EU: Additional €50B Needed Over Next Decade for Low-Carbon Energy Technology Research
NOAA: Average US Temperature in September 1 °F Above 20th Century Average

Shell CEO Says Half the Company’s Output Will Be Natural Gas by 2012; Shell and Electric Mobility

Natural gas will represent around half of Shell’s total production by 2012, said Shell CEO Peter Voser in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC on 8 October. His talk was describing the energy company of the future.

Within [the global energy] market, oil and gas are both indispensable and our core business. And within that segment, Shell is increasingly focusing on natural gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel. By 2012, natural gas will likely make up around half of our production.

This is not merely a shift in our portfolio. Increasing natural gas production—and transportation by liquefying it and shipping the LNG to global markets—means that more natural gas will be available to displace coal as the fuel for power plants.

...Let me be clear: we don’t oppose electric mobility. Why would we? Our future customers will decide which type of fuel they want to buy. And we’ll embrace that and work hard to help them realize their aspirations.

Over a billion new vehicles are expected to come on to the world’s roads between now and 2050—more than doubling today’s total. So there will be room and need for many different fuel types, including conventional fuels, biofuels and electricity. And as I said earlier, Shell supplies natural gas for electricity. We also offer gasification technology that would enable a cleaner use of coal and more effective application of CO2 capture technology; and we produce wind power.

All of which is necessary to make electric mobility possible in the first place. So I challenge anyone to paint a plausible mobility future without a role for Shell.

—Peter Voser



"we don’t oppose electric mobility. Why would we?"

Well let's see, you make gasoline and not batteries, so why would you not oppose electric cars?


The market right now is in natural gas STORAGE, especially in underground facilities like salt caverns and old mines. There is big money being made by those buying nat gas low, storing it until prices go up, then selling it.


There is making money and taking money. Making money is productive, taking money is greed.


Taking money is good business acumen.


There is no business like Shoa business.

Henry Gibson

There is no reason not to use natural gas in every gasoline and diesel powered automobile. The mistake is to have a vehicle that runs only on natural gas. There are plenty of empty spaces in any vehicle that could contain highpressure natural gas. There is little or no weight advantages for large tanks instead of many small tanks. The range on only natural gas can be quite limited as still make a great savings on the use of oil.

Every present automobile and all new ones can be fitted quickly for the use of small amonts of natural gas.

Highway diesel trucks should all be adapted for the partial use of natural gas because it is so easy and there is much space for tanks on the vehicles and trailers. Even truck stops that have no natural gas pipelines, can maintain supplies of compressed or liquid gas if the market is a large one for them. But there is always diesel to sell and use for all of the converted trucks.

The use of natural gas for generating electricity is false economy. Natural gas should be saved for small consumers and vehicles that have no easy way to burn coal. The extra CO2 released from coal compared to natural gas is not very significant in the light of all CO2 releases from all sources. Canada and France can both produce electricity cheaper from nuclear than from natural gas or coal. The old paid off nuclear power plants in the US are also doing the same thing.

Many people believe that burning ethanol lowers CO2 releases. This is not true. Having a forest on the land used for producing corn takes up more CO2 than is saved by the production and use of ethanol even if thirty percent more energy is available in the ethanol than in the fossil fuels used to produce it. ..HG..


We must stop meeting like this.

I really should say that I am a (silent)IE not that articulate on he subject - committee member of the people for nuclear disarmament NSW dot whatever, one should declares such things. There is no pecuniary interest.

what I ask is for you to listen to the podcast or go to the transcript of this 2009 lecture. both listed below.

I dont question your faith in nuclear power.
I do question your CO2 emission 'estimates vis a verse other alternative and traditional energy sources.
Your detractors have figures that suggest that the CO2 emissions related to Nuclear power can be in the order of 80 % of fossil fuels.

I am committed to leaving this world in a better state than I found it some 50 odd years ago and I will say that most of those my concerns have been "spot on"
(in hindsight.)

I commend those who wish to understand 'our' perspective ,listen to Australias' primary speaker , Gareth Evans.

For your 'illumination', our .org? speaker is funded to the extent the mums and dads group can afford.
I'll tell it like it is.
$200. AU as living expenses for his US trip agreed by the committee. That's my transcript( As I live 'remote' I get a letter. and so the silent member bit refers to my reason for not being preset at the meetings.)

Henry, to me you seem somewhat eccentric , I am sure I come across that way too.
I dont doubt your Intentions, I'm guessing you are a republican voter?

I have no particular allegiance other than to common sense ( as I see it).

Let me get out of your way and , please comment on the issues you will note in the following.
I'm sure the rest wont need an invitation.



To follow up, This was my first visit to PND NSW brand new website and you can be amongst the very first.



It's a nobel aspiration to eliminate nuclear weapons, but it has nothing to do with 3th and 4th generation nuclear power plants or natural gas consumption.

