• voidx@futurology.todayOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I fail to understand why they stick with fossil fuels even though renewable deployments are cheaper than ever. Although there’s misinformation and politics, they should look at long term profits…

    • Salvo@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 days ago

      Sunk cost fallacy. They have already invested so much in fossil fuel infrastructure that they feel that if they give up now, they would have wasted all their money.

      The fact that that the money is wasted whether they pivot to renewables or not something they consider. In fact, if they can lever their existing infrastructure they can be much more competitive than any new renewable energy provider.

    • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Many fossil fuel companies, especially ones involved in the middle east petrostates gain huge oil rent from selling oil.

      Basically, the price of oil is close to the price of producing it in the “marginal” fields (the least productive fields), while some oil fields are many times more productive than the marginal fields. The owners of the hyper productive fields gain huge amounts of revenue from selling oil (this is called “differential rent” in economics). And this profit comes from owning the oil fields themselves.

      If the demand for oil were to fall, its price would fall quite rapidly, as oil producers would abandon low productivity marginal fields. This would torpedo the oil rents of the petro states

      This rent effect exists for lots of goods, but it is more pronounced in oil because oil is a scarce natural resource that is spread very unevenly.

      On the political side of things, the oil rent of the big producers is protected by the US government, because the oil rent of the big producers is what holds up the value of the USD.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      If you depend on oil companies for “rationality”:

      That cheapest new energy is solar then wind gives the oil company a negative impact on its existing assets. Suppressing renewables through bribery/politics keeps consumers addicted to their product, and keeps prices high. Nationalizing oil companies, without compensation for shareholders, is both appropriate punishment, and only way to stop their lobbying corrupting democracy.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      Kremlin propaganda (in various ways, sometimes in free natural gaz) isn’t to be forgotten.