
Climate Concerns Are Pushing Oil Majors to Look Beyond Fossil Fuels - oblib
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-concerns-are-pushing-oil-majors-to-look-beyond-fossil-fuels/
======
AngeloAnolin
I recall 10 years ago when an oil & gas company was in the process of re-
branding themselves and wants to call them "The Energy Company" given that the
thrust for organizations and governments were geared towards reduction of
greenhouse emissions caused by fossil fuels. This was also promoted heavily by
environmentalists and climate change advocates who have added to the mounting
pressure that these companies have to tackle. Not to discount as well the
heavy tax burdens for these companies to operate.

But the sheer reality is that whilst there is technology available to harness
these clean sources (solar, wind, wave, etc.), these companies cannot easily
abandon the investment that they already have in terms of infrastructure,
process and technology in the extraction of current sources. It goes alongside
that the demand for fuel fossils is in essence a never-ending demand that
needs to be supplied, for which supplying them makes a lot of business sense.

Look around the street corner and count the number of vehicles that rely on
traditional energy source (gas, diesel) as opposed to the vehicles that
require other form of energy (electric). The ratio is probably 100:1. Even
with the advancements in the field of being able to fully harness the energy
provided by fossil fuels (and thereby minimizing consumption), it is still a
stark reality that the demand for it is there.

Oil companies are certainly looking beyond fossil fuels, but until there is an
actual business incentive to go full thrust on renewable energy vs
gas/diesel/fossil fuels, then the latter is here to stay in the long run.

~~~
woodandsteel
>Look around the street corner and count the number of vehicles that rely on
traditional energy source (gas, diesel) as opposed to the vehicles that
require other form of energy (electric). The ratio is probably 100:1

The experts say that around 2012-2025 EV's are going to become cheaper than
ICE's, and the market is going to shift radically. The oil companies are
looking to the future.

~~~
AngeloAnolin
Yes, I do agree that the shift will happen soon. Radical? Maybe, depends on
the technology and progress made towards it.

But you can never discount as well that vehicle manufacturers are also
researching / innovating on ways to make their ICE's more efficient. Again,
you cannot simply throw away the investments that car manufacturers have
thrown into making their gas (or diesel) dependent vehicles.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_Again, you cannot simply throw away the investments that car manufacturers
have thrown into making their gas (or diesel) dependent vehicles._

The market could do exactly that, just as it decided to throw away investments
in film cameras, vacuum tubes, CRT monitors, steam engines, etc.

------
dreamer_soul
I work at KOC (Kuwait Oil Company) which is like one of the biggest producers
of oil second to Saudi aramco in the region! Recently the whole oil sector in
Kuwait is pushing an strategy where most of the electricity consumed by all
the oil companies in the country is going to come from solar. But the cynic in
me thinks that it has more to do with cost and adhering to worldwide standards
than environmental reasons

Please note that this is personal opinion

~~~
austincheney
I have noticed it does not take long for solar panels in Kuwait to be coated
in layers of dust. Does this reduce efficiency by any measurable amount?

~~~
D_Alex
Yes, the loss is quite significant, and of course dependent on how much dust
has accumulated. The effect is worse in countries near the equator, as the
panels are installed with a lesser tilt. 70% losses have been reported in some
studies.

See eg;
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116000745)

------
yogthos
These companies are responsible for creating a catastrophe on a global scale.
We might literally go extinct because of them. All their assets should be
seized to repair the damage, and people responsible should be tried for crimes
against humanity.

~~~
mlindner
Humans will not go extinct even in the worst version of global warming. I
really hate this hyperbole because it's easily disproven and simply gives fuel
to deniers. Please don't use such hyperbole.

~~~
chrisco255
How is this being downvoted? The "Chicken Little" sky is falling approach is
beyond ridiculous. The atmosphere has had a lot more CO2 than current levels
in previous eras, like 5 times as much in the Jurassic era, for example.

[https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-
carbon-d...](https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-
dioxide.html)

In fact it's the plant matter from this very era that created oil in the first
place...

~~~
fulafel
We don't really know the conditions in which humanity would go extinct instead
of just regressing to a mad max style remnant subsisting on edge of
starvation. (Well, minus the cars obviously) Certainly the arrival of a
jurassic style climate and quick disappearance of preconditions of
agriculture, combined with quick extinction of human-huntable animals, cutting
down forests for firewood, mixed in with wars (nuclear holocaust?) might
trigger a very long period of civilization collapse. Why is not extinction a
possibility?

~~~
chrisco255
Because we evolved intelligence and developed electricity, motors,
greenhouses, etc. We have all the world's knowledge accessible from just a few
clicks from anywhere on the planet. We have massive communication networks for
coordinating efforts to stave off events.

I think shy of a meteor hitting the planet, we'll be fine. We still might
suffer big consequences, if sea levels rise too much and whole cities get
displaced, but extinction is not even within 1/10th of a percent of chance of
happening.

~~~
fulafel
I guess a lot depends on your outlook on how well organized society will hold
up. It provides the platform by which specialization of experts and industrial
production of your proffered items can be sustained. There's a lot of higher
order effects that are not obvious when you consider just the immediate
effects of scarcity, famines, wars etc. Remember that all the recent places in
danger of local collapse have been propped back up by the rest of the world
because the troubles have been local.

Hisory has many lessons of civilizations collapsing, you might read up on
Jared Diamond's Collapse or Joseph Tainter's earlier work. A lot of these past
civilizations had all the ingredients to make it, but ended up destroying
themselves.

------
_FKS_
Nuclear. It's the only thing beyond fossil fuels. If we want to somehow retain
our standards of living.

~~~
amluto
Solar, wind, and storage can do the job, too. Storage is tricky, but it can
surely be done with enough R&D.

And nuclear isn't a magic wand. We either need to suck it up and use plants
that can fully burn the fuel (by reprocessing or otherwise) to eliminate long-
term waste or we need to come up with something useful to do with the long-
term waste. The USA has failed pretty badly on the latter, and the former
needs engineering and, as I understand it, some degree of willingness to
accept increased proliferation risks.

~~~
vslira
Is there any hope beyond developing nuclear (fission / fusion) tech for this
world to sustain 10 billion humans consuming as much energy as an average
Californian?[0]

As the gp said, the objective is maintaining and improving our quality of
life. I don't know if solar/wind + storage can do that[1].

[0] Ok, "maybe" this is a high bar, but the point is: unless it gets too cheap
to measure, energy will be scarce for large swathes of the world population
[1] I honestly don't know. Any pointers to how much energy per capita would be
produced in peak renewable?

~~~
philipkglass
[https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/](https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/)

California: 199 million BTU per capita per year [0] -- 210 gigajoules.
Multiplied by 10 billion, that's 2100 exajoules per year (2.1 * 10^21 joules).
That's equivalent to steady yearlong consumption of 67 terawatts.

This was the first open-access article I found about global solar generation
potential:

[https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/sepm/article/view/1218/115...](https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/sepm/article/view/1218/1159)

It states "The current global solar potential technically available was
estimated at about 613 PWh/y." That's 70 terawatts. So there is technically
enough potential from solar alone, but it would be a tight squeeze. There are
also some countries that cannot meet even annualized needs this way because
they are densely populated and located in areas with relatively poor solar
resources. Belgium and the Netherlands, for example.

Note also that the article says nothing about storage. Storage is the biggest
question mark hanging over proposals to fully decarbonize without using
nuclear technology. Early news from utility-scale storage implementations is
encouraging but there is still a _very_ long way to go.

Finally, note that commercial nuclear power too would have to undergo radical
transformations to deliver a steady 67 terawatts of electricity. Breeder
reactors would be necessary. Currently there is 1 breeder reactor in the world
large enough for commercial electricity production [1]. The proposed follow-up
design to this reactor is now on indefinite hold [2]. It would take a bit over
76,000 BN-800 reactors to generate 67 terawatts. The world currently has fewer
than 500 operating power reactors.

As a general principle, you should treat any proposed miracle-solution that
"just needs a few years of engineering work" with extreme skepticism, whether
the claimed miracle is a much better battery or a much better reactor. Most of
them die between the press release and the factory floor.

[0] Primary energy, not energy available to do work. But to avoid nitpicking
I'm just going to do it The Hard Way and assume 1:1 joule replacement with
electricity from non-combustion sources.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor)

~~~
D_Alex
> It states "The current global solar potential technically available was
> estimated at about 613 PWh/y." That's 70 terawatts. So there is technically
> enough potential from solar alone, but it would be a tight squeeze.

The study seems to be using very modest assumptions about how much area can be
fitted with solar cells (0% in urban areas??), so I think the conclusion
should be that there is enough technical potential from solar alone, and it is
not a particularly tight squeeze.

------
onetimemanytime
>> _Shell also bought a Dutch company called NewMotion, which makes chargers
for electric cars in Europe. They can recharge a battery in 30 minutes._

Problem of charging electric cars solved! Existing gas stations will add
1-2-3-4...-X charges as needed.

~~~
warkdarrior
30 minutes to charge still reduces the throughput of the gas station (because
filling up with gasoline only requires 10 minutes not 30), meaning that now
they'd have 1/3 of customers, meaning that they'd need to make their charging
prices really high to make up for the lost revenue.

~~~
mac01021
They'll actually have 5% of the customers, because the other 95% percent will
live in the area and have been charging their car at home all night.

~~~
zdragnar
Which means they would go out of business. Gas stations make pennies per
gallon of gas at most; the bulk of their profit comes frim in-store purchases.

~~~
mac01021
Which is weird. I buy something in the store less than once per year.

~~~
zdragnar
A brief search shows between 3-5 cents average markup in the US, which lines
up with what I've been told from first hand sources, which means somewhere
between one and two hundred dollars per day from gas sales.

That's definitely not enough income to keep a gas station afloat.

------
ryanmercer
ExxonMobile has ads in my Instagram and Facebook feeds almost daily showing
ads for how plastics make the world better (ehhhh) and showing green tubes
trying to look like they're making algal oil fuel and saving the world.

------
briantakita
Many of the prevailing climate advocacy groups are heavily influenced &
financed by the hegemonic oil interests. The strategy is control over markets.
With carbon credit, a global (trans-national) governance, legal, & financial
framework can be placed over a large percentage of the economy. Select
companies, that have access to enough capital to adhere to compliance, can be
deemed "good corporations" & get preferential treatment in their respective
markets, shutting out small entities that don't have access to large capital.

Notice that localized movements that focus on pollution prevention (e.g.
reducing pollution in a watershed) are often de-emphasized, unless there is
strategic value to large players. Instead, the call is always for more
centralization, into the hands of large capital. Citizen led local efforts are
allowed to grow & be taken over by agents of these large interests, who then
redirect the efforts of the local entity toward the goals (e.g. carbon
credits) of the environmental hegemon.

The transition from fossil fuels does not hurt the owners of the oil
companies, because these same entities are leading the transition. Instead
they seek to use different technology, legal frameworks, & economic frameworks
to consolidate & prolong their positions in the global world order.

~~~
smadge
They are trying to squeeze every last ounce of profit they can out of the
carbon economy with the full knowledge that it must be dismantled within the
next few decades. It’s a cynical game, externalizing the catastrophic costs of
climate change on to billions of current and future people for the benefit of
shareholders and executives, a tiny minority.

~~~
briantakita
They are actually in control over the movement to "end" the carbon economy.
It's relatively easy to measure, quantify, & tax carbon dioxide emissions.
It's more difficult to be concerned over the plethora of industrial
environmental toxins that affect local areas & ecosystems, such as lead,
methane, cadmium, etc; which cut into the profits of many industries.

The carbon credit movement serves multiple purposes:

* to consolidate governance, legal, & market authority to a bureaucracy (which is controllable with capital)

* to create a carbon market that is exposed to financialization (derivative products)

* to distract attention of environmental activists away from environmental toxins (especially toxins that affect local areas which would affect profits)

* to create a barrier of entry for competing technologies, systems, & communities into the markets

* to create a movement of concerned people who believe in an ideology that they control

With the excessive fear re: CO2 emissions, the population is more willing to
accept suggested measures (by these same hegemonic entities), to "solve" (via
carbon markets) the "problem". Perception is reality...

~~~
smadge
While I agree that the fossil fuel industry is positioning itself to prosper
in a post fossil fuel economy, I don’t believe that it is completely
manufacturing the concern over climate change.

~~~
briantakita
That's fine & I agree that the climate is changing. If you don't believe me
re: the fossil fuel industry appropriating the "climate change" movement, look
at who funds various studies & organizations that are major players in the
dissemination of climate change science. There's a grain of truth, but these
organizations seek to "get ahead of the story" so it can influence the
population with a narrative of it's choosing.

Are you aware of the "grand solar minimum" which has recently begun? The sun
will be emitting less heat, which will result in Earth having a lower
temperature. Historically, this has led to significantly less crop yields,
more ice, colder temperatures (especially is Europe and NE United States).
Heightened warfare (due to resource limitation/competition) & Mass disease
(e.g. the bubonic plague) are another consequence. Empires (e.g. Rome) have
collapsed during periods of solar dimming, so be prepared; Winter is Coming!

While there may be some anthropomorphic global warming from CO2, it will not
offset the reduction of heat from the Sun. Also note the plethora of other
anthropomorphic effects which are not talked about as often, such as
Atmospheric Aerosol Injection & weather modification technologies. Atmospheric
Aerosol Injection uses sulfates, which increase the flammability of forests
due to being highly flammable & killing/weakening vegetation. There's plenty
of f*ckery that is not reported...

~~~
henearkr
Here you are disproved:
[https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21](https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21)

You're welcome.

~~~
briantakita
Given the speculative, provincial, emerging, & cultural nature of scientific
research, a scientific paper is not a proof. Given the aggressiveness &
pervasiveness of the propaganda for certain teleological ideologies, I have my
doubts as to the integrity of the processes & individuals involved. Time will
tell what will happen. I'll place my bet & you can place your bet...