It's clear that now building gas powered plants is very debatable. While it reduces the CO2 emissions, compared to coal with a significant amount, it's clearly by far not enough to evade desasters. Power plants are not built for 2 or 5 years. So, the % reduction of CO2 emission you get by replacing coal by gas is something you can do only once. Afterwards, you are stuck with a still-polluting power plant for years to come. Investing the same amount of money in wind-mills will not produce the same amount of megawatts, but it will produce much more CO2-free power. And you can do the same reduction of CO2-emissions the year afterwards.
If someone knows how to produce 300 GW of windpower within 15 years, they are welcome to do so. If they are not, then let's start building nuclear plants.



arnold, if one constructs the oldest most useless reactor designs and searches for the worst uranium mines and chooses the most inefficient enrichment processes you might get CO2 emission from nuclear power up to 25% of coal and 50% of gas.

But it is really hard work and and you have to stretch every number you can find.

However nobody is doing anything like that any more. Worlds best practice has nuclear power at around 100th the CO2 emissions of coal.


This is credited Environment Product Declaration for nuclear generated power by Vattenfall in that bastion of neutral, peaceful countries, Sweden.

They find their CO2 emission to be 3.7 grams per Khr.

Coals plants are typically emit 1000 grams of CO2 /KwHr, gas 500 grams/KWhr.

So who are you going to believe?


"If someone knows how to produce 300 GW of wind power within 15 years, they are welcome to do so."

The usual answer to these issues is that humans have never faced life and death issues over the lack of x gigawatts from this or any other source.
The current real threats appear to be: environmental big problems there that are beginning to bite and could reach devastating proportions over the next century. :Nuclear proliferation. That has the potential to eliminate humanity by tomorrow.

One should not lightly disregard the nuclear power industry's entanglement with the nuclear arms industry.

That radioactive elements left in the fly ash from some coal burning power plants indicate the unused energy potential at a very significant proportion of the energy from the original combustion of the coal.

I understand that that fly ash is properly disposed of in some form of nuclear power reactor.
I understand that the best place to dispose of the nuclear arms stockpile is ditto. I think it goes without saying that will come in handy for that purpose.
I understand that the power plants you refer to are not anywhere near currently operating and unproved as yet.
The best options seem several generations away.
No my views dont prevent the building of the plants you mention, If economics are not an obstacle I would expect to see them being built. They aren't. They dont exist. The Physics, blueprints sound good but the reality and "baggage don't.
Just as many (think they) know that CO2 is not a warming issue, medical x rays, food irradiation etc is all good.
The case for extreme care and caution and the ongoing outcomes based science is so conclusive that we can say we know we are one hair trigger switch from extinction of humanity.


The rest is following if ican get it up


Our little organisation has helped move the time to launch from 'on demand' to the current 2,000 weapons on 4 - 8 minute delay.

I'd say That for the six billion humans that have benefited by that 6,000,000,000 * 6 minutes it is possible to say we can do it. Regardless the work is too important to overlook.

Sadly we have a similar situation here to , child, slave, exploited labour where as individuals, we all end up supporting these types of practices, The coal petro fuel industries no matter our persuasion or depth of feeling because of entanglement.

"Guns dont kill people, people do"
But we dont allow them into the hands of children,

This last week we have Hillary saying that the U.S. will use overwhelming force on Iran if they attack Israel. But regardless, the Israelis have just said they will take action before Christmas if the 'issue with Iran's nuclear industry is not verified and sorted by Christmas.

Sounds like Israels 200 illegal and unverified nuclear weapons are not the MAD (mutually assured destruction) safeguard that they sugest.


We really could go on forever on the matter, but until all effective safeguards are in place and humans can evolve a proper assurance, we have a situation where nuclear proliferation is the most likely consequence of any expansion of the nuclear industry.

It's that simple. It's not an acceptable risk at any price.

Any more than Na*i gold (to put it as respectfully to those deceased) can ever serve humanity weather economically, aesthetically or individually.

I appreciate this forum for what it is, what I learn, what I can contribute.
The improvements in my communication skills are more than reward enough. I am not an official spokesperson or trying to hijack or spam.
Much better for me to stay with transport issues.


The difficulty with Uranium is that we have largely already taken the 'easily' mined resources (and the the 'swords-to-ploughshares' material).

We are already into the first phase of the more carbon-intensive deeper or lower ppm resources, and it is set to become a lot more carbon intensive in the near future if there is a move towards more nuclear power.


US wind capacity grew by 45% in 2007, if it carries on growing at half this rate it will have installed 350GW by 2020, though more likely be 200-250GW by this time. The US could roll out 100GW of new nuclear capacity and perhaps a similar capacity of solar assisted combined cycle. Leave the coal in the ground and it can provide methane in the future.

The comments to this entry are closed.