Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Donate Bitcoin



Donate Paypal

Page added on April 28, 2016

Bookmark and Share

Fossil Fuel Companies Need to Become Renewable Energy Companies

Alternative Energy

It seems clear that Exxon Mobil and other parts of the fossil fuel industry have tried to suppress the science of climate change. I am not surprised that these companies acted in their short-term self-interest, and I expect them to continue to advance those interests. Their deception is disappointing and may even be illegal, but blaming the fossil fuel companies for our addiction to fossil fuels is foolish. It’s a distraction from the daunting challenge of making the transition to renewable energy as quickly as possible. For some reason, a great deal of effort is being devoted to uncovering the role of Exxon Mobil in the history of climate science. As John Schwartz reported recently in the New York Times:

Pressure on Exxon Mobil and the energy industry increased on Wednesday with the release of a new cache of decades-old industry documents about climate change, even as Exxon pushed back against efforts to investigate the company over its climate claims through the years. The new documents were released by an activist research organization, the Center for International Environmental Law, which published the project on its website.

It remains unfortunate that many fossil fuel companies have not redefined themselves as energy companies that lead the effort to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. If I had money to invest, I’d certainly look for companies that take a longer-term view than some of these companies have taken. But when I plug in my laptop, recharge my iPhone or fill up my car’s gas tank, no one from Exxon Mobil is standing there forcing me to consume energy. I do that of my own free will. These folks are just my suppliers: I am the consumer. We are all consumers, and we are all addicts. Moreover, not all fossil fuel companies are oblivious to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Italian energy company Eni continues to develop fossil fuels but attempts to reduce environmental impacts; they are trying to reduce their greenhouse gas pollution and recognize the need to address climate change. They are preparing for the transition to renewable energy.

The time and effort devoted to vilifying fossil fuel companies would be more constructively spent trying to figure out how to make our economy more energy efficient and working on the technology and institutional arrangements needed to switch from fossil fuels to alternative forms of energy.

I am a little confused about the absence of vision in some fossil fuel companies. I know they have billions of dollars invested in fuel reserves and in the infrastructure to extract it from the earth and distribute it to consumers. But they must know that they are in a doomed industry. It will take a while before we stop burning fossil fuels, but we will eventually stop using them. Their relative share in the world’s energy mix is declining and will continue to shrink throughout the 21st century.

Sometimes Exxon Mobil reminds me of Kodak, a company that once made lots of money manufacturing the film and other materials needed to print photographs. Then Kodak developed something called electronic photography. They never thought that people would be just as happy to store their photos on their smartphones as in a leather-bound album on their bookshelf. (Remember books and bookshelves?) Even though many more photos are taken now than ever before, Kodak was so slow to recognize the changing market that they nearly went under.

Our economy is built on technological innovation. Those 300,000 Tesla electric car orders taken recently are the tip of the iceberg of the demand for a car that doesn’t require gasoline. Exxon Mobil might want to see those Tesla orders as their “Kodak moment.” It won’t happen overnight, but the move toward electric cars has started. I know that most electricity is generated from fossil fuels, but it does not need to be. Electric cars open the possibility of renewable resource-based transportation. In contrast, internal combustion engines typically burn fossil fuels and motor vehicles create a huge demand for gasoline. That demand will end as soon as the electric car comes down in price and goes up in battery range. It’s only a matter of time.

But the transition to electric cars will create technological and institutional challenges. The people that repair today’s cars will need to be retrained. We will either need to build public charging stations for electric cars, or some version of an electric gas station will need to be opened based on a profitable business model. The taxes that support road repairs will need to come from something other than a tax on gasoline. The list goes on. If we are to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels it is important that we look forward rather than backward. The history of climate science is interesting and important, but belongs in academic journals, not the New York Times.

Our modern life is built on energy and most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies did not create the demand for energy; it was created by our demand for cars, air travel, air conditioners, light, elevators, streaming video and smartphones. Fossil fuel companies benefit from our demand and they will suffer when that demand goes down. My view is that the real action and focus of our effort should be on making sure the demand for fossil fuels goes down as soon as possible.

But while fossil fuel use needs to be eliminated, the demand for energy itself will continue to increase. Billions of people in the developing world are hungering for a lifestyle that is built on technologies that require energy. The drive for that lifestyle is ferocious and will not go away. In the developed world, we will are getting more efficient in our use of energy and have begun the transition away from fossil fuels, but we will never willingly give up our addiction to technologies that use energy.

