Should oil companies be allowed to develope organic fuels?

As we all know the price of oil is sky rocketing. The majority of oil comes from less than stable parts of the world. Namely the middle East, Nigeria not to mention Venezuela for example. The production is threatened from many directions and oil producing countries use this gambit constantly to drive prices ever upwards.

Added to the above OPECs main aim is short term profit for themselves. So they are quite happy to use all and any excuse to hold the rest of the world to ransom.

Given the destructive qualities of burning oil, organic replacements are being sought. We need to get away from oil for 2 reasons that come immediately to mind. Firstly the destructive capacity it has on our environment. Secondly the nature of the states that hold the rest of the world hostage to oil.

I constantly see advertisements about how geniuses have produced organic solutions. Now at this stage I'm not too bothered about the effectiveness of these solutions. Just that there are solutions. What does bother me is that these 'geniuses' and their research is virtualy monopolised by the oil companies. The reason that this bothers me is that the very companies that are making huge profits out of us are holding the keys to release us from oil dependancy. I see a huge personal reason why these companies might not want to deliver a solution too quickly. If you have huge stockpiles of product then why rush in a replacement for that product?

My question: Should govts rule that oil companies cannot have controlling interests in organic solutions as it presents a conflict of interest? Should organic solutions be placed inthe hands of other organisations and assisted by global political structures to more rapidly develope these as a replacement for oil as a fuel?

For a start, oil is organic, i think maybe you mean renewable.

Oil companies have money, far more than the majority of governments, they basically have no R&d to d (oil extraction is pretty much done) if they want to spend it on renewables, why the hell not, they'll be massive profits for whoever is first to market with a fuel cell for example (although for the record, im not convinced by fuel cells, they just move the pollution all to one place, since electrolysis needs huge amounts of electricity, were better off just running on batteries rather than some crazy electric->hydrogen->electric combo). Just look at the prius, which is frankly not that impressive, but still sells by the bucket load..

You can't regulate things like that though, no one stops drug companies researching vaccines, despite the fact that they may make more money from treating an illness rather than vaccinating for it. Add to that the fact that a lot of renewable power is out of the hands of the oil companies anyway (they're really only focussing on fuel cells, which as ive said, im very sceptical about). The first wave power systems are in the hands of small companies, and the only actual solution to any energy crisis (nuclear) is regulated all the way to hell and back to make it too expensive to be worht bothering with.

its in the interests of oil companies to fund alternate fuel methods....Eventually fuel will run out and until then oil prices will sky rocket, putting it out the reach of your average person. As a result less fuel will be sold and profits will drop.

By investing in alternate methods, they potentially open up a new market into which they can spread.

Why not?

Surely all the millions and billions they've made from fossil fuels means they can invest and research the next generation of fuels quicker than if just a standard company did as they have over 60 years experience in the industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RVF500

As we all know the price of oil is sky rocketing. The majority of oil comes from less than stable parts of the world. Namely the middle East, Nigeria not to mention Venezuela for example.

---

Where did you do your geography and economics class, button moon ?

The oil comes from middle east indeed, but the places usa is invading have the largest quanitites. Iraq, Iran, Kuwait.

Gentlemen, read up some conspiracy theories.. within 2 decades things are going to get very very very bad for everyone on globe. due to the dependancy on oil.

Nuclear power ftw, uses less raw materials and produces sufficient power. If done properly isnt as harmful as green peace numpts would have you beleive.

Solar and Wind are the only types of infinate resources, ironically the ones we dont seem interested in *globally* or invest in. It has been proven that a house that had solar panels on roof and various parts advantagous for sunlight could easily support a 4 person family.

And solar panels dont have to be those light looking star trek type panels either. When will ppl realise that unless we start turning the boat around soon, we're all destined for extinction. NO JOKE

basically, we're all fuct'd :s

I did my geography by putting my feet on the ground in those parts of the world. When you are old enough to go out without parental guidance you should try it.

it's a question...and the question is should the people with a vested interest in a given product that has such a large impact globally be entrusted with it's replacement?
I know the economics. I for sure would like to be in charge of replacing my own expensive product.

