More

52 Percent Of Oil Execs Say Alternatives Not Viable By 2015

JOHN PORRETTO   05/ 4/09 12:40 PM ET   AP

Oil

HOUSTON — Despite millions in new investments and President Barack Obama's push for clean energy technology, many oil and gas executives say mass production of renewable energy is not likely before at least the middle of the next decade, a new survey showed Monday.

Fifty-two percent of 382 petroleum industry executives surveyed by KPMG LLP said large-scale production of alternative energy sources will not be viable in the short term, at least not by 2015. Of those who believe such production is possible, 17 percent said the likely source is wind, 10 percent said biodiesel and 7 percent cited solar, according to the annual e-mail survey conducted in April.

Participants included executives for major oil companies, independent exploration and production outfits and other energy companies.

Based on their responses, there's been a significant shift in perception over the front-runner in alternative energy.

In a survey two years ago, 18 percent of executives said ethanol was the most likely renewable energy source for potential large-scale production, but it fell to 6 percent in the latest query.

"The results clearly show the momentum wind energy has gained as a clean energy solution," said Bill Kimble, who oversees the global energy institute at KPMG, the audit, tax and advisory firm.

Though it now accounts for slightly more than 1 percent of U.S. electricity production, wind was cited in the survey as the alternative energy source mostly likely to benefit as the Obama administration shapes its energy policy. Thirty-five percent said wind would be the biggest winner, followed by natural gas, biofuels and solar all with double-digit percentages.

Survey participants had clear choices for their picks as the biggest losers under Obama's policies: Coal at 42 percent and oil at 36 percent, even though fossil fuels are forecast to provide 80 percent of all global energy needs through 2030.

The president and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, have vowed to aggressively pursue policies aimed at addressing climate change, including a cap on carbon emissions.

Proposals have included a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, which could allow companies or plants to trade emission allowances among each other to mitigate costs. Either would be costly for polluting companies.

Not surprising, only 8 percent of the executives surveyed said cap-and-trade is the best approach to counter global warming. Sixteen percent said the best solution is tax incentives for investing in renewable energy sources, while 15 percent favored a carbon tax.

Many oil and gas executives have said they're concerned the industry will be targeted to carry more of the cost burden than it should based on emissions levels. The potential for new taxes, they say, worries them too.

"There's an effort here at the moment to raise money from a segment of the business that is just deemed to be able to pay," Bill Klesse, chief executive of Valero Energy Corp., the nation's biggest refiner, told Wall Street analysts recently.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

HOUSTON — Despite millions in new investments and President Barack Obama's push for clean energy technology, many oil and gas executives say mass production of renewable energy is not likely bef...
HOUSTON — Despite millions in new investments and President Barack Obama's push for clean energy technology, many oil and gas executives say mass production of renewable energy is not likely bef...
Filed by Dave Burdick  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 48
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
04:56 PM on 05/07/2009
Longer than that 2020 maybe 2025.Obama is moving to fast.All he will do is raise our energy cost,hurt the poor,and hamper GDP growth.We should DRILL offshore(Let the revenues fix the Liberal /Democrat states that have suffered from Liberal/Democrat laws).Make incentives for Green Tech start ups--lower capital gains tax,and corporate tax- The Free Market is much more efficient than any government policy
07:18 AM on 05/06/2009
2 risate per 1 mondo più vivibile!!!
ciao a tutti

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEmz4PU1g3U
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
05:24 PM on 05/05/2009
See The Brooklyn Project for a new, and different, approach to renewables: http://www.aesopinstitute.org

Breakthrough technology will rapidly make possible future electric and hybrid cars that need no fuel or external battery charge.

They can turn into power plants when parked. Imagine vehicles need no fuel and that pay for themselves - by wirelessly selling power to the local utility.

This will become a cost-competitive alternative to building new coal and nuclear power plants.

It reflects one application of new technologies that tap energy sources never before commercialized.

Scientists will be understandably skeptical until independent laboratory validation takes place.

That is on the horizon, as is production of self-powered generators - as well as demonstration
devices for schools and universities.

See http://www.chavaenergy.com for more information concerning these and other revolutionary technologies.

They are inherently inexpensive - and have surprising potential to accelerate rapid reversal of our economic and energy concerns.
11:00 AM on 05/05/2009
And if the oil exec have anything to say about the matter, alternative energy sources won't be viable until the oil runs out, at which point they will use their fortunes to buy personal wind and solar generators and let the rest of us freeze in the dark.

If their buddy Reagan had not gutted Carter's alternative energy research program, we might already be using mostly non carbon energy sources.

There is also a false dichotomy posed. I see the future as a combination of energy sources to offset the disadvantages of each one. I hope, especially, that we reduce our energy dependence, not only on foreiign countries, but also on large corporations. The solar part of the system should include the roof of every suitable home, business and school so that we pay less than we do now to the energy companies and their overpaid hierarchy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ewoman
08:51 PM on 05/05/2009
Agreed. How ludicrous to rely on an oil exec's predictions on alternative energy. How stupid are we supposed to be? I really want to know.
10:05 AM on 05/05/2009
OH NO!! I guess we should close our doors because the oil executives don't think we are going to survive. I suppose growth of over 800% for our Solar Maid business two years in a row and 250%growth of all our other concerns is just not enough.

Thanks oil guys for saving us the trouble of growing our business.

http://www.mygreenscene.com
09:31 AM on 05/05/2009
HEMP, people - it's carbon nuetral(consumes as much carbon when growing as it's product releases into the atmosphere), it's extremely space efficient, it requires far less water than competing crops, and of course it's uses are not only fuel but extremely tough fiber for clothing, rope products, paper, plastics, and on and on and on.

