Energy giant BP bets on electric car boom

[rangerrebew]

Energy giant BP bets on electric car boom
June 28, 2018
 

British energy major BP on Thursday bought the nation's largest electric vehicle charging firm, as it bets on booming demand in the coming decades.

The announcement mirrors similar moves by Anglo-Dutch rival Shell and France's Total to expand into the charging of electric vehicles (EVs) which experts forecast will surge in popularity.

"BP announced that it has entered into an agreement to purchase Chargemaster, the UK's largest EV charging company," the London-listed group said in a statement, adding it would focus on ultra-fast charging that lasts ten minutes for a 100-mile (161-kilometre) range.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-energy-giant-bp-electric-car.html#jCp

[Frank Cannon]

BP is an ultra Leftist company. Electric cars are a huge fail......unless they are betting on govt's forcing people into them.

[truth_seeker]

BP is an ultra Leftist company. Electric cars are a huge fail......unless they are betting on govt's forcing people into them.

Goverments are using incentives for electrics, like it or not. The ranges are getting better, and the vehicles are getting cheaper, better, more variety etc.

They are perfect for industrial uses, with fixed routes etc.

As was true in the 1970s with mileage, safety and pollution concerns, I expect American makers to lag behind Japanese, German and Korean makers.

Internal combustion technology has moved fast. A current model Volvo XC90 has a 2 liter turbocharged engine, with more horsepower and torque than a 2006 model XC90 with a v8 4+ liter engine. Better mileage.

Many forms of auto racing use some form of electric power.

[Joe Wooten]

Goverments are using incentives for electrics, like it or not. The ranges are getting better, and the vehicles are getting cheaper, better, more variety etc.

They are perfect for industrial uses, with fixed routes etc.

As was true in the 1970s with mileage, safety and pollution concerns, I expect American makers to lag behind Japanese, German and Korean makers.

Internal combustion technology has moved fast. A current model Volvo XC90 has a 2 liter turbocharged engine, with more horsepower and torque than a 2006 model XC90 with a v8 4+ liter engine. Better mileage.

Many forms of auto racing use some form of electric power.

They still need a government subsidy to compete. Electrics are not going to sweep the world until batteries approach the energy density of gasoline or diesel.

BP makes another bad bet. The shareholders ought to revolt and throw out all the directors.

[Fishrrman]

Frank Cannon wrote:
"BP is an ultra Leftist company. Electric cars are a huge fail......unless they are betting on govt's forcing people into them."

In Western Europe, they will probably eventually do just that.

[Bigun]

If governments would simply stop trying to pick winners and loosers the world would be far better of!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

BP ruined a couple of good US companies when it was allowed to purchase ARCO and AMOCO.  It has a liberal European mindset that does not translate to American values.

[thackney]

[truth_seeker]

They still need a government subsidy to compete.

Yet we often overlook the role o government is airports, waterways and ports, highways, public utilities, research and development funding, etc.

The US is a mixed economy. And a huge amount of modern technology came from government funded defense and aerospace.

I readily admit there is often/usually Cronyism involved with the government/private industry relationship.

I believe it has always been so, in human history. The chiefton selected one of the most able, to go off and perform important functions.

In time of vital need, following Pearl Harbor, our Fed Gov turned our industrial might to building war equipment, from Ships to planes to tanks, etc.


We did NOOT sit around in think tanks, debating how many private enterprise angels could dance on the head of a pin.

[Joe Wooten]

Yet we often overlook the role o government is airports, waterways and ports, highways, public utilities, research and development funding, etc.

The US is a mixed economy. And a huge amount of modern technology came from government funded defense and aerospace.

I readily admit there is often/usually Cronyism involved with the government/private industry relationship.

I believe it has always been so, in human history. The chiefton selected one of the most able, to go off and perform important functions.

In time of vital need, following Pearl Harbor, our Fed Gov turned our industrial might to building war equipment, from Ships to planes to tanks, etc.


We did NOOT sit around in think tanks, debating how many private enterprise angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Strawman argument. Sure government funded research greatly benefitted the aerospace, maritime, and nuclear fields, but the government DID NOT subsidize any commercial developments from these, and if they did, it usually had a negative effect. Wind and Solar power are intermittent energy sources that require extensive backups and do not accomplish the stated goal of reducing carbon emissions. In fact, extensive development of these resources have the opposite effect as to maintain a reliable grid, the use of combustion technologies have to be increased. Look no further than Germany's Energiwiende. CO2 emissions have almost doubled since the started shutting down the nukes and going wind/solar.

The money spent on subsidizing solar and wind could have been spent on subsidizing a few 1200 MWe nuke plants, which would have allowed better environmental results. Not that I want subsidies for nuclear. I am opposed to government subsidies in ALL forms.

[truth_seeker]

Strawman argument. Sure government funded research greatly benefitted the aerospace, maritime, and nuclear fields, but the government DID NOT subsidize any commercial developments from these, and if they did, it usually had a negative effect. Wind and Solar power are intermittent energy sources that require extensive backups and do not accomplish the stated goal of reducing carbon emissions. In fact, extensive development of these resources have the opposite effect as to maintain a reliable grid, the use of combustion technologies have to be increased. Look no further than Germany's Energiwiende. CO2 emissions have almost doubled since the started shutting down the nukes and going wind/solar.

The money spent on subsidizing solar and wind could have been spent on subsidizing a few 1200 MWe nuke plants, which would have allowed better environmental results. Not that I want subsidies for nuclear. I am opposed to government subsidies in ALL forms.

I believe batteries will become smaller, lighter, cheaper, with huge range improvements. As such I believe electric vehicles (E only + hybrids) will make bigger inroads for transportation.

It is a separate subject, from how electricity is generated (coal, nat gas, wind, solar, nuclear etc.)

(drilling/producing hydrocarbons also has certain "subsidies" depletion, etc.)

Vehicle mkers have invested heavily in electric technology.

I know a wealthy conservative man. He owns 3 Porsches, including a Panamera. But he is going to Germany to see the latest model, Missioon E, which is an electric.

His interest is purely technology. Much technology has started at the high end. A/C, power windows, but eventually moves down to middle and low priced vehicles.   

I'll leave the argument about subsidies, to politicians.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe batteries will become smaller, lighter, cheaper, with huge range improvements. As such I believe electric vehicles (E only + hybrids) will make bigger inroads for transportation.

It is a separate subject, from how electricity is generated (coal, nat gas, wind, solar, nuclear etc.)

(drilling/producing hydrocarbons also has certain "subsidies" depletion, etc.)

Vehicle mkers have invested heavily in electric technology.

I know a wealthy conservative man. He owns 3 Porsches, including a Panamera. But he is going to Germany to see the latest model, Missioon E, which is an electric.

His interest is purely technology. Much technology has started at the high end. A/C, power windows, but eventually moves down to middle and low priced vehicles.   

I'll leave the argument about subsidies, to politicians.

Well, electricity must be generated somehow from something if one wishes to own an electric car as it must be dependent upon electricity fueling, so it really cannot be separated.  That is, unless one simply wants to look at the electric car, not drive it.

Unlike a gasoline car, which does not depend upon power source as it is independently mobile and certainly not dependent upon electricity generation.

and as far as the oil industry and its 'depletion subsidies'.  Do you know what this really is?  It is the fact that a mineral deposit once discovered is at its maximum potential and 'depletes' every day it produces.  This is unique in mineral exploitation, as other industries do not have this depleting life.

[truth_seeker]

Well, electricity must be generated somehow from something if one wishes to own an electric car as it must be dependent upon electricity fueling, so it really cannot be separated.  That is, unless one simply wants to look at the electric car, not drive it.

Unlike a gasoline car, which does not depend upon power source as it is independently mobile and certainly not dependent upon electricity generation.

and as far as the oil industry and its 'depletion subsidies'.  Do you know what this really is?  It is the fact that a mineral deposit once discovered is at its maximum potential and 'depletes' every day it produces.  This is unique in mineral exploitation, as other industries do not have this depleting life.

I do understand what you state. I know the US has abundant natural gas, for instance...to power electric generating plants.

I believe battery technology will take a big leap or big leaps.

[Joe Wooten]

I do understand what you state. I know the US has abundant natural gas, for instance...to power electric generating plants.

I believe battery technology will take a big leap or big leaps.

Yes, just like fusion power, high energy density batteries that do not die after a couple of years of duty are just around the corner......
I've been seeing pronouncements like that since the late 1970's when the enviroweenies were all atwitter about nickel metal hydride batteries.

[Suppressed]

Many forms of auto racing use some form of electric power.

Not just autos. Cool video of TT Zero 2014 lap record run.
! No longer available

[WingNot]

Selling fully electric vehicles isn’t going to be easy, especially since the $7500 government tax credit on fully electric vehicles is coming to an end. With that tax credit gone, electric cars are going to have to be sold on their merits alone.  The reality is, the USA  doesn’t have the infrastructure to support these cars and probably never will. For the average driver, unless you can pull up to a recharging station at any corner or by coasting off the interstate and “fill up” with juice in less than five minutes, these vehicles are only good for one thing. Urban and resort use.  I'd rather buy a srteet legal GEM.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I do understand what you state. I know the US has abundant natural gas, for instance...to power electric generating plants.

I believe battery technology will take a big leap or big leaps.

Thanks, I appreciate your understanding. 

I am intimately familiar with natural gas abundance as a reservoir engineer during my career with industry.  You are correct - we have hundreds of years of natural gas we can exploit to fuel power stations - caveat is if we can use it if the anti-hydrocarbon wackos do not get their way.

And I hope battery technology progresses - it will be good for everyone.