Some people find it comforting when they can find someone to blame for climate change. The fossil fuel companies make convenient villains. In this case some appear to have been willfully deceptive. But I don’t buy the argument that earlier knowledge of the science of climate change would have led to a faster solution to the problem. There has been a scientific consensus on this issue for decades and progress has still been slow. This is because greenhouse gas pollution is the most difficult environmental problem we have ever faced. The use of fossil fuels is central to our modern economy, our way of life, and our political and social order. Getting off of fossil fuels will take time and massive global effort. Denying proven science is an old trick once pioneered by the tobacco companies, but in the end, reality prevails.

No one should underestimate the scale of the challenge that confronts humanity. It will require new technologies and changes in infrastructure, organizational capacity, economic incentives and public policy. In the slow, cumbersome way that massive change takes place, the transition to a sustainable economy has begun. But it is a matter of two steps forward and one step back. Oil prices drop, and SUV sales increase. Still, young people are not as addicted to autos as older people are. Solar water heaters are common in Israel, parts of China and parts of California. Greenhouse gas growth has been decoupled from GDP growth. People have rolled up their sleeves and gotten to work.

The transition to renewable energy would be easier to accomplish if the fossil fuel companies played a leadership role. They have the organizational capacity, marketing skills, research labs, distribution networks and global reach required. They are well positioned to do this work, but seem so overinvested in fossil fuels that they’ll probably go broke before they build a renewable energy business. When renewable energy becomes less expensive, more convenient, and at least as reliable as fossil fuels, it will replace those fuels. It doesn’t matter what role the oil companies used to play or are playing today. If they hope to survive the current century they will need to adapt their strategy to the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel companies will need to become renewable energy companies if they hope to survive in the energy business.

energy collective



71 Comments on "Fossil Fuel Companies Need to Become Renewable Energy Companies"

  1. dooma on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 6:02 am 

    “Fossil Fuel Companies Need to Become Renewable Energy Companies”

    And horses need to become unicorns.

  2. Dredd on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 6:18 am 

    The military agrees:

    “The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security. Moving beyond the arguments of cause and effect, it is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects.” – Army, Navy, and Air Force officers, 2009

    (Global Climate & Homeland Insecurity – 2).

  3. rockman on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 6:20 am 

    Always seems to be a strange “logic” with such claims. For instance wouldn’t it make more sense for the construction business to get into alternative energy. First, the industry already employs hundreds of thousands already possessing the skills to install various alt systems. Second, they are already deeply connected to both residential and commercial infrastructure development. ExxonMobil et al employ almost no one with such skills.

    More for any industry to transition to alt implementation the same barrier exists: a companies value (especially public companies) is based upon it current efforts to maintain its existing business plan. If any energy company were to redirect a significant portion of its capex toward other industry its current operations would suffer and corporate value would decline. perhaps in10+ years it might be able to expand such new operations to replace what it had given up. The problem there would be the shareholder revolt/abandonment.

    In truth if any industry were to try to make such a move it seems the computer industry is better positioned. After all a large portion of its overhead is buying electricity. Wouldn’t it make more sense for Apple to make such an expansion by first substituting the energy consumption with their own products and taking that revenue away from the fossil fuel industry?

    In fact, Google already has such plans in motion.

  4. makati1 on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 6:37 am 

    “Fossil Fuel Companies Need to Become Renewable Energy Companies”

    HAhahahahahahahahaha! Good one!

  5. Kenz300 on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 7:10 am 

    Fossil fuel companies are spending millions to spread doubt about Climate Change……

    4 Ways Exxon Stopped Action on Climate Change

    http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/27/exxon-stopped-climate-action/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=1d016dacb9-Top_News_11_28_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-1d016dacb9-86023917

  6. Kenz300 on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 7:10 am 

    Stock holders of fossil fuel companies should be up in arms………… their investments are worth less now ………..
    Fossil fuels companies should have begun transforming their companies into”ENERGY” companies by embracing alternative energy sources like wind and solar….. they could have started doing this 30 years ago and reduced the loss to their stock holders. Lying to investors is illegal………

    BP was on that path years ago and then a change in management moved them away from transforming (BEYOND PETROLEUM) and they sold off their alternative energy investments………

  7. Kenz300 on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 7:11 am 

    New Documents Show Oil Industry Even More Evil Than We Thought

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-cover-up-climate_us_570e98bbe4b0ffa5937df6ce

