<p>Even an abundant and free energy source will require technology and lots of investement of money to put it into use.</p>
<p>Yeah, and people in the 19th century would have said, “So my horse cart is going to run on compressed organic matter from the ground? Not likely.”</p>
<p>Who really knows what’s going to power our machines in the future?</p>
<p>And, yes I know that of course they are interested in maximizing their profits because they are for-profit companies. Geez, pmrlcomm, is it that late? That’s the WHOLE POINT of requiring them to contribute to a fund that would reward the discoverer of the next (clean, renewable, cheap/free) energy. Why would they be interested in helping to explore a potential product that they would never profit from? Answer: they wouldn’t. So allow them to profit richly off of oil-dependent consumers who have no alternatives now, but require them to help government pay for the future alternatives that will replace oil.</p>
<p>Either you can bait or you can converse. You can’t do both in the same thread. So which is it?</p>
<p>“If the next big energy source is abundant, free and renewable (i.e. water or solar or the like) then I don’t think the energy companies or any for-profit company will be too interested. They are interested in maximizing profits for as long as possible. End of story.”</p>
<p>Someone has to make the solar panels, electrical and storage system to do solar. Or put in the generators, service the power lines. Calpine does GeoThermal which is about as green as you can but they still charge for the electricity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry about that p-comm. I didn’t mean to steal your thunder. Keep up the good work.</p>
<p>“And, yes I know that of course they are interested in maximizing their profits because they are for-profit companies. Geez, pmrlcomm, is it that late? That’s the WHOLE POINT of requiring them to contribute to a fund that would reward the discoverer of the next (clean, renewable, cheap/free) energy. Why would they be interested in helping to explore a potential product that they would never profit from? Answer: they wouldn’t. So allow them to profit richly off of oil-dependent consumers who have no alternatives now, but require them to help government pay for the future alternatives that will replace oil.”</p>
<p>A company’s job is to maximize long-term shareholder value. If other companies come up with technology to obsolete traditional oil companies, then it’s pretty obvious that they have a strong incentive to spend on R&D.</p>
<p>As has already been mentioned, oil companies already pay a lot in taxes; if the Federal and State Governments want to use these obscene taxation levels for R&D (public), then they can do that now. All of the stuff in the media is just grandstanding and isn’t helping in solving our problems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Enough to make the oil companies serious about exploring alternative energy sources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People do complain quite a bit about any company making “too much.” However, at least for technology companies and pharmaceutical companies, it’s a lot easier to justify making so much money. They actually have to be innovative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you on this, BC. But they also have an obligation to current shareholders to mine the vein they have in front of them. Right now, they’ve got oil and an industry built around oil and an entirely dependent consumer base for their product. They might be throwing some money into researching alternative energies but it’s probably not going to be serious money (just enough that they can say they’re making an effort at ending our dependence). They know oil and they still have (relatively) a lot of it. Until they get close to the bottom of the barrel, they have very little incentive to create new alternative energy methods, particularly not if future energy is cheap and abundant, like it probably will be (eventually). If consumers had any kind of choice in their form of energy, THEN you would see a real commitment to R&D. </p>
<p>It’s all about incentives… and the incentives for oil companies to participate in planning their own future demise (or, best-case scenario, switch to something completely different), well, they are low.</p>
<p>“People do complain quite a bit about any company making “too much.” However, at least for technology companies and pharmaceutical companies, it’s a lot easier to justify making so much money. They actually have to be innovative.”</p>
<p>Is Microsoft Vista innovative? Oops, they’re a monopoly.</p>
<p>All large, successful companies are technology companies as they have to create technology to build an edge. WalMart is a big information technology company - but they use that technology in-house.</p>
<p>You don’t think that oil companies innovate?</p>
<p>[Little</a> CDX a big player in oil, gas patents | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Cheryl Hall | Business Columnist | Dallas Morning News](<a href=“http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/chall/stories/DN-Hall_30bus.ART.State.Edition1.36d3537.html]Little”>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/chall/stories/DN-Hall_30bus.ART.State.Edition1.36d3537.html)</p>
<p>
What? Do more what? The purpose of a company is to make money, generally through providing goods and services at a profit. </p>
<p>
Oil companies are under no obligation whatsoever to explore alternative energy sources any more than Microsoft is, JC Penney is, or Hot Dog on a Stick is. The primary purpose of an oil company is to - sell oil. That’s it. If they decide to research alternative energy sources then that’s fine but that’s not their primary mission nor should it be.</p>
<p>Agree, it should not be their primary mission to research alternative energy sources; I actually think they would not have the proper mindset for the task (nor the financial incentive, as I mentioned in post 27). However, it is our government’s responsibility to look into the future and help end our dependence on limited, dirty, (foreign), expensive energy products, and it can and should use tax dollars to fund R&D to accomplish this.</p>
