Jul 09 2008
Scienceborgs.com and Shell: Solution in 20 Years
In case you missed the announcement, Scienceblogs has a new blog about energy called The Next Generation of Energy Ideas. Their about page says that it “is a blog about energy policy and alternative energy solutions. It is sponsored by Shell…” Hmmm, not a great start in my book. In fact, it’d probably be a deal breaker. But I wasn’t asked to be part of the team. [Insert fake sobbing sounds here.]
So who are the writers at this “new” blog? It’s composed of 7 people, 3 of whom already have been assimilated by the Scienceborg: Connolley, Hrynyshyn, and Kirshenbaum. Romm gets added to the mix, as well as two people from Seed. So this blog really only brings one new voice to the table, that of Solomon Hsiang, a Ph.D. Student in Sustainable Development.
In the comments of the latest post, a writer asks what effect the sponsorship by Shell will have on the writings at the new blog. A Seed Media representative assures us that
The bloggers of this forum (like all of the other bloggers on ScienceBlogs) are completely free to write whatever they wish. They are getting paid by Seed, as all of our bloggers get paid. The sponsors (in this case, Shell) have no control over comments, topics, etc.
I sure hope so, but the first post by Kirshenbaum does not give me any reason to trust that Shell will not get their views hear on the blog. The post is categorized as Cellulosic Ethanol, a business that Shell is hoping to make money on in the future. She uses the phrase “second generation” biofuels twice in her post. This phrase, or the similar “next generation”, not only appears in the Shell sponsorship, but also on almost every Shell webpage associated with biofuels.
Why “second generation”? Because it sounds like they’re actually doing something. And if you believe the hype, they are. New stories like Shell joins in Hawaii algae biofuels venture tells us that they’re working on it. Let’s look at exactly what Shell is doing, and what they expect out of their ventures.
First, one of the “companies” that is working “with” Shell on developing biofuels is Infineum. It turns out that Infineum is just a Shell and ExxonMobil joint company. And to show that Shell really doesn’t care about this business, they are just about to sell it, as reported in the Times Online: Shell close to selling Infineum for £2bn. For those of us in the US, that’s almost $4 billion.
And then there are comments from Shell executives: Biofuels won’t solve world energy problem. Here again, we see Shell pushing “second generation” biofuels, because “first generation” biofuels are made from food crops. This has been blamed for food shortages. “Second generation” biofuels would be made from non-food products.
The question remains, what quantity of biofuels does Shell expect to produce in the next few years? According to Rob Routs, Executive Director Oil Sands, Oil Products & Chemicals, “I think biofuels could grow from a mere one percent of the world fuels mix today to as much as 7 or 10 percent over the next couple of decades.”
Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say that biofuels will product 10% of our fuel supply in 20 years. That means that in 20 years, 90% of our fuel will still be coming from “traditional” sources such as oil and coal. Biofuels will be at most carbon neutral, which means that in 20 years we’ll still be producing 90% of the CO2 that we are today. Factor in population growth, and this sounds a lot like business as usual to me.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Related Posts:
11 Responses to “Scienceborgs.com and Shell: Solution in 20 Years”
To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.
I don’t think Romm would sign on if there was something shady going on. He seems far too committed to seeing meaningful deployment of clean energy to join a venture that ended up promoting BAU.
I confess I am a bit confused by this criticism. Certainly you can’t think Shell has any editorial influence over the content of any of those blogging. Should I not appear on CNBC because it’s owned by GE? Or not write articles for newspapers or magazines that take money from fossil fuel companies. Get serious.
Second, it sounds like you are criticizing the first post because it didn’t present the entire solution to global warming. Again, that is not realistic. Yes, we are going to need more fuel-efficient cars, plug-in hybrids (which I will be posting on Thursday) AND low-carbon biofuels. It’s just a blog, not a book.
I also think cellulosic ethanol is an important but limited strategy. Some people, like Vinod Khosla, however, think it will be most of the answer for transportation. I honestly could care less what Shell thinks.
I don’t understand your criticism of the term “second-generation” biofuels. That is such a standard term of art that it even has its own Wikipedia entry.
Note to Thingsbreak — thank you!
[...] Some have criticized the Shell sponsorship of Scienceblogs. But Shell exerts no editorial control, so I’ll let others lose sleep over this. Personally, [...]
From inside scienceblogs I can assure you that many, probably all SBlings who are aware of this new blog, are very concerned about the Shell Sponsorship.
Innuendo and presumption of wrongdoing is obnoxious. Don’t do that. But a critical look at what is going on in this new experiment by those left out, er, I mean, on the outside, as well as those inside is very important and thusly I applaud your interest and efforts.
You can expect a critical eye from within. Guaranteed.
In the mean time I do hope that this does not become a whinefest by those who somehow feel left out or who don’t like the Shell sponsorship, and istead, that this becomes a productive bit of input into saving the planet and stuff.
Joe, no offense meant. But the page says:
> sources like wood chips and even algae that c
> can reduce carbon emissions.
Something like that deserves a challenge right at the start. Presumably they mean “reduce the use of fossil fuel” but they didn’t say it. Would they agree using less fossil fuel is a good idea?
The idea of a complete separation between advertising and editorial content isn’t well understood even as a good idea, and rarely stated as a policy. I’d like to see it.
The risk is always that a deep pockets advertiser will slowly contribute more and more to the support of any medium to the point where their pleasure affects the publisher’s pocketbook.
Think of it as an ongoing dynamic tension always worth attending to.
Does this development mean that reports from the George C. Marshall Institute, The Heartland Institute, and all other organizations to which Big Fossil supplies funds have now been validated?
There is a very serious objection. Alternative fuels are not the answer. The answer is wholesale lifestyle changes. It is not driving to the mall or to work from your low density development in the same several ton vehicle, running on biofuel. It is living in an apartment block and walking or biking to the shops on Main St, and taking the train to work.
The sooner we admit this, and either do it, or decide we cannot and will not, the better.
I think # fred on 11 Jul 2008 at 4:23 am
is correct.
While some have started to correctly do the necessary arithmetic, those in charge have not. An experiment is being conducted on human subjects. The subjects for the most part are not even aware, and those that are have not been asked for their consent.
Even those who have started to correctly do the arithmetic have yet to look into build-capacity-rate issues.
Second generation is the standard title for cellulosic ethanol.
Funding is not indicitive of bias, oops except for GE and the Universal-NBC Green Week, which I find hilarious because GE has had one of the worst environmental track records of any multi-national company.
So where are all the GE haters… oh wait they have a website!
http://www.cleanupGE.org
( that was a sarcastic cross position jab so do not get all freaked out)
Lets look at it this way, does the WWF or the Sierra Club ever pay to produce anything that is contridictory to their positions? Does this diminish the validity of its published opinions?
Why the double-standard?
I think that this site should be judged on its merits, not who funds it.
[Deleted. See comment policy.]