    Climate Change is real….. we will all be impacted by it.
    Oil Giants Spend $115 Million A Year To Oppose Climate Policy

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-companies-climate-policy_us_570bb841e4b0142232496d97

    The Kochs Are Plotting A Multimillion-Dollar Assault On Electric Vehicles

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-electric-vehicles_us_56c4d63ce4b0b40245c8cbf6

    Inside the Koch Brothers’ Toxic Empire | Rolling Stone

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924?page=2

  8. Davy on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 7:13 am 

    Fossil Fuel companies need to plan on their cannibalization and obsolescence. There are efforts they can take now to make the dreaded power down less of a problem. It is fossil fuels that are feeding 7BIL people so they have more responsibility than to the shareholders. Ideally we probably need to nationalize all energy but that will likely only come when we have a crisis that crushes the economy. When this crushed economy cannot deliver energy vital for survival of so many people drastic efforts will have to be taken.

    There are ways now to make a collapsing economy transition easier. For example we could have a system in place to handle fuel shortages. We could have a system in place to allocate energy to nondiscretionary activities vital for health and welfare. Instead we have energy companies primarily focused on share-holder wellbeing. Oil companies are focused on the repudiation of any idea that we have energy issues ahead that could kill our economy and way of life.

    It is likely too late to make this transition. The entrench forces are too strong so by the time we make an effort to adapt to a collapsing economy we will not have the resources to deal with the overwhelming problems that will be multiplying. Since we cannot know if it is too late we should at least at a minimum have a plan B of some kind. We should make it illegal for the energy business to lobby against a message that we have no problems ahead.

  9. geopressure on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 8:04 am 

    Many Oil & Gas companies are already making the switch… We have solar powered equipment on a number of production locations where electricity is not readily available & it works great!!!

  10. dave thompson on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 8:07 am 

    Renewable energy as a thing to transition to, at industrial scale is one of the biggest lies corporate industry has ever perpetrated. There is nothing available at current levels of use and density that will do what FF energy are capable of maintaining, in our destructive industrial based lives. There is nothing that will replace crude oil, nothing.

  11. Science Officer on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 8:07 am 

    I guess we need to punish the oil companies. Back in the ’70’s, scientists were warning of an impending Ice Age, after decades of global cooling since the ’40’s. The oil companies should have known that the scientists were wrong, and started pursuing renewable energy investments, despite the scientific consensus. If there is one thing you know is wrong in this world, it’s a scientific consensus.

  12. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 8:22 am 

    Rockman you could argue that oil companies have people with the necessary skills as well. You want to do offshore wind or tidal or…anything, get some people who are involved in offshore drilling. I would see adds for journeyman electricians for the North Dakota oil patch all the time. Have expertise setting up systems to scrub co2 out of methane, well some dairy farmer in vermont may need that skill to increase the value of a bioreactor gas… Drill some holes for geothermal, welders, heavy equipment drivers..ect ect. The skill in the fossil fuel industry should be refocused so that people have jobs when fossil fuels are in a low profit environment.

  13. Kenz300 on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 8:25 am 

    Climate Change is real….. we will all be impacted by it.

    Oil Giants Spend $115 Million A Year To Oppose Climate Policy

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-companies-climate-policy_us_570bb841e4b0142232496d97

  14. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 8:26 am 

    Also I have heard a lot of the server farms for the big tech giants have moved to..was it Greenland? to take advantage of renewable and a colder climate to mitigate cooling needs. Was it Microsoft that just put one under the ocean for cooling purposes.

  15. TS on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 11:15 am 

    This is already a foregone conclusion. Even during the 90’s I have always mentioned that Oil companies must migrate, sooner than later, to renewables for a win win scenario. Unfortunately, ignorance and self interests trump common sense.

  16. GregT on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 11:38 am 

    “Unfortunately, ignorance and self interests trump common sense.”

    And even more unfortunately, there are no such things as ‘renewables’. Ignorance and self interests trump common sense, indeed.

  17. penury on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 11:40 am 

    Energy Companies must switch to renewable energy,consumers must switch to renewable energy,industry must switch to renewable energy. I totally agree. My questions are: When? What is the cost to the companies and the nations? If the world started now, How many years would it take to replace the oil industry? Do we consider nuclear as renewable>

  18. geopressure on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 11:40 am 

    There’s no profit margin in the Renewable Sector…

    Lots of work, Lots of investment… Practically no return…

  19. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:00 pm 

    Dude you are out there, so which is it? Is there a shortage of oil about to hit the US or are we on our way to 110 mbpd. You just pointed out that remote drill sites employ solar, now you are saying there is no return, which is funny because renewables are still growing strongly in our current cheap fossil fuel environment.