And yes. We are screwed. Unless people in power do something about it now.

To answer your question, if it wasn't the oil companies funding research into alternative fuels then it would be someone else and when they became the dependent source of fuel they will then become the fatcats we all love to hate. It might as well be the oil companies doing it the end result will be the same.

I for one am glad that they are spending my hard earned cash on alternative fuels. Atleast I know that not all my money goes into filling someones bank account with 000's...

I can also rest easy knowing that they are working towards a dependable source of fuel for the future generations.

Recoil, Venezuela is going to be one of the largest oil producing countries in the world soon, and the US is doing their best to overthrow Venezuela's government (who are controlling all oil production there and using the money for *gasp* social benifit), don't worry about that.

It's just that the US are screwing about in Europes backyard, and that the Middle east is so contentious, that we are getting all the press about it.

On topic, I wouldn't want to rely on Oil companies to come up with a solution to our energy problems. Who will regulate them??
They would probably go with nuclear and get contracts with Nestle to sell the waste as baby formula for african countries, and sell any excess uranium to Afganistan drug lords.

@ Moose, is any of that on topic? why not save us all some time scrolling and just delete everything but the bold bit.

Done. Sorry didn't realise I'd rambled for quite so long... have pitty on me I'm dying of boredom at work!!!

You can't blame the US for wanting to secure what little remains of the oil. they are the largest consumer of the stuff. It is only delaying the inevitable though and sooner or later they will have to scrap their gas guzzlers. By that time we will be less dependent on oil and in a much stronger position than the US.

To the question "Who will regulate them?" The International Energy Agency acts as a policy advisor for 26 countries already.

Ultimately though it will be a branch of that countries government that will regulate it's energy program.

Also a note on Nuclear power. Current UK reactors are all reaching the end of their operational lives. It is going to take a long time and a lot of money to decommission the current facilities. Unless governments allow the companies to build new facilities soon nuclear energy will not play a large part in our future energy production.

to be honest, its in oil companies best interests to develop these fuels - in under 50 years there will be ~no oil left - that means no business for shell, bp and the other giants. most companies which face certain extermination unless they move to another line of work would probably be chasing the alternitives as well

There are alot of alternatives out there, but almost all of them require oil to make them. For example ethanol is rewnable, but the gas used to power the tractors to farm the corn and the gas used to transport it is not. We also rely on oil to make plastics and many other products.

Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't work on solutions, we just need to find alternatives to every use for oil, not just a select few we like to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rec0il

It has been proven that a house that had solar panels on roof and various parts advantagous for sunlight could easily support a 4 person family.

---

My parents have solar water heating and they pay very little in heating/hot water costs.

The payback period on the panels looks to be about 17yrs so not too bad as they will be paid off in their life time easily.

Offshore wind power is the way forward, as it gives the best elec return for the price and dont impact on house prices either.

Tbh, the only sustainable solution is nuclear. Yes, its costs a lot to decomission a reactor, of course it does, but the ones going out of service now are very old designs, modern ones could last ~100 years at least. If you factor in the cost of getting any other power generation mechanism (other than coal/oil/gas) up to the kind of potential nuclear has it looks positively cheap. (IIRC to get wave power up to 20% of the uks demands youd need to farm almost all the coast)

Basically, nuclear power owns hard, waste is a non issue, if the romans can build structures still standing now, we can build things that'll still be around in a thousand years. People just need to get rid of the not in my back yard mentality

Awm also has a good point about plastics, however, i dont have an exact figure, but i would guess the majority of oil production is accounted for by fuel, so its not as an urgent a problem.

Yes true, I'm in favour of new nuclear facilities myself. yes their byproducts are pretty dangerous but then so is C02 if not dealt with.

IMO the only way to get current CO2 emissions below target levels in the timescales available is to build new nuclear facilities.

I just hope someone hurries up and manages to get an operational fusion reactor going able to produce energy.