<p>^^ I agree and it does.</p>
<p>“I don’t disagree with you on this, BC. But they also have an obligation to current shareholders to mine the vein they have in front of them.”</p>
<p>Their job is to maximize long-term shareholder value - or provide good dividends if they are an income company. I trade energy companies and
am sensitive to returns and how companies behave over the long-term
in the management of their resources.</p>
<p>“Right now, they’ve got oil and an industry built around oil and an entirely dependent consumer base for their product.”</p>
<p>Who is they? Some industries are built around oil. Some around electricity. Some on Natural Gas. Some on water power. Oil companies are not homogeneous. Some get killed when crude prices rise. Recent crude, unleaded and heating oil prices indicate that the consumer isn’t entirely dependent on oil. People are migrating out of areas of high cost, whether for heating oil or fuel, and are migrating to areas of lower cost thereby reducing demand.</p>
<p>“They might be throwing some money into researching alternative energies but it’s probably not going to be serious money (just enough that they can say they’re making an effort at ending our dependence).”</p>
<p>In 2007, Exxon-Mobil spent $1.5 billion on R&D. I have no breakdown in traditional vs alternative. But that’s a lot of money on technology any way you cut it.</p>
<p>“They know oil and they still have (relatively) a lot of it. Until they get close to the bottom of the barrel, they have very little incentive to create new alternative energy methods, particularly not if future energy is cheap and abundant, like it probably will be (eventually). If consumers had any kind of choice in their form of energy, THEN you would see a real commitment to R&D.”</p>
<p>There are several fields that have already peaked and governments have made it harder for foreign oil companies to produce product - they want a bigger piece of the pie. Consumers have a choice in how much energy they consume, or where they live. I’ve been reading that pellet and wood stove sales are hot in my area.</p>
<p>“It’s all about incentives… and the incentives for oil companies to participate in planning their own future demise (or, best-case scenario, switch to something completely different), well, they are low.”</p>
<p>Oil companies are owned by shareholders. They provide the incentives to the board and management (like keeping their jobs) to enhance long-term shareholder value. I’m seeing enough R&D advances to think that the long-term direction from R&D is positive in alternative and traditional energy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I prefer to look holistically at the numbers. In the 2nd quarter of this year, Exxon posted about $10 billion in profit. So that R&D figure for 12 months of last year is a drop in the bucket. Like I said, just enough to look like they’re doing something. </p>
<p>Shareholders could care less about the future of energy; they care about quarterly profits. Shareholders only provide the incentive to do less drilling, less R&D and more manipulation of the market to ensure the highest profit the market will bear. Long-term shareholder value is secondary to current value (as in this year and next); when we are talking about the incentive for oil companies to invest in non-oil-related science, the long-term becomes very long indeed. </p>
<p>Sorry, but I’m not willing to place our country’s future welfare and economy in the hands of the current shareholders of Exxon/Chevron, etc… Using taxes to fund real R&D into clean, renewable, cheap/free energy is a government role if there ever was one.</p>
<h1>7 and #29 sure seem to contradict each other.</h1>
<p>The issue is that our government heavily subsidizes the oil companies, that do not need to be subsidized. They are making huge profits, and receiving our taxes. </p>
<p>Because of climate issues, governments should be requiring them to pay for research to alternatives, or limiting what they can charge. If Reagan could fire the striking airline pilots, of course the government should and can pass laws effecting what the oil companies are doing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Making any form of, “free energy” useful is not going to be free. There is going to be a great deal of expense involved in harnessing, connecting and continuing to innovate with all forms of green energy.</p>
<p>Some one, Some how, Some time, will pay the taxes on the debt due. Any suggestions?</p>
<p>
I’m going to politely suggest that it is not me. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree with this, collegemom16. When I say “cheap/free” energy, I’m talking about the actual energy (solar, sea water, some other inexpensive renewable material). I’m not deluded in thinking that the transition from oil to alternative will be cheap or free, nor would the ongoing R&D for innovating with it. Thus, the necessity of government-sponsored financial incentives. </p>
<p>I can imagine a day when filling up a “car” is as cheap/free as turning on a garden hose in Seattle. (So. Cal is not a good example since water is here is not cheap or abundant).</p>
<p>How about a better economy.</p>
<p>jacques:</p>
<p>I see no contradictions in my posts. Why do you say they contradict each other?</p>
<p>
Are you saying that you think oil companies are not paying taxes? They’re paying huge amounts in taxes. What exactly are the huge subsidies you say they’re receiving from the government such that they are “receiving our taxes”?</p>
<p>
I think you’re referring to air traffic controllers, who are federal employees, not airline pilots, who are private business employees. The air traffic controllers struck illegally so of course they should have been fired. Certain federal employees are not permitted to strike - like the military for example.</p>