Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Shell, March 2009
Shell
From The TimesMarch 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta
Energy and Environment EditorRoyal 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.
From The TimesMarch 18, 2009
Anger as Shell reduces renewables investment
Robin Pagnamenta
Energy and Environment EditorRoyal 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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wanted: natural residents
In 'Wanted: Natural Residents'. Carolyn Fry describes the new Western Harbour development in Malmo, Sweden. It is located on reclaimed industrial land and is designed to promote sustainable urban living. The first phase of 1,300 new apartments, Bo01, was planned not only to showcase new green methods of waste management, renewable energy and sustainable transport, but also to promote biodiversity.
Developers have to choose 10 green features from a list of 35 to incorporate into their designs. As a result, wildlife is flourishing in Bo01. Extra green features are planned for the next 2 phases of the development. The aim is to further raise awareness so that people buy the new houses because of their green credentials, rather than because of their fashionability.
There is also a school with its own recycling 'Sopstation', where the children are taught to understand ecology. Developers of Bo02 and Bo03 are being asked to install rooftop wind turbines and to promote even greater biodiversity. The green points system in Western Harbour is now being adopted in Malmo's city-wide environmental building programme.
Developers have to choose 10 green features from a list of 35 to incorporate into their designs. As a result, wildlife is flourishing in Bo01. Extra green features are planned for the next 2 phases of the development. The aim is to further raise awareness so that people buy the new houses because of their green credentials, rather than because of their fashionability.
There is also a school with its own recycling 'Sopstation', where the children are taught to understand ecology. Developers of Bo02 and Bo03 are being asked to install rooftop wind turbines and to promote even greater biodiversity. The green points system in Western Harbour is now being adopted in Malmo's city-wide environmental building programme.
Riches await as Earth's icy north melts, by Doug Mellgren
This article discusses the international race for oil, fish, diamonds and shipping routes in the Arctic. The polar ice cap is melting faster than anywhere on earth, due to greenhouse gases. This is catastrophic for both wildlife and the native inhabitants, who depend on frozen waters. But some see the transformation of the Arctic ecosystem as an opportunity to make lucrative profits.
This has motivated governments and businesses to scramble for control of the area. Norway is already planning to tap for oil and gas in the Barents sea. In addition, Arctic warming could open up new sea routes from Europe to the Far East and to Alaska. The possibility of a new north-west passage has focussed attention on Hans Island, a half-square mile rock which, for strategic reasons, is being claimed by both Denmark and Canada. As well as this dispute, Norway and Russia have issues in the Barents Sea, the USA and Russia in the Beaufort Sea and the US and Canada over the north-west passage.
The scramble is exacerbated by the fact that the ice cap could melt in 10-15 years, not 100 as previously thought. Furthermore, fish stocks are moving further north to colder waters and Norway and Russia have already clashed over fishing rights.
Finally, the article highlights, firstly, the environmental concerns, from the risk of oil spills to the introduction of alien organisms, associated with the Arctic melt, and, secondly, concern over the rights of the Arctic's indigenous peoples.
246 words
This has motivated governments and businesses to scramble for control of the area. Norway is already planning to tap for oil and gas in the Barents sea. In addition, Arctic warming could open up new sea routes from Europe to the Far East and to Alaska. The possibility of a new north-west passage has focussed attention on Hans Island, a half-square mile rock which, for strategic reasons, is being claimed by both Denmark and Canada. As well as this dispute, Norway and Russia have issues in the Barents Sea, the USA and Russia in the Beaufort Sea and the US and Canada over the north-west passage.
The scramble is exacerbated by the fact that the ice cap could melt in 10-15 years, not 100 as previously thought. Furthermore, fish stocks are moving further north to colder waters and Norway and Russia have already clashed over fishing rights.
Finally, the article highlights, firstly, the environmental concerns, from the risk of oil spills to the introduction of alien organisms, associated with the Arctic melt, and, secondly, concern over the rights of the Arctic's indigenous peoples.
246 words
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Al Gore
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 theatmosphere;
(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’sbecome a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environmentissue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of thepresidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of theseepisodes 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.
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 theatmosphere;
(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’sbecome a force of nature in itself;
(c) ways of thinking; the frog in the water was a clever analogy. The Economy v Environmentissue was cleverly presented.
(5) The film was effectively personalized, with reference to Gore’s son’s accident, his loss of thepresidential election in 2000 & the death of his sister Nancy from lung cancer. Each of theseepisodes 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 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)