The problem with nuclear, besides the highly dangerous waste, is that uranium (and plutonium) is also fairly limited in quantity and is not portable. The Earth does not have enough of the correct isotope to last forever (or anywhere close), so at most we could get more time. There has been talk (an occasional funcitoning plants) of breeder reactors which take waste uranium and "breed" it to the correct istope by pelting it with neutrons, unfourtuneatly it needs liquid sodium cooling since water absorbs too many neutrons. The problem with this is that sodium is extremely reactive. To my knowlege all breeder reactors have been shut down for this reason.

The point being theres enough nuclear fuel kicking around to last for a good couple of hundred years, by which point, fusion reactors will be stone age technology, where as at the moment were setting ourselves up for a crisis in maybe 20 years time, and since the building time for most plants would be at least 5 years, more if you include design etc, we need to get our skates on

The thing is we do have alternatives. China recognises (for example) that it is going to face supply issues with the pace of it's own economic growth. One of the options it is workingon is the refining of palm oil. They don't have it. Malaysia does. So they are commissioning refining plants to be supplied by countries such as Malaysia. Cheaper and renewable. Whilst giving growers incentive and a valuable crop. Maybe someone should have a word with the people intent on turning the rainforests of South America into a football field.

Biofuels are a viable alternative that is available now. Can anyone tell me (intelligently) why these are not being made readily available to users i.e mass transport providers?There has been much made about how we need to reduce emissions so why is the means to do it being kept back? It IS available now and it CAN be used in a mixed form in vehicles that are on the road now without having to modify the vehicles.

Not sure where I stand on the issue of nuclear fuel. Ok, its clean but produces harmful waste. The thing is how harmful and how much? I think I'd be happier if there was a way to neutralise the waste. Of course we've all seen what happens when things go drastically wrong with nuclear power. It's all very well saying that it's prefectly safe if done properly. But accidents still happen.

Biofuels are available now, one of the big supermarket chains (morrisons iirc) runs its fleeet on used doughnut fat.

But biofuels arent the be all and end all, as far as energy/area goes i think youd probably struggle to beat solar/wind, and of course, its only really useful as a transport fuel, not as a mass generating type of thing, and its nearly as bad for the environment, fair enough, its not oil, but i imagine theres still a lot of particulates (although i havent seen any figures, i cant see it being much better than modern diesel engines)

What do you mean by organic fuels? Oil is an organic fuel.#

Edit: oops - that was answered on first page - you mean renewable.

Well yes they should be allowed to, and they are allowed to.. so a bit of an odd question :p

Tesco already sell 5% biofuel at their larger stations.

All diesel in france is 5% biofuel..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herulach

and its nearly as bad for the environment, fair enough, its not oil, but i imagine theres still a lot of particulates (although i havent seen any figures, i cant see it being much better than modern diesel engines)

---

Actually particulates are quite reduced with Biofuel, but CO2 emissions are higher - offset that by CO2 uptake during creation of Biofuel and it's not so bad.

Particulate reduction might not be a good thing anyway - the recent botch on the climate change experiment showed just how important particulates and smog is in combating global warming :p

OK, ok, ok.......fossil fuel is organic.....Yes, I meant renewable....alternative. My bad. The question is whether or not they are deliberately slowing the pace of change to get the most out of their present product. This argument can be quite easily equated to the argument that pharmeceutical companies withold medicines to prolong/maintain the sale of other expensive drugs. The argument is the same.

Now I know that makes sound economic sense to the companies but there are wider implications that need to be considered. The biggest one being the environment. Should we go at a pace dictated by the economics of the oil companies or should alternatives be either put into the hands of others or (more practicable) others be given assistance to compete and therefore push the pace of change. I know biofuels aren't the big answer.

How many times have we seen the advert proclaiming the fuel for motor vehicles that only has water as a by product. Marvellous, wondereful (wonderfuel!!). So where is it?