  20. dave thompson on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:00 pm 

    How does one switch to renewable energy when in fact renewable energy does not exist? I dare anyone on this thread to list out the energy dense replacement for crude oil, nat gas and coal. The refined products of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, bunker fuel for transportation, shipping and heating have no viable replacement that I have found. Nothing exists that can be scale able to modernity. Solar panels? Wind turbines? Not gonna run industrial civilization.

  21. rockman on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:00 pm 

    Practical – I know it might seem otherwise but I work with the folks you’re talking about. The oil patch world of engineering has no ability to easily transition to the alt industry. Our engineers are very specialized. I wouldn’t let a reservoir engineer wire a lamp for me. LOL. They are highly compartmentalized and very narrowly focused. And geologists? Forget about it. LOL.

    As far as the tradesmen level very few oil patch companies employ them. They usually work for the service companies. In reality a big service company like Halliburton (which produces no fossil fuel) is much better manned for a transition to the alts.

    It would be no easier for oil patch personnel to switch to the alts then aerospace engineering. Remember ExxonMobil et al for the most part have nothing to do with producing energy…they produce oil. And consumers don’t use oil. Understand that except for the majors oil patch companies don’t produce the refined energy producing products consumers use: the refineries do. It would actually make more sense to argue that the refinery industry should transition to the alts. But they would be in the same position for the most part as the Ford Motor Company: they would have to employ a completely new group of engineers as well as build out the entire needed infrastructure from the start.

    And you still can’t get away from the problem of diverting significant from efforts to maintain current revenue streams from oil/NG ops to fund the alt build out. An alt build out that has had some spectacular failures in recent years. If the public has become very hesitant to funding the alts why would any oil patch company?

    Remember ExxonMobil isn’t going away anytime soon. They’ll continue to grow eventually the way they have in the past especially during bust periods: cannibalize the weakened companies. They and other majors have followed that part of the business plan for more than 80 years. For instance there used to be two major oil companies…Exxon and Mobil Oil. And now there is one…ExxonMobil. And there used to be Big Oil called Texaco. And that list is much larger and will continue to grow.

    TS – Why don’t you give us a list of all the non-oil patch companies that have made it big in the alts. Maybe ExxonMobil could copy their efforts. LOL

  22. Boat on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:00 pm 

    5 states are now at 20 percent renewable electric production. Robust growth will continue. Nat gas will continue to be the leader where there is less wind and sun.

  23. Davy on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:22 pm 

    Right, Dave T, there is no alternative to fossil fuels to drive a healthy modern economy that must grow. ZERO.

    Now if society had the will and wanted to change attitudes and lifestyles ridding modern man of all those energy intensive waste products and activities, then renewables would be very important applications to various vital aspects of life post carbon. These would be lighting and various emergency and support networks and services. These would relate to food, shelter, and health as a short list.

    Now, the issues is once you open that door and step through it the global economy is going to decay and decline rapidly. This is an end game. This must be understood. This means we have a very short window to transition to less and alternative living. There will be a die off to some degree because there will not be enough food without an industrial distribution system and industrial agriculture. If we do this it is for keeps with no turning back and significant loss of life.

  24. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:30 pm 

    Dave T, heating is fairly easy to do without fossil fuels. Many people employ biomass in my area but it is transitioning more and more to electric heat pump tech. Yes some 60% of my states energy is still derived from non renewables (and a portion of the 40% is biomass so it does require ongoing oil input) but when you look at how well a dc heat pump compressor pairs with a pv array, I have hope for that department.

    Boat, I just tried to look that up, according to wikepedia there are many more states at the 20% mark when you include hydroelectric and biomass.
    I am wondering how accurate the chart is because they are giving Vermont a near perfect score after closing Vermont Yankee, even though they import much of their power. Given it is mostly hydro-power they import from Canada.
    I will admit the numbers seem optimistic, but I think it is just including biomass burning and that is why Maine was number 1 without hydropower last year and number 2 this year. The source is supposedly the EIA.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

  25. dave thompson on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:33 pm 

    @ Davy, capitalism only understands the language of more. Capitalism will work it’s magic until depletion and/or collapse. I expect only to witness this event, or die before it happens. My comments are for my own amusement. To the folks that think clean green energy transition are the future I am looked upon as a troll.

  26. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:35 pm 

    The EIA is claiming Vermont is 99% renewable, we should elect a Senator from that place for president!
    Can this stat be real? Even for a small state, very impressive, with Vermont Yankee closing down it should provide incentive for Vermont to continue to be a leader in Biogas from agriculture production.

  27. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:37 pm 

    Dave T, I think renewables are the future, may not be a bright future, but their is definitely a lot of truth in what you are saying. Heating is the only fossil fuel dominated sector that can be remedied to a large extent in the near term in my eyes. If only we were like Denmark and had local power-plants that could distribute their waste heat for good….

  28. dave thompson on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:37 pm 

    @PracticalMaina heat pumps run on DC current are not going to produce steel or glass or plastic or any of the components that are needed to run industrial civilization.

  29. dave thompson on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:41 pm 

    @PracticalMaina the problem tech dreamers do not get is that there is no such thing as “renewables” with out FF inputs.

  30. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:43 pm 

    If given time, and a new set of priorities for society, we should be able to accomplish most of those things using solar thermal. I am not saying it will happen, but I do not see lack of a high temp energy source being what breaks civilization. Chances are that will involve multiple powerful and idiotic individuals.

  31. dave thompson on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:49 pm 

    Where in the world is solar thermal being used at scale to produce steel, glass, plastics, mining for mineral ores and producing cement? No where.

  32. Boat on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:50 pm 

    PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:35 pm

    The EIA is claiming Vermont is 99% renewable, we should elect a Senator from that place for president!
    Can this stat be real?

    No it’s not real. The town of Burlington went renewable. Not the state. Town of 42,0000.

  33. geopressure on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:50 pm 

    @PracticalMaina… You might be feeling the burn, but you’re are going to have to settle for Biden… Biden is bolstering his foreign policy credentials with a trip to Baghdad today… When the time is just right, Hillary is going Down…

    To answer your other questions from upthread:

    Oil shortage now due to limited capital investment; 110 MBOPD at some point beyond 2020…

    Oil companies employ solar panels as a source of electricity on remote locations… That does not mean that we utilize solar power to stack paper (Because stack paper they do not)…

  34. peakyeast on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:54 pm 

    @practical: The grass is always greener at the other side of the fence…

    I tell you: most Danes would prefer american energy prices.

  35. Boat on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 12:56 pm 

    Lol Biden has no chance.

    ps where is the petro dollar crash.

  36. Anonymous on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 1:04 pm 

    I guess, fossil-fool companies refers to amerikant fossil-fool companies. After all, they are only ones that count,right? I suppose if one considers the epic corruption, violence and environmental damage the uS oil cartel done to the world over the last 100 years, maybe its justified.

    What is far less clear to me is, why would anyone want such a small group, responsible for so much violence, pollution and destruction and corruption-locally and globally, to re-invent themselves as ‘green-energy’ corporations? Do you want the same companies operating your utility-scale solar plant that have bought the uS political system (with uS taxpayer dollars no less), overthrow govt’s around the world, pollute the earth like no one else and have committed endless crimes too long to list, much less contemplate?

    The very idea questioning the nature of uS controlled global-scale corporate structures never gets a mention here. The underlying message couldn’t be more clear.

    uS corporations=good.
    uS oil corporations=maybe not so good(used to be)
    us oil corporations turned renewable energy corporations=really really good$$$

    As usual, any discussion of the short-comings of for-profit, state-subsidized corporate capitalism in the uS, is not even on the radar.

  37. dave thompson on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 1:15 pm 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-PSCqhkWhg

  38. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 1:20 pm 

    Look at the stats though Boat straight from EIA. Given a lot of their renewable is really Quebec’s hydro. Danes will probably enjoy their energy policy when a couple more years of depletion catch up with us hear in the states. Maine is number 2 in renewables other than hydropower but we are close to number 1 on asthma and cancer rates, I would take slightly higher juice rates to not have to breath pollution in a second.

  39. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 1:26 pm 

    3 new solar furnaces opening in the southwest, 24 hour solar power, I believe they are going to employ molten salt…gotta love it. Geo how in this current economic environment with extreme low interest rates, can you not make money in renewables. Cash flow positive pretty damn quick if done right.

  40. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 1:29 pm 

    Apneaman, if the wheels don’t fall off, I see it as pretty much inevitable that the greedy grimy fossil fuel company’s will move into renewables. For both PR and to stay relevant. When I see ExxonMobil ads these days they usually talk up their natgas business and pitch it as green. When the public figures out this is just one of their many lies, they may be forced into diversification.

