• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

BP to keep it's alternative electricity to make low carbon fuel.

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,396
Reaction score
14,430
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Inside BP's plan to reset renewables as oil and gas boom
Dotzenrath told Reuters BP was reviewing its solar and onshore wind businesses as part of a revamp that will see it move away from selling the clean electricity it produces, and instead keep hold of most of it to supply its growing electric vehicle charging network and production of low-carbon fuels.
The alternate energy is worth more to them as a means of fuel production than as something to sell directly.
As the subsidies for solar and wind production run out, the value of peak production time electricity will drop.
At some point, I would expect the oil and gas companies to be the ones buying up the cheap surplus electricity.
This actually brings up some interesting ideas, like is the regulation of nuclear power mostly originated from the idea that the power plant
will be providing electricity to the grid? Could the permitting process be easier if no grid electricity were involved.
 
The whole idea of carbon credits is economically corrupt and makes companies work against their own best interest. Eventually they have to shut down with workers and consumers both paying the price.
 
The whole idea of carbon credits is economically corrupt and makes companies work against their own best interest. Eventually they have to shut down with workers and consumers both paying the price.
Actually it could bite the regulators on the backside.
Think about this, does a paper company growing trees for it's own paper, receive value from the government
for sequestering CO2? What about when Exxon or BP captures CO2 to make carbon neutral fuel to sell?
 
Actually it could bite the regulators on the backside.
Think about this, does a paper company growing trees for it's own paper, receive value from the government
for sequestering CO2? What about when Exxon or BP captures CO2 to make carbon neutral fuel to sell?
The theory is that the 'value' isn't seen by the company but rather the public at large in cleaner air and reduced climate change. To me this is highly debatable and mostly based off of politically driven quack science. But the bigger problem is when we continually add requirements the product become less and less viable and impossible to profitably produce. Eventually they shut it all down. Then we have to listen to the whiny public complain about product shortages....as if we haven't had enough of that already.
 
The theory is that the 'value' isn't seen by the company but rather the public at large in cleaner air and reduced climate change. To me this is highly debatable and mostly based off of politically driven quack science. But the bigger problem is when we continually add requirements the product become less and less viable and impossible to profitably produce. Eventually they shut it all down. Then we have to listen to the whiny public complain about product shortages....as if we haven't had enough of that already.
I see the future playing out very differently anyway, independent of Government regulation.
Oil will continue to increase in price, as the supply of cheap easy oil diminishes.
Fracking is the best example that this is already happening, producers spending money to squeeze
every barrel from existing fields. There still remains likely more oil than has already been extracted, but it is difficult and
expensive to extract. Power to liquid technology is maturing as we speak, with Exxon, BP, Sunfire, all having their own processes.
The Navy claims a 60% storage efficiency, Sunfire thinks it can go as high as 80%, but at 60% and a wholesale electricity price of
$50 per mWh, the breakeven price is $96.25 a barrel oil.
When the refineries can make their own feedstock for less than what they purchase oil for, they will follow the money.
A new pump color will appear at gas stations, that will be carbon neutral premium gasoline.
(the processes can only make premium). People will choose the fuel when it is the least expensive choice that still does the job.
kWh could become the energy unit of exchange, with oil refineries supplying fuel credits to solar homeowners for surplus electricity.
The global benefit, is that anyone anywhere with an energy supply, can store and accumulate poor duty cycle energy as
transport and heating fuels. The countries with natural oil supplies will lose their market advantage.
I think Earth's future is very bright, with the capability of bringing most of the existing population up to first world standards.
 
I see the future playing out very differently anyway, independent of Government regulation.
Oil will continue to increase in price, as the supply of cheap easy oil diminishes.
Fracking is the best example that this is already happening, producers spending money to squeeze
every barrel from existing fields. There still remains likely more oil than has already been extracted, but it is difficult and
expensive to extract. Power to liquid technology is maturing as we speak, with Exxon, BP, Sunfire, all having their own processes.
The Navy claims a 60% storage efficiency, Sunfire thinks it can go as high as 80%, but at 60% and a wholesale electricity price of
$50 per mWh, the breakeven price is $96.25 a barrel oil.
When the refineries can make their own feedstock for less than what they purchase oil for, they will follow the money.
A new pump color will appear at gas stations, that will be carbon neutral premium gasoline.
(the processes can only make premium). People will choose the fuel when it is the least expensive choice that still does the job.
kWh could become the energy unit of exchange, with oil refineries supplying fuel credits to solar homeowners for surplus electricity.
The global benefit, is that anyone anywhere with an energy supply, can store and accumulate poor duty cycle energy as
transport and heating fuels. The countries with natural oil supplies will lose their market advantage.
I think Earth's future is very bright, with the capability of bringing most of the existing population up to first world standards.
The transitiion to EV is going to be painful and disruptive. You laid out the best case scenario in which we can develop a synthetic fuel compatible with our existing ICE. However I don't see our supply of cheap oil going away, matter of fact it'll get even cheaper as demand subsides. The key will be pricing. How much will synthetic oil cost at the pump? I don't see people choosing an expensive product over a cheaper one unless goverment taxes the cheaper one to make up the difference. Also there's a whole area of diesel fuel and trucking. EV isn't going to replace long-haul trucking for decades. We need to keep our gas infrastructure intact so we can transport essential goods.
 
The transitiion to EV is going to be painful and disruptive. You laid out the best case scenario in which we can develop a synthetic fuel compatible with our existing ICE. However I don't see our supply of cheap oil going away, matter of fact it'll get even cheaper as demand subsides. The key will be pricing. How much will synthetic oil cost at the pump? I don't see people choosing an expensive product over a cheaper one unless goverment taxes the cheaper one to make up the difference. Also there's a whole area of diesel fuel and trucking. EV isn't going to replace long-haul trucking for decades. We need to keep our gas infrastructure intact so we can transport essential goods.
The price of oil will keep rising up to the point it prices itself out of the market. The price for the man made fuels will be about $4.00 a gallon, but depends on some factors we don’t know yet. The first is how efficient is the process, Sunfire claims 80% at scale, while the Navy says 60%.
The second factor is the cost of electricity.
There was an article today about the EU voting to allow IC cars after 2035, if the run on carbon neutral fuels.
I think this is the path things will take as it leverages several things to its advantage.
The demand is already there, as if the distribution infrastructure. On the electricity side, alternative energy will generate asymmetrical power, with too much during some time windows and too little during others. The surplus would be lost at 100% unless stored, and so may be very inexpensive.
For a normal home, enough solar to cover peak loads, means massive surpluses during off seasons
 
Inside BP's plan to reset renewables as oil and gas boom

The alternate energy is worth more to them as a means of fuel production than as something to sell directly.
As the subsidies for solar and wind production run out, the value of peak production time electricity will drop.
At some point, I would expect the oil and gas companies to be the ones buying up the cheap surplus electricity.
This actually brings up some interesting ideas, like is the regulation of nuclear power mostly originated from the idea that the power plant
will be providing electricity to the grid? Could the permitting process be easier if no grid electricity were involved.
That depends on a lot of things. Of all the oil companies producing oil in Alaska BP is by far the largest. They just aren't able to act on those oil resources until Biden is removed from office and the rule of law is restored. After all, it was Biden's illegal Executive Order that stopped the oil companies from developing the 1002 Area in ANWR.

Everyone remembers him canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, but nobody seems to remember that Biden illegally placed a moratorium on all oil development on federal lands.

When Biden is finally removed from office and his illegal EO is lifted, BP will most certainly be involved in bringing between 6 and 8 billion barrels of oil to market from ANWR. That, in return, will give new life to the trans-Alaska pipeline, and a boon to the Alaskan economy.
 
The transitiion to EV is going to be painful and disruptive. You laid out the best case scenario in which we can develop a synthetic fuel compatible with our existing ICE. However I don't see our supply of cheap oil going away, matter of fact it'll get even cheaper as demand subsides. The key will be pricing. How much will synthetic oil cost at the pump? I don't see people choosing an expensive product over a cheaper one unless goverment taxes the cheaper one to make up the difference. Also there's a whole area of diesel fuel and trucking. EV isn't going to replace long-haul trucking for decades. We need to keep our gas infrastructure intact so we can transport essential goods.
I'm already using synthetic oil to lubricate my vehicle. I consider it worth the extra cost to be able to go 5,000 miles between oil changes, rather than the 3,000 miles you get using regular oil. If gasoline made from synthetic oil could provide a similar cost/benefit ratio, I would consider paying more for the synthetic gasoline. However, if the benefit is the same and there is no difference between synthetic and real, then I'm always going to choose the cheaper of the two.
 
That depends on a lot of things. Of all the oil companies producing oil in Alaska BP is by far the largest. They just aren't able to act on those oil resources until Biden is removed from office and the rule of law is restored. After all, it was Biden's illegal Executive Order that stopped the oil companies from developing the 1002 Area in ANWR.

Everyone remembers him canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, but nobody seems to remember that Biden illegally placed a moratorium on all oil development on federal lands.

When Biden is finally removed from office and his illegal EO is lifted, BP will most certainly be involved in bringing between 6 and 8 billion barrels of oil to market from ANWR. That, in return, will give new life to the trans-Alaska pipeline, and a boon to the Alaskan economy.
I think BP is looking at a time when only carbon neutral fuels can be sold for use in IC engines.
I saw this yesterday Germany slammed for EU internal combustion 2035 ban u-turn
Germany now insisting on further assurances from Brussels that synthetic fuels could still be used in engines after 2035
At least some people realize that battery electric cars in their present form have some very real limits.
 
I think BP is looking at a time when only carbon neutral fuels can be sold for use in IC engines.
I saw this yesterday Germany slammed for EU internal combustion 2035 ban u-turn

At least some people realize that battery electric cars in their present form have some very real limits.
"Carbon neutral fuels" is a scam.


It is nothing more than a shell-game. There is no such thing as carbon neutral fuel when it involves fossil fuels. They all involve carbon, and it doesn't matter what game you want to play pretending to swap one type of energy for another, it will still produce carbon when burned.
 
I'm already using synthetic oil to lubricate my vehicle. I consider it worth the extra cost to be able to go 5,000 miles between oil changes, rather than the 3,000 miles you get using regular oil. If gasoline made from synthetic oil could provide a similar cost/benefit ratio, I would consider paying more for the synthetic gasoline. However, if the benefit is the same and there is no difference between synthetic and real, then I'm always going to choose the cheaper of the two.
Actually synthetic oil works better and last longer because it is an artificially assembled moelcule,
and has almost no contaminants. synthetic fuel is similar, A fuel's octane rating is based on the mix of hydrogen to carbon ratios,
the greater number of odd ratios, the lower the octane. The man made stuff is 100 octane.
The hope is that at some point it will naturally be the lowest cost option at the pump, because that is when
it will be used globally.
 
"Carbon neutral fuels" is a scam.


It is nothing more than a shell-game. There is no such thing as carbon neutral fuel when it involves fossil fuels. They all involve carbon, and it doesn't matter what game you want to play pretending to swap one type of energy for another, it will still produce carbon when burned.
Well you can have a real carbon neutral fuel, but not made from natural gas, although as Exxon is doing the fuels is very
low carbon emission. The real carbon neutral fuel, is where 100% of the CO2 emitted was captured from the atmosphere, (or the ocean water
in the Navy's case), The process just borrows the CO2 from the environment!
In a sustainable energy future, using such a fuel made from carbon neutral energy supplies, would not change the CO2 level.
From my perspective, the fuels function as an energy storage device is more important than it's carbon neutral capabilities.
 
Actually synthetic oil works better and last longer because it is an artificially assembled moelcule,
and has almost no contaminants. synthetic fuel is similar, A fuel's octane rating is based on the mix of hydrogen to carbon ratios,
the greater number of odd ratios, the lower the octane. The man made stuff is 100 octane.
The hope is that at some point it will naturally be the lowest cost option at the pump, because that is when
it will be used globally.
Then a synthetic fuel should prolong the life of the engine, but not necessarily make it more fuel efficient. It is also the octane levels that determine whether your engine will continue to knock once shut off, higher octane levels prevent knocking. A higher octane rating means a higher explosion point. That also means you want more of it for your ICE. Lower octane levels (< 87) are less stable and can actually harm your engine.
 
Then a synthetic fuel should prolong the life of the engine, but not necessarily make it more fuel efficient. It is also the octane levels that determine whether your engine will continue to knock once shut off, higher octane levels prevent knocking. A higher octane rating means a higher explosion point. That also means you want more of it for your ICE. Lower octane levels (< 87) are less stable and can actually harm your engine.
For the time being liquid hydrocarbon fuels are just about the most efficient way to carry energy around.
The IC engine does lose ~80% of that energy to Carnot efficiency, but even with that lose, the energy density is still
almost 5 times greater than the current batteries. I could see a vehicle with electric motors, that gets it's electricity
from a fuel cell, with hydrogen split off from gasoline. Increasing the efficiency to ~60%.
Batteries would have to improve quite a bit to keep up.
 
For the time being liquid hydrocarbon fuels are just about the most efficient way to carry energy around.
The IC engine does lose ~80% of that energy to Carnot efficiency, but even with that lose, the energy density is still
almost 5 times greater than the current batteries. I could see a vehicle with electric motors, that gets it's electricity
from a fuel cell, with hydrogen split off from gasoline. Increasing the efficiency to ~60%.
Batteries would have to improve quite a bit to keep up.
There is no need for such efficiency, and while it may be possible to double the efficiency of an ICE vehicle the additional cost would make any such equipped vehicle unaffordable.

As with coal, I do see a future where oil becomes less depended upon for power generation, but that is at least a century away. Also, our reliance on natural gas will increase during that same period. Like oil, we also produce a lot of different products with natural gas. As our dependence on oil increased, our dependence on coal decreased. I foresee the same thing happening with natural gas and oil. What will happen a century from now is anyone's guess, but I would not be surprised to find another competing energy source that eventually replaces natural gas. It really depends on how long we can continue to improve our technology.

