650,000 years of CO2 &
temperature very telling,
(f) dramatic use of Gore’s contraption;
(g) graphics of possible effects of rising sea levels on Florida, San Francisco, Beijing,
Shanghai, Calcutta/Bangladesh, Manhattan very dramatic.
(2) The emphasis on hard data was most impressive, e.g.
(a) Roger Revelle’s insistence on hard data re. the 1st measurements of CO2 in the
atmosphere;
(b) Statistics on coal mining in China.
(3) The film was well photographed, directed & presented. Good use of humour to emphasise
points.
(4) The final analysis of the causes of global warming was clear. According to Gore, the problem
is due to:
(a) population growth – 2bn to 9bn in one lifetime;
(b) technology – in many ways wonderful, e.g. medical advances, but now so powerful that it’s
become a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environment
issue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of the
presidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of these
episodes was used to highlight the greater long-term significance of global events.
(6) The film had a positive ending, with examples of how exactly we can get back to below the
level of 1970s emissions.
Postscript: it is interesting that Gore, a politician, mentions at least twice, and particularly when he talks about his personal setbacks, that the problem we face is a moral, not a political, issue. Yet his final message is that what is lacking, and what is most needed, is political will, without which the problems associated with climate change & global warming cannot be solved.
(1) The graphics, in general, were excellent, e.g.
(a) fitting the east coast of S. Amerca onto the west coast of Africa;
(b) cartoon of Mr Sunbeam & greenhouse gases;
(c) graphics of Lake Chad & stranded ships in Aral Sea;
(d) pictures of Kilimanjaro & various glaciers around the world very powerful;
(e) graphs showing 1,000 years of CO2/global warming & 650,000 years of CO2 &
temperature very telling,
(f) dramatic use of Gore’s contraption;
(g) graphics of possible effects of rising sea levels on Florida, San Francisco, Beijing,
Shanghai, Calcutta/Bangladesh, Manhattan very dramatic.
(2) The emphasis on hard data was most impressive, e.g.
(a) Roger Revelle’s insistence on hard data re. the 1st measurements of CO2 in the
atmosphere;
(b) Statistics on coal mining in China.
(3) The film was well photographed, directed & presented. Good use of humour to emphasise
points.
(4) The final analysis of the causes of global warming was clear. According to Gore, the problem
is due to:
(a) population growth – 2bn to 9bn in one lifetime;
(b) technology – in many ways wonderful, e.g. medical advances, but now so powerful that it’s
become a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environment
issue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of the
presidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of these
episodes was used to highlight the greater long-term significance of global events.
(6) The film had a positive ending, with examples of how exactly we can get back to below the
level of 1970s emissions.
Postscript: it is interesting that Gore, a politician, mentions at least twice, and particularly when he talks about his personal setbacks, that the problem we face is a moral, not a political, issue. Yet his final message is that what is lacking, and what is most needed, is political will, without which the problems associated with climate change & global warming cannot be solved.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Task 2 Global Warming
Global warming is certainly happening and to deny the seriousness of the problem of climate change would be ostrich-like. It is, however, important to keep things in perspective.
There is a tendency nowadays, in certain circles, to blame all of the world's woes on global warming. Natural disasters are not all due to global warming. The tsunami , for example, which devastated parts of Sri Lanka and other areas in S.E. Asia at the end of 2004 was not caused by global warming. It was caused by a volcanic eruption in Indonesia.
Probably the most devastating natural phenomenon of recent centuries, the eruption at Krakatoa, west of Java, occurred long before anyone had ever even remotely considered the concept of global warming.
Its best-known eruption culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 26–27, 1883, which was among the most violent volcanic events in modern times. With a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6, the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT—about 13,000 times the yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 KT) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II and four times the yield of the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), the largest nuclear device ever detonated.The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice. It also generated the loudest sound reported in recorded history—the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Western Australia, nearly 2,000 (over 3,000 kms) miles away, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, about 3,000 miles (5,000 kms) away. (Wikipedia, 2009).
Food shortages are also often blamed on global warming but there is enough food in the world to feed all of its inhabitants. Where food shortages occur, as in present-day Zimbabwe, they are almost always the result of political mismanagement, as is clearly the case with President Mugabe.Another problem in 2009 is the global economic recession.
