55-60million acres to power the US w/ ethanol.

faet Wrote:

Quote:ExxonMobil managers argued that the company had experience in the evaluation of business opportunities and did not believe that renewables were an attractive business opportunity that would also address the risk of climate change. Management pointed out that the company had previously considered ventures involving renewable energy and had spent $500 million on research and related activities. However, management asserted that renewable energy had not been able to compete effectively with fossil fuels, and furthermore, was not expected to be able to do so for the foreseeable future. To that end, management stated that ?renewable must overcome significant cost and reliability disadvantages.? Also, management argued that even renewable energy resources could have an impact on the environment. For example, the turbines used in wind power facilities could affect local wildlife.

link to the .doc file.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd...-f2ws3atlw

Thanks for the reference. That sounds pretty f'n lame to me. Any excuse NOT to do something. Frankly w/ $500M, my guess is that they've got answers up their sleeves, but think this is the way to maximize their profits. I'm all for profits, but this strategy has proven to be a failure many times over (See GM and Ford)

I'm sick of hearing about turbines and birds. That's proof that so-called "environmentalists" are their own worst enemies.

Im sure they will jump on the bandwagon once its economical. probably cheaper to just pay royalties to use a method of producing alternative fuel than actualy research and come up with it. + good chance your not first one to make it.

as for Gov't spending on this. they giving money to alot of universities. i know we [sc] got money for 1 project. and clemson got $$ for 1 or 2 projects. and my school is rather active in R/D for w/e it is they do. i know i wanna do research on something automotive (probably this field) next summer at either clemson or sc.

GrayBeard's Email Wrote:If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit.

This is the Achilles heel of the plan. Lets say that somehow everything went exactly as planned. If nobody purchases gasoline from Exxon and Mobile, why should the other gas stations be worried if those two companies lower prices? Assuming that the entire United States was in on the plan, Exxon and Mobile could start giving away gasoline, and it would not affect the other gas stations at all.

GrayBeard's Email Wrote:THIS CAN REALLY WORK

No it won't. In competitive markets, companies really do not have much control over the prices they charge (charge too much, and they have no customers, charge too little, and they are swamped and run out). You can't change the supply and demand equation by changing how you purchase things (okay, by boycotting, you could effectively lower the supply, but that will raise prices). It can only be done by making a sustainable change to the supply or demand. Want to lower gas prices? Buy a fuel-efficient car, and get others to join you. Want to REALLY lower gas prices? Build a refinery.

Interesting