2 ms·

in a world where everyone has a charger at home and at work there's little to no need for Shell and BP hence their push for hydrogen, where everything remains

in a world where everyone has a charger at home and at work there's little to no need for Shell and BP hence their push for hydrogen, where everything remains essentially the same (and they keep their vertically integrated business)

clouddrover 7y ago
Look, Shell is the third largest company in the world. They have many, many business interests. The idea that more EVs means Shell goes broke is pure fantasy.
- blibble 7y ago
  what sort of argument is that? large companies disappear all the time, or are swallowed by by others that outcompete them "9 of every 10 Fortune 500 companies in 1955 are gone": https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017-only-12-remain-thanks-to-the-creative-destruction-that-fuels-economic-prosperity/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017...
  - clouddrover 7y ago
    > what sort of argument is that? It isn't "an argument". It's simply a practical reality which contradicts your false preconceptions.
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    That 9/10 figure is misleading, if you browse the list here: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1955/1.html https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/f... Many more than 1/10 of those names are still dominant companies/brands, but some have gone through mergers or restructures, meaning the 1955 entity no longer exists but the business lives on and remains very strong. BP and Shell are on that 1955 list, and are obviously still very strong companies. According to the Lindy effect [1], the longer a company has existed, the longer it is likely to continue to exist. Both BP and Shell have long been diversified companies (even in the 1950s, Shell had vast business activities outside of petroleum), and have long been investing heavily in various forms of alternative energy. They're not likely to disappear in any foreseeable timeframe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

clouddrover 7y ago

Look, Shell is the third largest company in the world. They have many, many business interests. The idea that more EVs means Shell goes broke is pure fantasy.

blibble 7y ago
what sort of argument is that? large companies disappear all the time, or are swallowed by by others that outcompete them "9 of every 10 Fortune 500 companies in 1955 are gone": https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017-only-12-remain-thanks-to-the-creative-destruction-that-fuels-economic-prosperity/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/fortune-500-firms-1955-v-2017...
- clouddrover 7y ago
  > what sort of argument is that? It isn't "an argument". It's simply a practical reality which contradicts your false preconceptions.
- tomhoward 7y ago
  That 9/10 figure is misleading, if you browse the list here: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1955/1.html https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/f... Many more than 1/10 of those names are still dominant companies/brands, but some have gone through mergers or restructures, meaning the 1955 entity no longer exists but the business lives on and remains very strong. BP and Shell are on that 1955 list, and are obviously still very strong companies. According to the Lindy effect [1], the longer a company has existed, the longer it is likely to continue to exist. Both BP and Shell have long been diversified companies (even in the 1950s, Shell had vast business activities outside of petroleum), and have long been investing heavily in various forms of alternative energy. They're not likely to disappear in any foreseeable timeframe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect