Shell is using Fortnite and social media to promote fossil fuels among younger people

[toooooot]

How dare they promoting something millions of people have no other choice but to use.

 

[WhoCaresAnymore]

Until there is a viable alternative what exactly is wrong with promoting better efficiency fuel?
EVs are a long way off reducing CO2 emissions or pollution, in fact they have a higher lifetime carbon/pollution footprint than a diesel truck.

They don't want to hear anything about how bad electric vehicles are. It's like a complete mind block. They don't call it "Green" for nothing. "Green" as in $$$

 

[3volv3d]

Scientists have long known that alcohol is as good an internal combustion fuel as any other. Still, no money has been invested in its application. A renewable fuel that doesn't damage the environment. I guess as long as those in power are satisfied with the status quo, things don't change. The hardest thing for humans to do is change something if is is satisfactory to them at the moment, even though they might know that someday it might be necessary. Oil is a finite resource and when it is gone, it's gone forever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too in the material universe. And here I am sitting here pecking away at a keyboard doing nothing. But then again, I don't possess the capital resources to do anything. So I guess I'll just go get me a bottle of Wild Turkey and get drunk.

Apparently shell or bp bought the rights to hydrogen as a fuel so no one could bypass them and they could use oil until depleted.
And they pay off people to make us pay more.
They should be held accountable as terrorists IMO holding people hostage to their price hikes when they had no issues during the Ukraine crysis, they just used it to make bank.

 

[Mark Fuller]

That is ignorant of the many of the problems of Ethanol production. For one thing, brazil uses sugarcane, which infamously does not grow in the US. Here we use corn, but the process is much less energy efficient and some argue its actually a net negative in energy output maintained only by massive lobbying to keep corn prices low for animal feed and processed food.

For another, Ethanol is a royal PITA to maintain. Ask any classic car guy what they think of the stuff. It eats old plastics and rubbers, strips coatings off of fuel pumps, and it attracts water. untreated ethanol, in as little as a month of sitting, can attract enough water to cause issues with combustion. "stale gas" was not an issue before ethanol came around. This can cause major issues in storage
tanks...like the ones used at gas stations.

Finally, there is the issue of scale. Brazil is a best case scenario, and 25% of their fuel is ethanol. In 2008, this required 55% of TOTAL sugarcane production in the country. You do understand why scaling this to 100%, to eliminate oil thus creating this alcohol fuel you are suggesting, is utterly unsustainable, right? Not to mention the VAST ecological damage done to rain-forests to grow all this stuff.

Were it so open and shut, oil companies would have pounced on it to provide sustainable bio fuel decades ago, to cement their control over the fuel supply.

I'm pretty sure, as one who is religious, you can see the religious cult that has grown around climate science, almost resembling that of a full on death cult that demands worship to avoid societal damnation. Not quite unlike those preachers whom predicted the rapture.

Also: facts. There are many facts. Some, like that the predictions from the 1980s (water would run out by 1995), 1990s (florida underwater by 2010), 2000s (Florida underwater by 2020), and 2010s (globe boiling, mass deletion of human life, blah blah blah), have not come true despite the worse case scenario (that being rising CO2 levels, which have doubled globally in the last 20 years) occurring speaks WONDERS, yet these facts are quite often ignored, as the present a rather inconvenient truth. Indeed, it seems some "alternative facts" are pushed among a certian political leaning as justification for their destruction of our cities and political climate to suit an agenda being pushed in many countries, seemingly to de rail their economies for the benefit of the few.

I'm not sure how you missed such simple observations, but hopefully this has answered your question. After so many failed predictions, and the same excuses begin used (we have new tools and data, ece), it is understandable that a growing population are taking the demands of the climate crazies with a whole morton factory worth of salt. We've had 10 years left for 20 years, and I've been hearing "12 years left" for at least the last 5. Mysteriously, that number keeps getting bumped when funding is running low. Funny how that works.....

I did not know that sugarcane did not grow here. Don't tell anyone in Louisiana or Florida. And I did not know that corn was any different to make alcohol from. Don't tell Jim Beam or Jack Daniels. If it were done one the same scale as petroleum now is, I'm sure there would not be much difference. Moreover, alcohol can be made from any grain. Therefore, something analogous to the destruction of a rainforest would be unnecessary. I said before they have dumped surplus grains of all kind in the ocean. The reason why Brazil uses sugarcane is not because of the way you have to make alcohol from it but because they have always produced so much of it and it is what's available.
I did not know, either, that alcohol presented a maintenance problem, actually, I don't think so.
As far as the prediction of water disappearing, I never heard that either, and the other vague statistics you quoted are beyond me. Predictions of such kind as you quoted always come from the kind that said "If man were meant to fly, he would have wings." But, thanks to Wilbur and Orville, we have the airplane to this day. There are other Wilbur and Orvilles.
I still say that it can be done, and, in fact will be if it is necessary.

 

[Mark Fuller]

Apparently shell or bp bought the rights to hydrogen as a fuel so no one could bypass them and they could use oil until depleted.
And they pay off people to make us pay more.
They should be held accountable as terrorists IMO holding people hostage to their price hikes when they had no issues during the Ukraine crysis, they just used it to make bank.

I don't think that in a land of free enterprise and equal opportunity, a system should exist to give anyone exclusive control of any resource. Everyone, in my opinion should have equal access. This is the major problem that has always plagued mankind.

 

[Aus spot]

Apparently shell or bp bought the rights to hydrogen as a fuel so no one could bypass them and they could use oil until depleted.

You know that is complete rubbish right? You don’t even know who you are talking about but willing to spread it.

 

[Mark Fuller]

You know that is complete rubbish right? You don’t even know who you are talking about but willing to spread it.

I was wondering how or if anyone really did that how they even could. Moreover, I don't think hydrogen in itself would put a dent in the problem. As far as practical reality is concerned, there are other alternatives, like the building of more hydroelectric power plants. alcohol, and God forbid, nuclear energy. I don't know how the left wing comments originated but the folks I've always been associated with have been saying this for years. And I don't think that petroleum itself is all that evil. I am just saying that given 7000 years of recorded history, there must be a depletion of the resource pool that was once there on this planet and nothing is being done about it. And I think that the reason why is because it has not caught up yet to a point that it makes a real difference by now. But it will catch up eventually and like I say, people will make the changes then rather than freeze to death or starve. I just don't understand why it can't be done now rather than wait till it is to late for so many people.

 

[Aus spot]

Considering the task ahead of the world, if we start now we might have a chance. And thats just net zero. Once we lick that issue (if we ever do). Then rubbish and consuming beyond need are subjects to address.

But getting away from the article.

 

[trents]

This article isn't biased at all, is it!

 

[Mark Fuller]

This article isn't biased at all, is it!

Perhaps you can espouse your opinion as to what should be done, after all, that's what the forum is for.

 

[trents]

Perhaps you can espouse your opinion as to what should be done, after all, that's what the forum is for.

They should also report on how the Biden administration is promoting anti fossil fuel use among young people and how it also promotes the untenable conversion to all electric transportation. And how we will all be walking where ever we go instead of driving because of most people can't afford electric cars and the power grid can't support the charging demands of all those electric vehicles even if we could afford them. And the dependency on foreign entities for the materials to make all those batteries and how those materials are largely mined by slave labor in third world countries, etc., etc. etc.

 

[Mark Fuller]

They should also report on how the Biden administration is promoting anti fossil fuel use among young people and how it also promotes the untenable conversion to all electric transportation. And how we will all be walking where ever we go instead of driving because of most people can't afford electric cars and the power grid can't support the charging demands of all those electric vehicles even if we could afford them. And the dependency on foreign entities for the materials to make all those batteries and how those materials are largely mined by slave labor in third world countries, etc., etc. etc.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. And the statement about the power grid is exactly why I favor more hydroelectric and nuclear facilities, which are proven efficient alternatives, instead of propping up the fuel oil and coal run power plants. Someone made a statement about left wing, where is where the opposition to hydro and nuclear come from. And the fact is, if we had all of their beautiful electric cars, what would recharge them, as far as I know 79% of the power grid in the US is made from petroleum, natural gas and coal. The other 21% comes from mainly hydro and nuclear, with a smattering of windmills, geothermal and solar cells, which don't amount to a good fart. Alcohol works, so does nuclear and hydro. Its just the matter of the same old fat farts sitting on the potty. Like they say, use it or get off so the rest to us can carry on.

 

[trents]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. And the statement about the power grid is exactly why I favor more hydroelectric and nuclear facilities, which are proven efficient alternatives, instead of propping up the fuel oil and coal run power plants. Someone made a statement about left wing, where is where the opposition to hydro and nuclear come from. And the fact is, if we had all of their beautiful electric cars, what would recharge them, as far as I know 79% of the power grid in the US is made from petroleum, natural gas and coal. The other 21% comes from mainly hydro and nuclear, with a smattering of windmills, geothermal and solar cells, which don't amount to a good fart. Alcohol works, so does nuclear and hydro. Its just the matter of the same old fat farts sitting on the potty. Like they say, use it or get off so the rest to us can carry on.

I'm in favor of using all of the above and not just focusing on eliminating fossil fuel use for energy. Solar, wind, hydro, fossil fuel, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, etc. Use any of it where it may be appropriate for the application and the geography/geology and for economic realities. Nuclear certainly makes sense but not as a total solution. Just as there is a limited amount of petroleum in the ground there is a limited amount of uranium in the ground and it could easily become the same geopolitical control resource that petroleum is now. Personally, I think the contribution that fossil fuel burning has made on "climate change" has been greatly exaggerated and I'm greatly annoyed anytime I listen to the weather channel as they never miss an opportunity to blame something new on climate change. They have a video on their website today saying that the taste of beer my become different due to climate change. Sheesh!

 

[Mark Fuller]

I think maybe it is a little bit warmer in the summer and maybe colder in winter, but they had a cold spell one time they call a little ice age and that was before any fossil fuels were ever burned. I favor climate change, if it is real, being blamed on unrestricted crop production world wide. Changing the face of the earth that much is what I think does it more that burning fossil fuels. They overproduce every agricultural commodity in the US to the point they have thrown some of it away by dumping it in the sea. They could save a lot of petroleum by not doing that.

 

[Mark Fuller]

I also don't think petroleum and other fossil fuels are evil in themselves, It's just that they are finite resources and are running out surely. Conservation is a must because there are some things you can do with them not yet duplicated elsewhere.