Friday, March 30, 2012

Shell Chief: Energy Prices too Cheap to Change Consumption

On Friday March 23, Peter Voser, President of Shell gas said that “for certain things energy prices need to be expensive….If you look at the world prices today I would say the prices are too high because they reflect geopolitical issues. But I would also say it will not go down too much because it will not otherwise allow industry to develop enough to supply.” The reasoning of this is because gas prices are based on the law of supply and demand, and when you factor international conflict with countries like Iran (most of our oil is from the middle east) the gas prices are going to increase. To see dramatic changes in gas usage, Voser believes the prices need to spike much higher. But to avoid this, he wants America to turn to renewable energy sources. Already, Shell gas company has invested in 80 MegaWatts of Photovalics to solar energy (for those who don’t know, photovalics is when solar radiation is converted into current energy).In addition to these energy inefficiencies comes water inefficiencies. There is a predicted water shortage of 40%, something that will surely raise the costs of water. Furthermore, it doesn't help that 15% of our US water is lost each year through leaky pipes. Shell has also stated it is working on some Carbon Capture and Sequestration projects to limit the amount of CO2 emitted int the atmosphere. (caps carbon emissions). In addition, Voser is also a supporter of California’s cap and Trade carbon emissions policy, which puts a carbon cap on the amount of emissions companies can use. Last week, Shell has signed an agreement to invest in Shale oil along with China. Shale oil is thought to have less carbon emissions than coal and it is expected to lower gas prices since there is an abundance of it in the US. Furthermore, another issue coming to international attention is that our global population is increasing exponentially. As more countries become developed the need for energy is greater. In fact, Voser states, "We estimate that the energy demand will double from now until 2050 - 90% of that will be in non EOCD countries and half of that will be in China. This doubling will only happen if we can solve some of the energy efficiency problems."

Thus overall, our world is in no way sustainable and as we continue to use natural nonrenewable resources, the price of necessities like oil and water will keep increasing unless companies like shell and other large corporations can start investing in energy efficient technology or alternative energy resources.

Do you think that renewable resources are a better alternative to the pollution we are emitting? If so, why do you suppose more companies aren't turning to these alternative resources and what can be done to encourage more companies and developing countries to invest in renewable resources?

http://energy.aol.com/2012/03/23/shell-chief-energy-prices-too-cheap-to-change-consumption/?icid=related3

16 comments:

  1. I’m very surprised not many companies are switching over to better alternatives. There are alternatives such as solar power and hydroelectric energy that we can gain from the available sunlight and running water, but companies aren’t interested in investing millions of dollars to set up dams or solar panels. I think part of the reason not many companies are switching to the available alternatives is mainly due to the fact that customers will use their products regardless of how they get it. If the product they’re creating is something that customers need on a daily basis, companies might not feel any need to switch over to better alternatives if they know that they’ll keep getting business. I also believe that companies haven’t switched over is from the lack of demand for alternatives. The government isn’t forcing companies to use better forms of renewable resources and therefore the companies don’t need to switch over. In order to encourage more companies and developing countries to invest in renewable resources, I believe an incentive needs to be put into place. Possibly an increase in the amount of money they’re receiving from the government. I’m not entirely sure what incentive can be used, but I think it would be better than forcing companies into renewable resources.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I do think that renewable resources are a better alternative to the pollution that we are emitting. I think that air pollution is disrupting the earths natural ecosystem and something needs to be done in order to save our environment. I personally think that companies aren't turning to these alternative resources that are proven to be effective because they are too expensive. The companies or corporations will need to invest a lot of money in order to gain the technology to convert solar radiation into energy for instance. I believe that the government will need to create incentives for companies to invest money into new, efficient and renewable sources of energy. For instance, they could provide companies with rebates if they purchase technology to reduce pollutants from emitting into the environment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that renewable resources are a better alternative to the pollution that we are emitting. I think that renewable resource are better because with all the pollution we are emitting into the environment we are going to get to a point where we can’t fix the damage we’ve causes to the environment. I agree with Cassandra that the “pollution is disrupting the earth’s natural ecosystem and something needs to be done in order to save our environment” Renewable resources I think that more companies aren’t turning to these renewable resources because they are more expensive then getting the oil they have always been getting. I think some companies don’t trust them, and think if they switch over to renewable resources and charge their customers more, that there usual customer won’t follow them with the switch of resources. I think to encourage more companies and developing countries to invest in renewable resources that some companies like Shell need to start the change and hopefully more big companies will follow. I like Rachel’s idea of “possibly an increase in the amount of money they’re receiving from the government.” And maybe this could encourage these companies to change to alternative resources so our planet doesn’t get damage beyond repair.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think they are a better option for the companies and I don't understand why they aren't using these alternatives. I think they are because because the amount of pollution being emitted is making it so the environment is being damanged and soon it won't be able to be fixed. Because the renewable resources are so expensive, I feel like the companies don't want to use the money to use them. I think the mindset of these companies needs to be changed. Therefore, I feel as if the government should encourage the companies and possibly step in as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Switching to alternative resources is both good and bad. It is good in the perspective of the environment and stopping pollution but bad in the sense that if we didn't have companies like the oil business many people would be out of work. The last thing that the economy needs right now is for a large company to be out of business. However with the use of renewable we would save the environment from further pollution and the prices for this renewable energy may for cheaper than the current rising gas prices. The whole situation has its positives and negatives on both sides of the issue, which ever one is chosen will shape the future for America's resources.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am also very surprised that not many companies are switching over to better alternatives because I think that there are better options for companies. I think they are because the amount of pollution that is being emitted is damaging the environment and it might not be able to be fixed in the future. The use of renewable energy would save the environment from further pollution, but with the renewable resources being so expensive, I feel like companies would want to not use them. I think that the government should encourage these companies and step in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think it's kind of a given that renewable energy sources are much better for the environment. They can reduce pollution and I do believe that in the future we will somehow switch to more environmentally friendly sources of energy. However, I believe more companies are not getting involved with these renewable energy sources because it's somewhat of a gamble. Companies already have a system going, they have consumers using their non-renawable energy and the know how to manage what they already do. By switching over there are risks, as there always is with change. If it does not go over well for the company, it could potentially be a problem and they could lose a lot of money. To get renewable energy is also pretty expensive. To switch over would be a big leap, and it would be a large investment that companies may not feel they are able to take.