The record snowfall in Europe does not care about the scientific paper you
posted; but I'm sure a scientist will write it off as the "wierding of
weather", "obviously" based mainly on anthropomorphic carbon emissions. So you
can still "debunk", via appeal to authority, anybody who doubts the scientific
hegemony with another scientific paper.

An effective strategy, in the face of uncertainty & incomplete knowledge, is
to track the possibility space & to keep optionality (and discussion) open.

Good luck...

~~~
Oletros
So, if reality doesn't match my hypotesis I dissmiss reality?

By the way:

> The record snowfall in Europe does not care about the scientific paper you
> posted

Confussing climate with weather?

~~~
briantakita
> You're still confussing weather with climate and an atmospheric phenomenon
> with global warming through CO2

I don't think I am. Let me clarify my position; I see CO2 as a potential
factor in climate change, though it's not clear if reducing anthropomorphic
CO2 levels will have a positive (or enough of a positive) impact to justify
it's opportunity costs in economy, freedom, etc.

Another factor that is rarely discussed is plant growth. As CO2 increases,
plant growth increases, which would sequester CO2. Less solar output would
reduce plant growth, as would pollution, conventional monoculture till petro-
chemical agriculture, habitat loss/ecosystem collapse, among other factors.

I think we would get more bang for the buck if we focus on local/distributed
initiatives such as regenerative polyculture agriculture, localized
permaculture solutions, water/ground/air pollution, & embrace the complexities
of ecosystems. Pesticide usage should be reduced in favor of using natural
solutions (such as predators). Putting on the blinders to only legislate CO2
levels is a mistake, rife with unintended consequences & opportunity costs.

Local solutions requires localities, individuals, & nature to be empowered,
opposed to a reliance on centralized entities & technology. Local/distributed
mindsets accounts for the qualitative complexities of nature whilst
centralized entities seek simplistic quantitative one-size-fits-all metrics to
drive bureaucratic policy; which explains why a simplistic measurement (CO2)
is an attractive boogie man to our climate issues.

Even our discussions are dumbed down due to the obsession over CO2 (a singular
quantifiable "cause"), because the possibility space of both causes &
solutions are constrained...

~~~
esarbe
There is scientific consensus that reducing antropogenic CO2 is /the/ mayor
contributor to global climate change. There are other factors, but unless we
tackle CO2, they don't really matter. Besides; there's very little we can do
about volcanic forcing.

The 'obsession' with CO2 you identify is the 'obsession' of a brain surgeon
with the aneurysm that's going to kill her patient.

~~~
briantakita
The obsession I'm mentioning is based one's worldview & presuppositions...How
we reify & approach the problems determine the solutions. Appeal to authority
will ensure policies that enrich the authority, with the associated conflicts
of interest, confirmation bias, & transfer of power from the population to the
authority. Remember, that plant growth is promoted with Carbon Dioxide. A
principle of Permaculture is turning the problem into the solution. Elevated
CO2 is plant food, if we properly take advantage of the opportunity.

Here's an anology re: agriculture. Conventional monoculture petro-chemical
till agriculture optimizes for yield & only yield. Unfortunately, there are
pests, molds, blight, disease, weather issues, drought, soil conditions that
reduce yield. In response, pesticides, herbicides, GMOs, mass irrigation
(disrupting watersheds), petro-chemical fertilizers are all sold to the
farmer. This leads to soil erosion, destruction of ecosystems, pollution, &
lower quality (less nutrition) food.

Instead, one can practice regenerative agriculture, that optimizes the
ecosystem & soil remediation. Earthworks, such as swales, terraces, & ponds
are used to capture rainfall & cycle the water through the property for as
long as possible. Polycultures of plants that compliment each other are
planted together. Animals are allowed to graze, which brings in fertilizer.
Predatory insects & birds are introduced into the habitat to control pests &
molds. And you get a higher overall yield of various higher quality
(nutrition) crops with a healthier ecosystem, which creates a healthier
climate.

Entire ecosystems can be built, which has an affect on the climate in the
local area by increasing rainfall, keeping water in the biosphere, increasing
life in the system.

These practices can happen on a large scale with quick wins that lasts
generations...[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgDWbQtlKI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgDWbQtlKI)
|
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC_Y1ZTZXQ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC_Y1ZTZXQ4)

Even something as small as reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone have profound
environmental impacts (trophic
cascades)...[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q)

There is even evidence that large portions (some estimate ~50%) of the Amazon
Rain Forest were curated by previous indigenous civilizations. (See "1491: New
Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by Charles Mann)