Many green projects are expensive and it must be doubted whether many ambitious schemes, such as Masdar City in the UAE, will remain entirely unaffected by the worldwide economic downturn.
Have I been too pessimistic here? I recently read this, about the Conservative party in the UK, by Fraser Neslon, in The Spectator, 25.02.09:
Undeterred, the Conservatives want to apply the Californian formula to the burgeoning ‘green tech’ industry in the hope of incubating a whole new economic sector. There is to be a government-run green stock exchange to direct investment into businesses which spring from universities. Mr Cameron has solemnly declared that Britain is to become a ‘world leader in battery-powered cars’ — thereby leapfrogging California itself, whence this sort of ambition is explicitly imported. Under a Tory government, he says, businesses will develop carbon-capture business in the North Sea, not the Pacific.
Whatever one may think of its chances of success, this is likely to become the key Tory message on the economy (whether expressed as Californian in inspiration or in some other form). A vision of smaller, family-friendly companies that allow flexible working. A proud refusal to abandon the green agenda in spite of the downturn, on the grounds that — like it or not — environmentalism is the future. To a surprising extent, Mr Cameron has actually revived his eco-strategy since the recession started, saying he wants ‘not green or growth, but both.’ If the election is to be about competing visions for the economy, this will be the Tory credo — and it is designed to be an optimistic one, with rays of Californian sunshine peeking through.
There is a tendency nowadays, in certain circles, to blame all of the world's woes on global warming. Natural disasters are not all due to global warming. The tsunami , for example, which devastated parts of Sri Lanka and other areas in S.E. Asia at the end of 2004 was not caused by global warming. It was caused by a volcanic eruption in Indonesia.
Probably the most devastating natural phenomenon of recent centuries, the eruption at Krakatoa, west of Java, occurred long before anyone had ever even remotely considered the concept of global warming.
Its best-known eruption culminated in a series of massive explosions on August 26–27, 1883, which was among the most violent volcanic events in modern times. With a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6, the eruption was equivalent to 200 megatons of TNT—about 13,000 times the yield of the Little Boy bomb (13 to 16 KT) that devastated Hiroshima, Japan, during World War II and four times the yield of the Tsar Bomba (50 MT), the largest nuclear device ever detonated.The 1883 eruption ejected approximately 21 cubic kilometres (5.0 cu mi) of rock, ash, and pumice. It also generated the loudest sound reported in recorded history—the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Western Australia, nearly 2,000 (over 3,000 kms) miles away, and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius, about 3,000 miles (5,000 kms) away. (Wikipedia, 2009).
Food shortages are also often blamed on global warming but there is enough food in the world to feed all of its inhabitants. Where food shortages occur, as in present-day Zimbabwe, they are almost always the result of political mismanagement, as is clearly the case with President Mugabe.Another problem in 2009 is the global economic recession.
Many green projects are expensive and it must be doubted whether many ambitious schemes, such as Masdar City in the UAE, will remain entirely unaffected by the worldwide economic downturn.
Have I been too pessimistic here? I recently read this, about the Conservative party in the UK, by Fraser Neslon, in The Spectator, 25.02.09:
Undeterred, the Conservatives want to apply the Californian formula to the burgeoning ‘green tech’ industry in the hope of incubating a whole new economic sector. There is to be a government-run green stock exchange to direct investment into businesses which spring from universities. Mr Cameron has solemnly declared that Britain is to become a ‘world leader in battery-powered cars’ — thereby leapfrogging California itself, whence this sort of ambition is explicitly imported. Under a Tory government, he says, businesses will develop carbon-capture business in the North Sea, not the Pacific.
Whatever one may think of its chances of success, this is likely to become the key Tory message on the economy (whether expressed as Californian in inspiration or in some other form). A vision of smaller, family-friendly companies that allow flexible working. A proud refusal to abandon the green agenda in spite of the downturn, on the grounds that — like it or not — environmentalism is the future. To a surprising extent, Mr Cameron has actually revived his eco-strategy since the recession started, saying he wants ‘not green or growth, but both.’ If the election is to be about competing visions for the economy, this will be the Tory credo — and it is designed to be an optimistic one, with rays of Californian sunshine peeking through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)