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe that yes the renewable resources are better for everyone. It helps out the environment which is great for this planet and cuts down on the amount of gas we have to buy. I think that companies are not turning to this more because they are stuck on the past and think that gas is the way to go. They probably do not think that it has to much of an impact on the environment or that the prices are not too high. Even though both of those things are true. Maybe if countries gave tax cuts to those companies that decided to venture into renewable energy, more CEO's would decide to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the renewable resources are the better alternative. Soon enough there is going to be too much pollution and there will be no turning back. I think that while there is still time to turn the country around on a postive path this is the way to go to minimize the pollution that Americans are emitting into the air. I think that companies are hesitant to switch products because if they are making money and are being sucessful they may be ignorant to the fact that they are in a way doing a negative thing. It is hard to see that because they are too sucesful. It would have to rely on the customers to change rather than the businesses. I like Cassandras idea of a rebate to the companies. I think that once one company makes the change, they may struggle at first but eventaully other companies will follow suit and do what everbody else is doing to become sucessful. So maybe if the government assisted one large company (Shell) the other companies may do as they do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. For this question, there really isn’t a side that can be taken. I agree, that alternative fuel sources would be the ideal route to go, although not all alternatives are environmentally friendly. Dams, for one with hydroelectricity, I believe, is bad for the environment for it is a problem to the natural habitat for which they sit. And on the other hand, fuel alternatives such as solar power and vegetable oil, are great alternatives, both of which can be used for just about anything. A solar powered car would absolutely save on gas, you just can only drive on sunny days, so it would still need gas or even vegetable oil or some other biodiesel fuel. Some alternatives again, could still be harmful to the environment such as dams, but there are still the best ones out there like wind power of solar power. I think, it would be very interesting if a car could start up on a solar power charge and then drive with a propeller on the roof of the car that spins while your driving so it is constantly driving energy into the car while using it at the same time. That could be the best uses to a windy day. I’m also surprised how many companies aren’t switching over to alternative fuel, they mainly care about income more than the environment. Either way they get paying customers, so it doesn’t matter to them none. The government has been trying to switch the country over to alternative, environmentally safe fuel sources, but so far the country isn’t there yet. We have hybrids and electric cars, but a vast majority of cars still run primarily on gas. In order for there to be a majority of cars running on alternative fuel, the government would have to invest in making it available to the public everywhere and / or create some sort of fuel law with collaboration with the EPA to work something out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with Maddie, obviously renewable energy is much better for our environment, like there is no questioning that. And also agreeing with Maddie, I think that companies aren't switching because they already have a set system going and people know how to use it. If they were to switch over there would be major changes, and people are not big fans of huge changes. It would take a lot of time and getting used to in order to pull of renewable energy and such.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I definitely think that alternative fuel sources are the right way to go in our country. It is going to be necessary if we want this fuel crisis to end. Using renewable resources, will lower the level of pollution in this country by a great amount. It will help everybody if it is instituted. You are lowering the level of pollution, halting the fuel crisis, and it will lower gas prices. This is so beneficial for the success of our country in the future. Honestly, I don't know why more companies don't go to it. We as a country need to start promoting renewable resources as the proper fuel to use because that will ensure a better future for us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How it is now in America, with a bunch of issues coming into effect like gas prices, jobs etc, i definitely think that alternative fuel sources are the right way to go in the near future. With this in effect, it will help many Americans by lowering fuel costs; a major issue that every american has complained about one time or another. Also, it would environmentally help as alternative fuel will lower pollution rates and decrease the harm effect these fuels have on the environment. he United States of America has to think about alternative fuel choices and substitutions as it could be a very efficient and beneficial aspect in making not only our country better but our word as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I definitely think switching to renewable resources will be a better choice. It also will stop the drilling in the United States which will put a stop to drilling our land and ruining it. I really do not have an answer to the reason why companies are not switching to it. Maybe they think nobody else will switch and they are going to end up putting their money into something that is not as popular as oil. Persuading the companies may make them a little more comfortable switching over to using renewable sources, other than that I am not sure what will make them switch over because nobody can make them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that switching to renewable resources is a better alternative. The resources we are using now are the major causes of air pollution. Air pollution is effecting many natural processes that occur on earth. It disrupts ecosystems and can destroy them and it deplets the ozone layer which leaves every organism here on Earth vulnerable to UV rays and for humans, UV lights cause skin cancer. However, many companies are not turning to renewable resources. I think this is so because 1. There is not a huge market for it, thus, a lot of people do not care what resources they are using right now so why waste the money. 2. Switching to renewable resources will be expensive and time consuming and many companies do not want to waste their time and money on something that does not have a market, yet. Thus, I think companies will switch to using renewable resources but only when it is too late.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Switching to renewable energy sources is a better solution. It is also cheaper and more efficient, and that is why I think companies do not want to switch to renewable energy, or push anyone else to do so. If we stopped using gasoline, we would experience a shift in the prices of many things, because transportation is part of cost for goods, and transportation would be cheaper. The big energy companies don't want to lose their grip on the gigantic revenue stream that they are currently receiving, and the government does not want to lose tax dollars or donations from big energy, so they will not make policy changes or any kind of pushes to change the energy sources that we use.

    ReplyDelete