The other side of the coin is the political makeup of the largest oil producing regions. Yes I know that the US, Brunei, UK, Romania, Russia etc are stable countries unlikely to try and wipe out their neighbours, have internal instability or simply shut of the supply to show how much the rest of us needs them. Unfortunately the largest suppliers do have these issues. Getting away from dependancy on these states might even have a calming effect on them. As well as stop prices hitting you and I every time the Iranian president rattles his sabre, the Saudis have an Al Qaeda attack or the Nigerians have their sources slowed up by rebels for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RVF500

OK, ok, ok.......fossil fuel is organic.....Yes, I meant renewable....alternative. My bad. The question is whether or not they are deliberately slowing the pace of change to get the most out of their present product. This argument can be quite easily equated to the argument that pharmeceutical companies withold medicines to prolong/maintain the sale of other expensive drugs. The argument is the same.

---

But they don't. Pharma companies would love to get more medicines out the door, but when you have a 13 year trial lead time it's a bit hard.

Quote:

---

Should we go at a pace dictated by the economics of the oil companies or should alternatives be either put into the hands of others or (more practicable) others be given assistance to compete and therefore push the pace of change.

---

Oil companies aren't dictating the pace at all - supply is. At the moment we can't even grow enough oil seed rape to meet the incredibly small demand for places like tesco, and we have to import it from france.

I think you have too much of a pessimistic view on companies - maybe mine is too optimistic. But places like supermarkets are not always affiliated with companies that extract oil, and can chose where they get their supplies from, which is why we already see biofuel in supermarket stations. Oil companies are not dictating the what fuel we use.

In other news: maybe oil could be renewable if we actually did something with our plastic bags, rather than throw them away...

Maybe I am a bit cynical. To much reason to be and not enough not to be. There are medicines available that are not produced by the pharmas....if I was going to be fair then I'd say it was the testing programme that keeps them off the market. But I have a tendancy not to be fair when I see very good economic reasons for them to withold product. Hence my somewhat jaded view of the oil companies in general and the OPEC organisation in particular.

As for supply and demand. Well, maybe we should be talking to the South American nations about them planting stuff instead of cutting it down for cattle grazing etc. Even if we do have to import it I would personally rather import it from a region that would be looking at sustaining resources begause they have a reason too. Instead of just giving them cash and lots of pleas to please not wipe out their ecosystem as it just might have a knock on effect for the rest of us. Just an idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RVF500

The question is whether or not they are deliberately slowing the pace of change to get the most out of their present product.

---

It certainly seems that way. Viable alternatiives are availabe but the distribution network is under the control of the oil companies (who operate it in their best interests of course). With no way of getting a new product out there, alternatives will struggle.

I wouldnt like think how many 'genius solutions' have been thought up only for the oil companies to buy out the inventor and cover the solution up. No doubt they are going to milk the oil market for everything its worth before introducing alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

. At the moment we can't even grow enough oil seed rape to meet the incredibly small demand for places like tesco, and we have to import it from france.

---

That's the EU's wasteful CAP for you. We now pay farmers to look after the land rather than grow crops. There should be a sustained drive to get farmers in Britain to grow plants that produce biofuels, our agricultural set up is perfect for it. However, it needs enticement to get the ball rolling. Unfortunately our government is hamstrung because of the CAP. If we could control our own agriculture (and it's subsidies etc) then we would see a larger production of biofuels in this country.

When it comes to fuel intended for vehicles, I think the oil conglomerates should be forced to take a back seat, but whilst supply is ever growing, they will call the shots; no government or international body has the authority (i.e. financial muscle) to rein them in. If and when the migration to biodiesel is made, they will exert massive influence over the market via the distribution chain and at the point of sale. Production of the crops is going to need firm governmental support to prevent western consumers (and hence the oil conglomerates) from seriously taking the pish.

Overall, supply and demand is leaving us with a 'chicken or the egg' scenario; neither the consumer or producer is willing to undertake any meaningful, proactive steps. In the UK, Blair might be inclined to wag his finger at consumers, but he must know full well that a significant shift in consumer sensibilities and habits is likely to encourage decentralisation and hence require the global marketplace to make major adjustments. The USs much-vaunted 'dynamic' market driven society could find itself struggling, rather than just treading water.