  41. Steve on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 2:12 pm 

    Boat, we have no way of knowing what the Saudis are now willing to accept as payment…

    Our media does not cover foreign policy issues because it would make Obama look like a fool on a daily basis…

  42. Steve on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 2:24 pm 

    ROI in solar or wind is minuscule compared to hydrocarbons… Sure, there are lots of articles that make it sound great, but it’s just propaganda… Your government desperately wants to keep oil prices from skyrocketing in the future, so the have subsidized, supported & pushed renewables. They’ve even created a green movement, but in the end, the numbers don’t add up…

    General Electric has made some $ selling wind turbines, but if they were so profitable, wouldn’t GE OWN wind turbines themselves???

  43. Boat on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 2:26 pm 

    PracticalMaina

    http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT

    This is May 2015

    In 2014, 27% of Vermont’s net electricity generation was produced by renewable energy, including hydroelectric, biomass, wind, and solar resources.
    Vermont has a voluntary goal of obtaining 25% of electricity consumed in the state from renewable energy resources by 2017; the resources must have begun operating after 2004.
    Vermont’s Clean Energy Development Fund is promoting winter heating with high-efficiency wood combustion technologies and fuel from sustainable forest ecosystems.
    All new electricity generating capacity added to Vermont’s grid in 2014 was solar-powered.
    Last Updated: May 21, 2015

  44. Boat on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 2:35 pm 

    steve,

    Wind has grown fast in Texas the last 10 years. Our electricity costs are low to average comared to most states.

  45. PracticalMaina on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 2:56 pm 

    Boat, those numbers seem more accurate but the EIA is claiming in a chart that it is 99% renewable for including hydro, they may not be counting out of state power and may have very little fossil fuel electric generation in state? I know the numbers are not accurate but they are from an agency that should be telling us accurate numbers.
    Steve if ROI is so bad on renewables, than why do fossil fuel chapter 11 outnumber them so badly right now? Because the ROI on fracking and huge open pit coal mines is not as good as they want you to believe.

  46. geopressure on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 3:42 pm 

    Boat: Too bad the wind does not blow like it does in West Texas everywhere…

    PracticalMaina: Chapter 11’s in the oilfield right now due to excessive debt… + at a time when all sound oil analysts agreed that the price of oil should go to $150 or more, a manufactured oil glut took the price down. So lots of oil companies took big loans out to expand or make acquisitions, thinking that it was safe (& the banks were told it was safe), but it was not safe at all…

    —
    Renewables are a pipe dream… Renewables are the U S Government’s only hope to keep longterm oil demand down, to maintain low prices… If Oil prices go up & stay up, the US will cease to be the world’s only superpower…

    Nobody invest more into Renuable technology & battery development that the US DOD…

  47. GregT on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 4:05 pm 

    There is no such things as renewables. You guys are all on crack. Electric power generation is a byproduct of the fossil fuel age, Period.

    No fossil fuels, no grid, no batteries, no solar cells, and no industry to build all of the stuff that we use that electricity for. Alternate electric power generation is a short term solution to generating a very small percentage of the electricity that fossil fuels currently provide. Alternates are a bridge to nowhere, and they are not renewable. Even with fossil fuel inputs, anything that requires the exploitation of non-renewable resources is not renewable. Just like fossil fuels.

  48. geopressure on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 4:56 pm 

    Y’all I worked on this ranch just East of Garden City, TX, drilling the first 9 Cline Shale wells for Laredo… Check out all the different ways that this ranch owner made money form his land:

    1) Shallow Gas Wells
    2) Conventional Oil
    3) Cline Shale Horizontal Play
    4) 6 Limestone Quarries on the Ranch (Texas Stoneworks)
    5) Cattle
    6) Hunting Leases
    7) Wind Turbines

    I never met the owner, they said that he lived in the Cayman Islands & rarely came back to Garden City…

    I just always found that interesting…

  49. penury on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 5:00 pm 

    Boat according to your chart that was referenced 47 per cent of Vermont’s elect was produced by renewable in 2014 however, 50 per cent of that was produced by Yankee Power which closed in Dec 2014. How did they do in 2015? (honest question)

  50. Boat on Thu, 28th Apr 2016 5:07 pm 

    penury,

    Look at the bottom of quick facts.

1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *