Display:
If I was a very, very wealthy person and my fortune was directly tied to the use of fossil fuels or nuclear, why would I be interested in wind power? How does wind power enhance my personal fortune/power?  Would I not view wind power as undesirable competition?

In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 at 06:20:30 AM EST
If I were a very, very wealthy person, I don't think I would want my wealth to be directly tied to any one thing.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 at 06:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
OK, only if I own ALL of the turbines and still call all the shots.  Hell, I'll go with solar if I could find a way to own the sun.

That's why fossil fuels are so nice.  In limited places, protect them with armed forces.  I win, you lose.

Wait till the same thing happens with food.  Oh, what fun.

In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 at 06:48:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... your fortune is most directly tied to the existence of some high income economies, somewhere in the world.

If your horizon is longer than a decade, then given that fossil fuels are not renewable or sustainable, if you want to secure your wealth, you would be well advised to swing your political clout to get feed-in tariffs and then sink some of the "assured return" part of your portfolio into wind power.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can't find a link, but I read very recently where Exxon-Mobile was investing in one or two renewable energies.  Perhaps this is an example of

"... if you want to secure your wealth, you would be well advised to swing your political clout to get feed-in tariffs and then sink some of the "assured return" part of your portfolio into wind power."

Earth, water, wind, and fire Energy is my desire... Engage!

by in her own voice (inherownvoice@suddenlink.net) on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They got to invest somewhere ... there isn't more oil out there to be discovered than they already have on their books, so they are in a declining industry, in terms of physical production.

Sure they will get windfall gains on the slide down, as the price of oil repeatedly spikes to ever higher levels, but there will be very little new work to do to make that money. They can drill more and more exploratory wells to find oil in places that will be very expensive to exploit to gain relatively little oil, but they already have oil fields that they are ready to bring on line once they are confident that crude oil is going to be above $80/barrel to stay.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
have avoided wind, for some reason (in fact, that's why I keep writing about the need to take wind seriously, as they obviously don't). Of the majors, only Shell has any kind of investment in wind, and they have decided to move out of it in Europe altogether (they're still active in the US for now).

Several of them (but not Exxon) seem to want to invest in solar.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Oct 21st, 2008 at 03:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series