human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 19:38
VIEWED: 60750
PAGE 29 of 111
Quote:
Under the Shell Energy brand, we provide innovative, reliable and cleaner energy solutions through a portfolio of gas, power, environmental products and energy efficiency offers to businesses and residential customers.
https://www.shell.com/shellenergy/about.html
Yanno, Musk never made money from the customers of Solar City. Where Solar City REALLY raked in the $ was the $3000 government subsidy for each install. The company in essence owned the panels, pocketed the subsidy, and got the homeowners to pay THEM for the electricty generated.
I dunno about Shell Energy. I know that 100% renewable is NOT their only business. Maybe there's a subsidy or a tax writeoff that lets them at least break even while the other parts of their business are doing well. Whatever it is, they're not making money from their customers by not charging them for electricity, and it's certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Last year I signed up for a 5-year contract with MP2 Energy for 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. MP2 was always part of Shell, but it changed its name this year to match its owner and it also changed its price to 16 cents per kilowatt-hour to match the price of fossil fuel-fired electric generation.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Under the Shell Energy brand, we provide innovative, reliable and cleaner energy solutions through a portfolio of gas, power, environmental products and energy efficiency offers to businesses and residential customers.
https://www.shell.com/shellenergy/about.html
Yanno, Musk never made money from the customers of Solar City. Where Solar City REALLY raked in the $ was the $3000 government subsidy for each install. The company in essence owned the panels, pocketed the subsidy, and got the homeowners to pay THEM for the electricty generated.
I dunno about Shell Energy. I know that 100% renewable is NOT their only business. Maybe there's a subsidy or a tax writeoff that lets them at least break even while the other parts of their business are doing well. Whatever it is, they're not making money from their customers by not charging them for electricity, and it's certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts.
I assume Shell Oil's management dropped the boom on MP2's management, telling them that Shell Oil is not in business to save the Earth but its business is to make the maximum profit. Therefore MP2 prices (for Shell Energy) jumped from 9.5 cents to 16 cents over the last 9 months.
Shell makes a profit at 9.5 cents, but it makes a killing at 16 cents per kilowatt-hour. Which price do you think Shell is more likely to charge, Signym?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
More people now work in clean energy than in fossil fuels
Nearly 40 million people worldwide work in jobs related to clean energy, according to a Sept. 8 report from the International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-employment/overview#abstract
That number represents 56% of total energy sector employment, meaning that, for the first time ever, clean energy jobs outnumber those involved in producing, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.
The clean energy jobs include those upstream, like building solar panels and producing crops for bio-fuels, as well as downstream, like operating wind farms, installing energy efficiency upgrades in buildings, and selling electric vehicles.
The majority shifted during the pandemic, the report says; in 2019, clean energy was just shy of half of the jobs.
Since the pandemic, clean energy has accounted for “virtually all of the growth in energy employment,” the report says. That’s largely due to the opening of large new manufacturing facilities for solar and electric vehicles, especially in China.
In spite of headwinds from rising raw material prices and trade disruptions, the report projects clean energy job growth to steam ahead, adding at least 13 million new jobs by 2030, and more than offsetting the continuing loss of jobs in fossil fuels.
https://qz.com/more-people-now-work-in-clean-energy-than-in-fossil-fue
-1849510159
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sorry but... do you have a point, SECOND? First you post that Shell Energy is giving away free electricity. Then you post they're charging beaucoups bucks for it.
So... what's your point, exactly?
*****
BTW I'm all for hydrogen powered whatever. Rockets. Trains even.
But you have to admit that rockets and trains are rather special cases of "mobile sources". Rockets bc they can be fueled immediately prior to their (single, one way) journey, and trains bc they have limited, well-defined routes which justify special infrastructure and are large enough to accommodate special fuel tanks.
"Back in the day" of wood and coal-fired steam engine trains, the trains had a car just for coal and had regular water towers along the route. So something like that has been done before. But you didn't see too many wood-fired cars around.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
More people now work in clean energy than in fossil fuels
Nearly 40 million people worldwide work in jobs related to clean energy, according to a Sept. 8 report from the International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-employment/overview#abstract
That number represents 56% of total energy sector employment, meaning that, for the first time ever, clean energy jobs outnumber those involved in producing, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.
Yeah... That's a real winner.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4
Quote:
In 2021, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.2% of total U.S. energy consumption and about 20.1% of electricity generation.
Let's put 56% of the payroll on 12% of the product.
And people are supposed to believe that Second runs a business and hasn't managed to run it straight into the ground yet.
Get fucked Leftists.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The deal with Shell is perfectly obvious: Shell can get rich selling 100% green energy, just as it got rich selling absolutely dirty energy. The obvious point is that Shell is staying in the energy business and will continue to get rich, and it will sell you any kind of energy you want.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sorry but... do you have a point, SECOND? First you post that Shell Energy is giving away free electricity. Then you post they're charging beaucoups bucks for it.
So... what's your point, exactly?
Do you want clean energy? Shell sells you that. Do you want dirty? Shell sells you that. It is your choice to make about how dirty your energy supply will be. The national governments might get involved by telling you what you can buy, but until the government does, it is all your decision based on what energy, clean green or dirty, is cheapest.
On the other hand, most oil and gas companies do not want you to buy green energy because they don't have the brains to sell that. If you buy green energy, most oil and gas companies cannot make any profit from you. What is so hard for you to understand, Signym, about why most oil and gas companies, Exxon-Mobil for the most notorious example, denied that there is such a thing as global climate change? The same companies will lobby governments to not require green energy because that would put the companies into bankruptcy.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-ch
ange-almost-40-years-ago/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
More people now work in clean energy than in fossil fuels
Nearly 40 million people worldwide work in jobs related to clean energy, according to a Sept. 8 report from the International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-employment/overview#abstract
That number represents 56% of total energy sector employment, meaning that, for the first time ever, clean energy jobs outnumber those involved in producing, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.
Yeah... That's a real winner.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4
Quote:
In 2021, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.2% of total U.S. energy consumption and about 20.1% of electricity generation.
Let's put 56% of the payroll on 12% of the product.
And people are supposed to believe that Second runs a business and hasn't managed to run it straight into the ground yet.
Get fucked Leftists.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You didn't have to repeat yourself. . . There is a huge gap in your understanding that is tedious for me to try changing. The fossil fuel industry does NOT require many workers in order to serve 100% of Americans while the green energy industry requires an enormous number of workers to serve a few Americans. The closest analogy is the number of farmers in 1860 compared to farming in 2022. 50% of Americans were farmers long ago and now it is 1%. With the addition of some labor-saving technology, a lot of farmers became unemployed as farmers. The same thing will happen when green energy gets more labor-saving technology. The number of employees will decrease sharply and they will have to go back to work at low paying jobs with McDonald's and Burger King.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Get fucked Leftists.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:You didn't have to repeat yourself. . . There is a huge gap in your understanding that is tedious for me to try changing. The fossil fuel industry does NOT require many workers in order to serve 100% of Americans while the green energy industry requires an enormous number of workers to serve a few Americans. The closest analogy is the number of farmers in 1860 compared to farming in 2022. 50% of Americans were farmers long ago and now it is 1%. With the addition of some labor-saving technology, a lot of farmers became unemployed as farmers. The same thing will happen when green energy gets more labor-saving technology. The number of employees will decrease sharply and they will have to go back to work at low paying jobs with McDonald's and Burger King.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Get fucked Leftists.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Labor-saving technology?
How about you get some technology that actually works and still isn't in the stage of plausible but still science fiction?
California had to tell the few people who had coal burning cars not to charge them during the day and everybody else to keep their A/C at 78 degrees just a few weeks ago.
Forget labor-saving technology. Hell... forget that your "clean" energy from the manufacturing of the batteries to the electric that charges them are dirtier than fossil fuels.
How the fuck are you going to power 30 million of these things in one state alone?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is easiest to keep burning gasoline forever because the same old car engines and oil refineries and habits will last forever. Slightly more difficult is to shut down the refineries and build on the same piece of land a chemical factory that makes gasoline directly from the CO2 in the air. Even more difficult is to stop building internal combustion engines for autos and replace the engines with electric motors.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
How the fuck are you going to power 30 million of these things in one state alone?
February 9, 2022 -- Stanford engineers create a catalyst that can turn carbon dioxide into gasoline 1,000 times more efficiently
Captured CO2 can be turned into carbon-neutral fuels, but technological advances are needed. In new research, a new catalyst increased the production of long-chain hydrocarbons in chemical reactions by some 1,000 times over existing methods.
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/02/09/turning-carbon-dioxide-gasoline-e
fficiently/
June 7, 2018 -- This Gasoline Is Made of Carbon Sucked From the Air
A Harvard-affiliated Canadian company is making a liquid fuel that is carbon neutral, and they hope the economics will be in their favor.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/carbon-engineering-
liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science
Your average person will prefer the cheapest solution, which is to keep doing what you have always done. That means no electric cars and no CO2 turned into gasoline.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME