BP to purchase $100M in Tesla Superchargers
spectrumnews1.com
spectrumnews1.com
This is good PR, nothing more. They aren't going to base their revenue on charging cars; and they get carbon credits to look good.
If you search "BP global warming", the first 7 of 9 results are linked to BP.com about how they're taking action on climate change.
In February of this year, "BP dials back climate pledge amid soaring oil profits. The British oil giant wants to decrease its carbon emissions by between 20 and 30 percent by 2030. It previously aimed for a 35 to 40%." :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/02/07/bp-climat...
Products like EVs and solar panels aren’t just some hypothetical niche anymore.
An energy company that sells fuel for cars and electrical generation having a business segment that sells energy for electric cars seems like a very relevant and complementary business.
Maybe it is just for PR but it seems like BP would have a leg up on making a profitable charging network.
They did nothing, and now the charger network is outpacing them in setting up and can now offer basic facilities for waiting.
The incumbent companies have no idea what to do at the most basic level of human needs when it comes to EV charging stations.
That's clearly false.
Shell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR2M5W6saAk
I would like to see charging stations structured more like truckstops like the flying J. Park your car to charge, and visit an attached restaurant, a TV room, perhaps arcade or other amenities besides a couple tables and chairs by a window
Until they make a commitment, timeline, and are excited about measurable progress ending FFs, they lack credibility that they're not the world's and Earth's Big Tobacco.
500-800m people on bicycles would probably be healthier overall.
So, not cars then.
The climate issue only gets solved by innovation. There is no reasonable degree to which we can artificially restrict emissions to have a meaningful impact. All that does is make people poorer and further increase incentives to offshore manufacturing to where the energy is cheapest and dirtiest.
There is that whole pitch. We need to be using more electricity to drive more innovation which will lead to greener alternatives.
Sad but true. Investors that divert from fossil to renewables remove themselves from BP's shareholder pool. Leaving almost exclusively shareholders that want the company to do what it always did: produce fossil fuel.
So oil companies will remain that as long as they can. Maybe they'll do something for PR reasons, to hedge their bets, or legal requirements.
When demand for fossil fuels collapses, it's a safe bet other companies (like Tesla) will be established players in renewable tech. Oil companies? Too little, too late.
That said: more EV chargers out there = progress no matter who did it.
We passed peak gas stations a time ago. Some of them will be replaced by charging stations and convenience stores, but many of them will have to be demolished.
Part of the reason why Europe has seen more EV infrastructure investment, development, and deployment is because the EU standardized on CCS Type 2 combo quite some time ago.
I would guess they'll probably stay with the inferior standard forever.
It isn't. It doesn't for example do three phase AC. 400 kW CCS type 2 combo chargers are being deployed right now. Where are the 400 kW chargers on the Tesla plug?
North America now has a painful switchover from CCS type 1 and Tesla's proprietary charging to CCS type 3. Teslas 2019 and earlier will need a CCS retrofit to use all chargers.
North America could have and should have standardized earlier.
- CCS type 3 is compatible with existing Tesla vehicles (it's a software update)
- Tesla superchargers max out at 250Kw because they have all been 400V, whereas porche and etc are all 800V. The cybertruck is 800V so I expect faster chargers on newer Tesla vehicles
Yes. So CCS type 2 Combo not "clearly inferior" to the "clearly superior" Tesla plug, is it.
> CCS type 3 is compatible with existing Tesla vehicles (it's a software update)
Teslas 2019 and earlier need a CCS retrofit. It's not just a software update.
> Tesla superchargers max out at 250Kw because they have all been 400V
That's wonderful. Show me the charger that's delivering 400 kW on the Tesla plug today. Remember, the contention is that the Tesla plug is "clearly superior" so it should already be faster, right?
It already runs at higher amperages than CCS, despite the lower KW.
This is such narrow thinking. What matters is building capable EV infrastructure for all EVs, and that means going beyond 250 kW.
Teslas are mid-range when it comes to charging. Other EVs are faster and need not be limited by what Teslas can achieve.
Think bigger. Europe is:
https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-energies/europe/article/f...
It's clearly not.
I prefer to say that only about 75-80% of Teslas on the road are able to use the new NACS chargers without an upgrade.
Given the widespread prevalence of superchargers supporting all Teslas, I don't see this as a big issue.
The only way they can significantly decrease "their" carbon emissions is by selling less of their product, lowering their lobbying and switching to another source of revenue.
I could say this is good news, not that I care about bp or tesla chargers, but anything that allows them to pivot to another revenue stream is less petrol they'll sell to be burnt.
But truth be told there is no reason why it would be subtractive or substitutive when it can be additive. Any pledge they make is meaningless. All will be burnt until there's none, because it doesn't cost remotely as much to produce than it brings to sell.
you don’t “sell less” unless there is less buying going on.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/global-crude-oil-....
> New IEA medium-term report sees oil use for transport going into decline after 2026
(nb: IEA has been wrong countless times)
https://www.iea.org/news/growth-in-global-oil-demand-is-set-...
Yes they will stop being fuel stations, but they're the last places I want to charge.
- Bathroom - Snacks - Maybe a small fast food join attached
Honestly if every EV charger could be at a WaWa that'd be rad. As a west coaster I am so jealous of WaWa in general!
Newer chains like Racetrak and Buc-ees might work and have the space/capital but they're not suited for denser urban areas.
But worse than that, they seem to be very unreliable. Of the 5 I've tried, four didn't work properly or at all. They are the only chargers that have ever led to me having a poor EV experience, both times on long,last minute late at night journeys where stress was exacerbated by them.
Superchargers will hopefully be a lot better than their terrible current models.
That would be BTUs - British Thermal Units ;)
Until 2010, everyone referred to them as BP, but after the Macondo disaster Obama consistently called them "British Petroleum" so as to distance his administration from any responsibility for regulatory failure despite the fact that BP America does not operate under any British regulatory regimes or follow any British engineering standards.
The name "British Petroleum" has now stuck, but you rarely saw it before 2010.
Of course BP were culpable for the Macondo disaster as operator but it was fascinating to see the US government protect the regulator from any possible challenge or insight into how this could have happened. It will happen again and we will be shocked next time too.
This is interesting. I've only ever seen it referred to as the "Deepwater Horizon" spill/disaster. It's the differentiation between the rig and the location/prospect. I wonder if that was also tied to a deliberate communications choice.
Like Norways flagship Statoil change to Equinor.
Limp greenwashing
https://www.mapquest.com/travel/destinations/travel-guide/ti... (see pic, the scale is massive)
Oh, already happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU07U1kxDg0&t=57s (57 sec)
This combination makes a lot of sense, though they should work on revitalizing some of the brands involved.
Shell and others are calling it "deep water energy". This is good PR, nothing more. They aren't going to base their revenue on charging cars; and they get carbon credits to look good.
If you search "BP global warming", the first 7 of 9 results are linked to BP.com about how they're taking action on climate change.
In February of this year, "BP dials back climate pledge amid soaring oil profits. The British oil giant wants to decrease its carbon emissions by between 20 and 30 percent by 2030. It previously aimed for a 35 to 40%." :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/02/07/bp-climat...
The only way they can significantly decrease "their" carbon emissions is by selling less of their product, which would be by lowering their lobbying and switching to another source of revenue.
I could say this is good news, not that I care about bp or tesla chargers, but anything that allows them to pivot to another revenue stream is less petrol they'll sell to be burnt.
But truth be told there is no reason why it would be subtractive when it can be additive. Any pledge they make is meaningless. All will be burnt until there's none, because it doesn't cost remotely as much to produce than it brings to sell.