Sorry, they are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live. They're not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies. Their shareholders would revolt.
The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10…
Sorry, they are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live. They're not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies. Their shareholders would revolt.
The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years. If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling. Lazy? Nope.
Lordy, I am old, been hearing of these problems for decades, and seeing the intransigence of the “power that be” republicans over many years. Money ruled, rules, and will rule. You make excuses for what is “inexcusable and tragically unnecessary.” Old alliances do die hard, even when one tries…
Is not "excuses". It's scientific and economic reality. Your emotional ourburst gets many more "likes" on this forum, and feels good, but is part of an "old alliance " itself that causes its own intransigence.
The reality is that if your wishes were granted today, economic upheaval would cause immediate and severe human suffering, and the political backlash would set environmental progress back by decades.
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (including with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter. Remember that those subsidies are OUR money.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
So are the Greens, Mike. Think about it. This really shouldn’t be a Fuel Feud. It’s not just about dollars and cents and who can con the politicians out of more Taxpayer Money.
Jerry, your several comments today have mentioned “transition,” a concept that make total sense but lacks a plan. I have mentioned on this site several times a way to merge the Fossils and the Greens into cooperative ventures. Yea, it will take government subsidies. (Reminder: the money of We, the People.)
You have mentioned “the shareholders.” Good point. Would EXXON’s shareholders reject the Huge Carrot that We, the People could provide by to EXXON by encouraging them (monetarily) to erect wind turbines and solar panels on the same piece of land where the pumpjacks are incessantly moving up and down, pumping the oil out of the ground? And the solar and wind companies would help construct and manage that merger of ideas and technology and change. EXXON could actually have a FUTURE rather than be seen as a dying entity. Furthermore, when you pull your car into an EXXON gas station, you could get gas or power for your EV, both of which would be produced by EXXON.
Yes, this is just one aspect of this attempt at ending the FOSSIL vs GREEN feud. This is something that We, the People, with our voices and our pocketbooks can demand from “the powers that be.” Fossils and Greens can both be winners. If we don’t do/demand change/cooperation/merging of ideas, etc., Fossils, Greens, and We, the People will be losers.
Paul, your vision makes sense, at least the part about gas stations providing charging stations like many currently provide air pumps next to the gas pumps. If you drive through parts of West Texas, you will see both active pump jacks and wind mills interspersed, salted with beef on the hoof grazing on dry grass.
But we can't have wind power generated everywhere (at least yet). There's been more progress towards personsl solar power front so far. But the sheer scale of global power needs means it will take decades to transition, and it will never be a total transition. The physics don't support it, and human demand, especially in 2nd and 3rd world counties, prevent this.
We the People need energy to live. That demand is persistent and inflexible.
"Persistent and inflexible"? Only to some Americans, it seems. We are talking already existing change to a more sustainable energy, and reducing our "demand" to a more rational level. Jerry, even so-called "underdeveloped" countries are on board with that more than you seem to grasp. Like I said, read more so you aren't just repeating what the oil companies want you to believe. It's getting tiresome. Our wastefulness is an embarrassment. And as for "3rd world"... some parts of our country are doing no better than many "3rd world" nations. And that's not so much an economic issue as it is a social one that arises out of a distorted economic system.
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
What about the millions (billions?) of taxpayer “corporate welfare” currently being paid to the oil industries? And if their shareholders revolt will they be assaulted with water cannons or just have to diversify their portfolios? Stop making excuses for corporate greed.
Both “sides” - FOSSILS and GREENS are recipients of “corporate welfare,” Donna. The problem is not that the “carrots” are scare. The problem is that the “sticks” don’t demand cooperation, unity of purpose, or the interest in America’s future. The “stick” that We, the People should demand is ending the FOSSILS vs GREENS feud. Every energy company can be a winner and have a future - even the Fossils.
The oil industry, a mature industry if ever there was one, still receives subsidies from the US government. Renewables have lost much of their subsidies, especially at the state level, yet are still able to compete price-wise with fossil fuels. Scaling them up is already happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what party controls our elected branches of government. I pay significantly less per kWh than my neighbors because I have solar panels on my roof, not the other way around. This trend is going to continue. It can leave big oil in the dust, or not. It's up to them.
How much did your solar setup cost? I'm curious because in my area, even with subsidies, it would take well over a decade to recoup those costs through savings. I don't plan on staying in one address that long. I also didn't have enough cash for the upfront costs I would have faced when au looked at this year's ago. Maybe it's different now.
I have had my solar panels since 2015, when I got a sweet deal from Solar City (Tesla). Free installation. I will own them after 20 years. I pay Tesla for the power they generate - locked in at 2015 electricity prices (NH has some of the highest electricity rates in the US, and they've increased significantly over the past 7 years). Essentially, I have 2 electric bills, one to Tesla, and one to my local utility if my panels don't supply my needs. This is the case in Nov, Dec, and Jan, when NH doesn't get much sun. However, the panels generate a surplus May - Sep, which, under NH state law, my utility has to buy from me, my meter actually runs backward during that time.
I was looking into this in 2015. I decided against this because I was moving houses and didn't think I'd only be in the current house for 20 years. Now I think we'll be here much longer, but the local deed restrictions currently limit use of solar. The challenges are many.
That said, I'm glad you and other really adopters are finding satisfaction with the transition because your successes lead to a change in local ordinances and to a drop in unit price.
Fern, outside of NYC, it's hard to live without a car. Within NYC, it would be impossible to live without public transportation and an energy infrastructure. Some individuals in some places can live off grid. Most of us can't.
Fern, I reread the thread, and yes it does. While I agree it's up to us, not all of us can choose lifestyles that force change, except for vote. It's easier to be more efficient and greener in dome locations more than others.
So, I really wasn't disagreeing at all, just adding a comment.
My point to you, Jerry, is that you have no idea concerning my thoughts on this issue.
What's the goal by when? There are variables. What's realistic....? You appeared to posit a position for me without knowing any of my thoughts, knowledge, analysis, questions...
You can't make an elephant turn into a hyena. Even if they want to, there is no profitable way for that to change. At most, you can make oil companies less relevant. But that takes time.
“Their shareholders would revolt”. That says it all. The greed model is unsustainable. Humanity is on a path to its own destruction and sad to say it’s likely too late to reverse. Hope to be wrong.
Sorry, they are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live. They're not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies. Their shareholders would revolt.
The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years. If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling. Lazy? Nope.
Lordy, I am old, been hearing of these problems for decades, and seeing the intransigence of the “power that be” republicans over many years. Money ruled, rules, and will rule. You make excuses for what is “inexcusable and tragically unnecessary.” Old alliances do die hard, even when one tries…
Is not "excuses". It's scientific and economic reality. Your emotional ourburst gets many more "likes" on this forum, and feels good, but is part of an "old alliance " itself that causes its own intransigence.
The reality is that if your wishes were granted today, economic upheaval would cause immediate and severe human suffering, and the political backlash would set environmental progress back by decades.
Jerry, you write
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (including with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter. Remember that those subsidies are OUR money.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
Long but very well written.
Oh, my…too many words on an extremely important matter to the entire planet. Sorry to inconvenience you, Mike S.
Jerry is partly correct but so are you.
Oil companies actively try to prevent alternatives by garnering tax breaks and subsidies.
But. Oil companies are indeed supporting our American life.
So are the Greens, Mike. Think about it. This really shouldn’t be a Fuel Feud. It’s not just about dollars and cents and who can con the politicians out of more Taxpayer Money.
Yup, Jeri. Exactly!!
Jerry, your several comments today have mentioned “transition,” a concept that make total sense but lacks a plan. I have mentioned on this site several times a way to merge the Fossils and the Greens into cooperative ventures. Yea, it will take government subsidies. (Reminder: the money of We, the People.)
You have mentioned “the shareholders.” Good point. Would EXXON’s shareholders reject the Huge Carrot that We, the People could provide by to EXXON by encouraging them (monetarily) to erect wind turbines and solar panels on the same piece of land where the pumpjacks are incessantly moving up and down, pumping the oil out of the ground? And the solar and wind companies would help construct and manage that merger of ideas and technology and change. EXXON could actually have a FUTURE rather than be seen as a dying entity. Furthermore, when you pull your car into an EXXON gas station, you could get gas or power for your EV, both of which would be produced by EXXON.
Yes, this is just one aspect of this attempt at ending the FOSSIL vs GREEN feud. This is something that We, the People, with our voices and our pocketbooks can demand from “the powers that be.” Fossils and Greens can both be winners. If we don’t do/demand change/cooperation/merging of ideas, etc., Fossils, Greens, and We, the People will be losers.
Paul, your vision makes sense, at least the part about gas stations providing charging stations like many currently provide air pumps next to the gas pumps. If you drive through parts of West Texas, you will see both active pump jacks and wind mills interspersed, salted with beef on the hoof grazing on dry grass.
But we can't have wind power generated everywhere (at least yet). There's been more progress towards personsl solar power front so far. But the sheer scale of global power needs means it will take decades to transition, and it will never be a total transition. The physics don't support it, and human demand, especially in 2nd and 3rd world counties, prevent this.
We the People need energy to live. That demand is persistent and inflexible.
"Persistent and inflexible"? Only to some Americans, it seems. We are talking already existing change to a more sustainable energy, and reducing our "demand" to a more rational level. Jerry, even so-called "underdeveloped" countries are on board with that more than you seem to grasp. Like I said, read more so you aren't just repeating what the oil companies want you to believe. It's getting tiresome. Our wastefulness is an embarrassment. And as for "3rd world"... some parts of our country are doing no better than many "3rd world" nations. And that's not so much an economic issue as it is a social one that arises out of a distorted economic system.
Jerry, you write
1.) that they (the oil companies) “are in the business of profitably producing oil needed by millions to live.” You (I assume) would also include coal and natural gas* in the same category. And, you are correct their efforts provide energy in a variety of forms and has been/is/and will be a very important aspect of all of our lives.
(* atomic energy should be considered in a separate category.)
