Saturday, September 11, 2004

Exxon - Meeting the World's Toughest Energy Challenges(tm) - I Think Not.

Exxon (the world's biggest energy company) at the 19th World Energy Congress in Sydney, Australia has looked in its crystal ball and predicted that for at least 20 years clean renewable energy sources will not make a significant contribution.

According to Exxon's website the world will need 40% more energy by 2020 than we are using today. This is assuming we DON'T switch to hydrogen - if we do we will need to generate FOUR TIMES more electricity than we do now.

Exxon (Esso in Europe and Imperial Oil in Canada) recently ran an ad campaign claiming that they are "Taking on the World's Toughest Energy Challenges(tm)". The ad suggests that they are providing today's energy and will supply tomorrow's energy (it uses an image of a hydrogen fuel gauge). In my opinion the message is "don't worry we've got future energy needs covered".

Their website boasts "we spend more on research and technology than any other energy company in the world". However Exxon is spending almost nothing on alternative energy research. Exxon also fails to say where all the oil they want us to use is going to come from as BASED ON CURRENT DEMAND we are only finding 1 barrel of oil for every 6 we use.

It will take more than catchy advertising slogans to solve our energy problems.

Exxon's Official Corporate Campaign

Expose Exxon Campaign


Blogger KK4HFJ said...

Very reasoned insight. Thanks for the info!

Steve Spence
Renewable Energy Blog -

6:08 am, September 12, 2004  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You write, "... assuming we DON'T switch to hydrogen - if we do we will need to generate FOUR TIMES more electricity than we do now."

That would be a ridiculous assumption. Hydrogen produced by electrolysis costs two to four times what it costs to make it from natural gas by steam reformation, and at least 50% more than producing it from coal. The existing hydrogen economy uses natural gas almost exclusively, and sometimes oil. The chief use for H2 is to remove sulfur from diesel fuel at oil refineries. H2 made by electrolysis today is merely a byproduct from manufacture of sodium hydroxide and chlorine.

*If* we become dependent on hydrogen, *then* producing it from electricity will become a viable economic choice in the decades ahead as we are obliged to eliminate carbon emissions.

When hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels this way it is possible to retain pure carbon dioxide as a byproduct (not smoke containing steam, nitrogen, sulfur and other pollutants) and store it away somewhere like an oilfield. This might actually happen in practice if there's a price on CO2 emissions.

10:04 pm, September 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my view, the problem with energy is that it needs to be decentralised. Every house and car and factory could be self sufient on renewables. Exxon always forget to mention they have 150 years of Fossile Fuel technology advancements as an advantage. ove the relatively new renewable options. The first car travelled 6mph!

Also, have you seen Exxons new adv running on cable (CNN)which shows the eiffle tower as a windmill? I am looking for a download.

8:02 pm, February 13, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Alternative Energy Home Page