We can't ignore the fact that technological growth is in spurts, which appear to coincide with the warming periods. The Roman Empire's technological advantage over everyone else made them the dominate empire in Europe during the Roman Warming. The creativity and innovation of the Renaissance popped into existence following the Medieval Warming. And yet there was no apparent technological development in between these warming periods. We stagnated between 400 and 950 AD, and had very little technological development during the Little Ice-Age between 1450 and 1850. So once the current Modern Warming period ends, which should be relatively soon, then so will our technological development.
 
There is no need for such efficiency, and while it may be possible to double the efficiency of an ICE vehicle the additional cost would make any such equipped vehicle unaffordable.

As with coal, I do see a future where oil becomes less depended upon for power generation, but that is at least a century away. Also, our reliance on natural gas will increase during that same period. Like oil, we also produce a lot of different products with natural gas. As our dependence on oil increased, our dependence on coal decreased. I foresee the same thing happening with natural gas and oil. What will happen a century from now is anyone's guess, but I would not be surprised to find another competing energy source that eventually replaces natural gas. It really depends on how long we can continue to improve our technology.

We can't ignore the fact that technological growth is in spurts, which appear to coincide with the warming periods. The Roman Empire's technological advantage over everyone else made them the dominate empire in Europe during the Roman Warming. The creativity and innovation of the Renaissance popped into existence following the Medieval Warming. And yet there was no apparent technological development in between these warming periods. We stagnated between 400 and 950 AD, and had very little technological development during the Little Ice-Age between 1450 and 1850. So once the current Modern Warming period ends, which should be relatively soon, then so will our technological development.
I suspect what caused the ebb and flow of technological development in the past, may not still apply, in a globally connected world.
Keep in mind that during Europe's dark ages the Muslim was creating Algebra, and China saw a period of great advancement,
with things like moveable type printing, and Gunpowder.
Also I think in Europe the Renaissance led to the age of enlightenment, so from about 1600 onwards technology started picking up a faster pace. Machines, Steam power, flintlocks, Seed drill, etc. Once people started thinking scientifically, the floodgates opened.
(The modern media seems intent to shut those floodgates again!)
 
Actually it could bite the regulators on the backside.
Think about this, does a paper company growing trees for it's own paper, receive value from the government
for sequestering CO2? What about when Exxon or BP captures CO2 to make carbon neutral fuel to sell?
LOL First of all the growing of trees just offsets some of the carbon they emit producing paper. The expense of capturing carbon to produce fuel is so high that the credits will not come close to making it competitive either.
 
I suspect what caused the ebb and flow of technological development in the past, may not still apply, in a globally connected world.
Keep in mind that during Europe's dark ages the Muslim was creating Algebra, and China saw a period of great advancement,
with things like moveable type printing, and Gunpowder.
Also I think in Europe the Renaissance led to the age of enlightenment, so from about 1600 onwards technology started picking up a faster pace. Machines, Steam power, flintlocks, Seed drill, etc. Once people started thinking scientifically, the floodgates opened.
(The modern media seems intent to shut those floodgates again!)
What we are finding is that nature has given us a way to hang ourselves and some are intent on making that happen. Technology is useless if we are dead.
 
LOL First of all the growing of trees just offsets some of the carbon they emit producing paper. The expense of capturing carbon to produce fuel is so high that the credits will not come close to making it competitive either.
You clearly are missing the point. Paper is made from trees, they do not plant trees to offset the carbon emitted producing the paper,
but because they need the trees to make paper.
As for the expense to capture carbon for fuel, Exxon is already doing that portion, because you do not get enough
carbon atoms to hydrogen atoms out of CH4 to make liquid fuels.
Also they would not capture CO2 for the carbon credit, but to make fuel to sell, if there is a carbon credit,
it will just make the fuel sold more profitable.
 
What we are finding is that nature has given us a way to hang ourselves and some are intent on making that happen. Technology is useless if we are dead.
Nature has stored a limited supply of hydrocarbons to allow us to develop a sustainable path to take us to the next step.
If everyone alive were to live a first world lifestyle, the supply of oil would not last more than a decade or so.
We need to move to a sustainable way to do the same functions as we get from oil based fuels.
 
A new pump color will appear at gas stations, that will be carbon neutral premium gasoline.

And motorheads the world over will rejoice once it becomes even close to a reasonable price that compares with gasoline.
Know what will be the most interesting?
If Sunoco decides to try its hand at SOLAR generated carbon neutral e-fuels.
It really WILL BE the "Sun Oil Company" then.

1678314802758.png
 
Back
Top Bottom