2.) You also write that they are “not in the business of adopting technologies that are still unprofitable without subsidies.” Are you saying that IF those technologies (the Green ones) were profitable the Fossils would adopt those technologies? (Please note that United States is estimated to provide a total of $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies every year. Approximately 70 percent of these subsidies come from the federal government, and another 30 percent come from the state government.)
3.) If the Fossils and the Greens could BOTH be profitable (with government subsidies). Would any of the “shareholders … revolt”? (Please note: According to Congressional Budget Office testimony in 2016, an estimated $10.9 billion in tax preferences was directed toward renewable energy, $4.6 billion went to fossil fuels, and $2.7 billion went to energy efficiency or electricity transmission.)
4.) You write: “The sheer scale of the need for energy is beyond what renewable sources can provide today. or even in the next 10 years.” Correct, Jerry. This is a very long term project. BUT, it is (as you say) also INEVITABLE.
5.) “If you think they don't care and aren't worrying about the inevitable transition, then you're blinded by emotional name-calling.” The FOSSILS should quit “worrying” about the transition and get going on helping to provide a solution. It appears to me that both the FOSSILS and the GREENS are in a winner-take-all stance. So are our politicians. We, the People need to push the corporations and the politicians into a better mindset. Everyone CAN be winners in this matter. EXXON (not to just pick on them) can find itself in the position of being a leading producer of energy - past, present, and future. And government can lead the way, using the traditional “carrots and sticks.” We, the People need to demand more of corporations and government in this matter.
6.) Jerry, you ask “Lazy?” I agree, none of the “players” are probably lazy. Unmotivated, uninformed, uncourageous, unambitious, unaccountable, uneducated, uncommitted, un-American? (Sorry, I couldn’t UN-plug myself….)
What about the millions (billions?) of taxpayer “corporate welfare” currently being paid to the oil industries? And if their shareholders revolt will they be assaulted with water cannons or just have to diversify their portfolios? Stop making excuses for corporate greed.
Both “sides” - FOSSILS and GREENS are recipients of “corporate welfare,” Donna. The problem is not that the “carrots” are scare. The problem is that the “sticks” don’t demand cooperation, unity of purpose, or the interest in America’s future. The “stick” that We, the People should demand is ending the FOSSILS vs GREENS feud. Every energy company can be a winner and have a future - even the Fossils.
The oil industry, a mature industry if ever there was one, still receives subsidies from the US government. Renewables have lost much of their subsidies, especially at the state level, yet are still able to compete price-wise with fossil fuels. Scaling them up is already happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what party controls our elected branches of government. I pay significantly less per kWh than my neighbors because I have solar panels on my roof, not the other way around. This trend is going to continue. It can leave big oil in the dust, or not. It's up to them.
How much did your solar setup cost? I'm curious because in my area, even with subsidies, it would take well over a decade to recoup those costs through savings. I don't plan on staying in one address that long. I also didn't have enough cash for the upfront costs I would have faced when au looked at this year's ago. Maybe it's different now.
I have had my solar panels since 2015, when I got a sweet deal from Solar City (Tesla). Free installation. I will own them after 20 years. I pay Tesla for the power they generate - locked in at 2015 electricity prices (NH has some of the highest electricity rates in the US, and they've increased significantly over the past 7 years). Essentially, I have 2 electric bills, one to Tesla, and one to my local utility if my panels don't supply my needs. This is the case in Nov, Dec, and Jan, when NH doesn't get much sun. However, the panels generate a surplus May - Sep, which, under NH state law, my utility has to buy from me, my meter actually runs backward during that time.
I was looking into this in 2015. I decided against this because I was moving houses and didn't think I'd only be in the current house for 20 years. Now I think we'll be here much longer, but the local deed restrictions currently limit use of solar. The challenges are many.
That said, I'm glad you and other really adopters are finding satisfaction with the transition because your successes lead to a change in local ordinances and to a drop in unit price.
Nice setup.
…and up to us as well, don't you think?
Fern, outside of NYC, it's hard to live without a car. Within NYC, it would be impossible to live without public transportation and an energy infrastructure. Some individuals in some places can live off grid. Most of us can't.
Jerry, your reply to me has nothing to do with my thoughts about what 'we' need to do, does it?
Fern, I reread the thread, and yes it does. While I agree it's up to us, not all of us can choose lifestyles that force change, except for vote. It's easier to be more efficient and greener in dome locations more than others.
So, I really wasn't disagreeing at all, just adding a comment.
My point to you, Jerry, is that you have no idea concerning my thoughts on this issue.
What's the goal by when? There are variables. What's realistic....? You appeared to posit a position for me without knowing any of my thoughts, knowledge, analysis, questions...
They have no plans to make changes. That calls out the error in your statement.
You can't make an elephant turn into a hyena. Even if they want to, there is no profitable way for that to change. At most, you can make oil companies less relevant. But that takes time.
Correct.
“Their shareholders would revolt”. That says it all. The greed model is unsustainable. Humanity is on a path to its own destruction and sad to say it’s likely too late to reverse. Hope to be wrong.