And no it's NOT Marijuana.
It CANNOT get you 'high'.

The only reason hemp was outlawed along with pot is that the lumber, pulp and paper companies lobbied congress in the 20's and 30's when they saw promising competition on the horizon. No other reason.

Do some research, folk - it's quite possibly our savior, and it's been staring us in the face all along.

Better to subsidize this type of product than the hugely subsidized and massively inefficient farming operations, I believe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TJCole
11:13 AM on 05/05/2009
Another great thing about growing Hemp is that you do not need to plant it in rows, so imagine how much Hemp you can literally pack into even just one acre....tons of it...!

Also we could then refine or distill it locally or semi regionally thus it enhances our National Security for multiple reasons and also adds jobs Green Jobs, for one thing adds or enhances our energy independence from people like the Saudis but also since today our refineries are all packed into just three regions they are susceptible to attack and this would shut down our nations entire system...

It's really disappointing that this White House too is ignoring science at the expense of our nations best interest...

Imagine if we ran our vehicles on a 50/50 mix of gas and ethanol from Hemp...we could cut our oil importation by a serious degree giving us greater energy independence..

Hemp4 Fuel a great site

http://hemp4fuel.com/
09:19 AM on 05/05/2009
That's like asking Monsanto if organic produce is healthy!

SHEESH!
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
05:55 AM on 05/05/2009
I'd like to see the same poll, but instead try executives of solar power and wind power companies.

My solar panels took only two days to install, so that beats the 2015 timetable by a pretty wide margin. They cut my electric bill in half. If everyone cut their fossil fuel use in half, we would be well on our way in CO2 reduction.

Next up is the electric car. Now I'm not using gasoline anymore. The car has a timer so it charges late at night, when the grid has excess capacity.

One of the reasons that electric bills are so high is that the utilities have to build enough power plants to handle peak load, but then those plants sit idle most of the time.

When there are significant numbers of electric cars, we will have V2G technology. Not only will the cars draw power from the grid when charging, but they will also be able to give back a small amount to the grid during peak demand.

Imagine a million electric cars, all pumping a few kilowatts each into the grid about 6 pm when people get home from work and turn on their TVs and air conditioners. That way we can prevent brownouts without the need to build extra power plants. Then later that night, when the grid has excess capacity, the cars charge up and they're ready for the morning commute.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
02:16 AM on 05/05/2009
Gee, what a fabulous group of unbiased folks to ask this question.
12:18 AM on 05/05/2009
Green energy won't be viable because they fight it tooth and nail.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Haditup2here
8 Years of Insanity and now you're mad?
08:14 PM on 05/04/2009
We need a better educated public so we can have a government that can formulate policies that actually works. . The reasonable thing to do would be to determine a goal for emissions within forty years (ten years is not reasonable) and set reasonable emissions limits every five years leading up to that goal. Tax the emissions as a flat rate and put that money in research to cap that emissions. Better yet, they could set up agreements between individual companies and research entities (whether universities, EERC, or DOE) to perform research and development technology to meet those limits.

However, officials don't seem to think that far ahead . . . .
07:35 PM on 05/04/2009
52 Percent of Rats Say Rat Poison Not Feasible
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wombaticus
All new info is analyzed against our experiences.
12:05 AM on 05/05/2009
LOL! Perfect analogy, thank you.
07:19 PM on 05/04/2009
What a moot headline!

It's sort of like, "52 Percent of All Burglars Say Alarm Systems Not Worth the Money!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Egalitare
08:46 PM on 05/04/2009
All the more reason that research and certain investments should not be subject to the time tables of the Fossil Fuel Barons.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Organic-Guy
Organic Gardener, Carpenter, Philosopher, Agitator
06:40 PM on 05/04/2009
Ethanol is a joke. It competes with food and uses huge amounts of priceless water to produce for minimal gain. If all the arable land in the US were converted to growing crops to make biodiesel there still wouldn't be enough production for even half of what we use. government and industry need to stop promising people and endless supply of cheap energy just over the horizon. It's fallacy to think that we can keep living and wasting so much.
The best alternative we have to what we're doing now is conservation. Reduce, reuse, recycle and Shut off the lights and get your foot out of the gas pedal.
09:20 AM on 05/05/2009
Spoken with true know-nothingism!
H-E-M-P
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctorkosan
PhD Chem E, HBS
02:13 PM on 05/05/2009
You are un-informed. There is enough non-food biomass in the USA that can be converted to liquid fuels (including ethanol) to eliminate importing oil per the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). You are right re reduce, re-use and recycyle.
What is needed are support and incentives for the developing technologies to achieve commercially ready status. This does not require substantial break-throughs but primarily development and optimization of already demonstrated technologies. This support can only come from the US governmant at this stage as banks, investors and other sources of funds are not available in today's economy.
The reason we as taxpayers should support this government funding is so we can stop/reduce the tax support we give directly and indirectly to oil that funds the terrorists efforts against us.
06:07 PM on 05/04/2009
Instead of trying to change everything overnight, we should be looking at what is the best alternative and make sure it isn't worse than what we already have.
Ethanol is a perfect example of short sighted thinking.
It sounded good on paper, but in reality not so much.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MJinCanada
Safe from zombies until my 2nd cup of coffee
01:44 AM on 05/05/2009
It started looking bad as soon as people started to go hungry because food crops were used for fuel.