BP to purchase $100M in Tesla Superchargers(spectrumnews1.com)
spectrumnews1.com
BP to purchase $100M in Tesla Superchargers
https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/transportation/2023/10/26/bp-will-purchase--100-million-tesla-superchargers
88 comments
Sometimes it bothers me when we jump to the conclusion that anything “green” is a compliance and PR move and not as a viable profitable business.
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.
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.
BP's entire existence is based on burning fossil fuels, and they're responsible for one of the worst oil-based environmental disasters of the past 20 years. I think it's very fair to assume that any mention of being "green" by them specifically is complete lip service.
I can't imagine there are any real consequences for not making their pledge so I'd take it as a sign that they are taking it seriously if they are readjusting their goals.
A couple of years ago a friend worked on a project for a big oil company about charger networks - came up with ideas like "offer free coffee and a seat" where the charger competitor only had outdoor spaces with no facilities.
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.
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.
> 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
Circle K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TVohXHjLro
BP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR8wUcxfi1k
That's clearly false.
Shell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR2M5W6saAk
Circle K: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TVohXHjLro
BP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR8wUcxfi1k
Based on those videos, BP ironically has the least offer in terms of amenities while you wait for your car to charge. The other places at least seem to have tables with windows but I've seen those in gas stations like Royal Farms for many years.
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
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
Tesla’s move to open up and sell their charging network and devices has been a great idea. It clearly it benefiting them and seems to be befitting the general EV ecosystem as well.
Commoditize one's complement?
The fact bp waited all this time to jump in means they finally see the writing on the wall.
A cynical perspective is also potentially possible: that it's greenwashing to distract from continued FF extraction. Both realities can coexist.
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.
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.
Nobody expects BP to end fossil fuels. I fully expect them to go down with their product and fail to adapt, which is okay.
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.
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.
Given the difference in time to charge vs fill a gas tank that’s going to be an interesting war of supply and demand
It's easier to get a home EV charger than a personal gas station, which helps.
I agree, but there is still a universe of hotels, motels and apartment complexes without chargers.
It's surprising how fast that can change. Look how quickly hotels rolled out WiFi. It would be difficult to find one without any connectivity now.
The investment for the chargers is much higher. The big hotel chains will likely change relatively quickly, but there is a long tail of smaller hotels living paycheck to paycheck. I think that a better comparison is how long it's taking for fiber to arrive everywhere.
Capitalism in action. If people are choosing based on availability of charge points then you can be sure some will gain and others lose.
Of course the difference between oil and tobacco is that the world's population would be 1/10th of what it is without oil.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
500-800m people on bicycles would probably be healthier overall.
500-800m people on bicycles would probably be healthier overall.
Buddy, the choice is not between bicycles and cars. It's either horse and buggy or car. You cannot tow thousands of pounds with a bike. And your whole existence depends on goods and services flown in, boated in, and trucked in to keep you breathing.
> You cannot tow thousands of pounds with a bike. And your whole existence depends on goods and services flown in, boated in, and trucked in to keep you breathing.
So, not cars then.
So, not cars then.
[deleted]
At current technology we are unable to eliminate fossil fuels. In some regions we can definitely cover a lot with wind and solar but during the day its not always enough and we still have night time generation. How are you expecting a company to provide you timelines?
Demanding a commitment and timeline to drop their core business is asinine. BP's responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders, not save the planet. And the comparison to tobacco is nonsense. Widely available and affordable energy has increased the material well-being of more people than perhaps any other industry, while tobacco offers a cheap high.
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.
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.
> BP's responsibility is to increase profits for shareholders, not save the planet.
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.
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.
If BP doubles down on fossil extraction and fails to diversify, they risk destroying all of the shareholder value. Their mission is to be profitable in both the short and long term.
You said it better than I did. I hate this path of painting oil and gas companies as the big evil conspirators. They have certainly done things that are not great and have been part of natural disasters that probably could have been prevented.
There is that whole pitch. We need to be using more electricity to drive more innovation which will lead to greener alternatives.
There is that whole pitch. We need to be using more electricity to drive more innovation which will lead to greener alternatives.
No, they were waiting for North America to pick a charging standard. North America has picked CCS with Tesla's plug on the end as the standard. The Tesla plug will become CCS Type 3, aka SAE J3400.
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.
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.
Feels like it might be a USB-C vs Lightning thing for Europe. Tesla's standard is clearly superior... is Europe going to bite the bullet and have a painful switchover?
I would guess they'll probably stay with the inferior standard forever.
I would guess they'll probably stay with the inferior standard forever.
Europe's standard supports 3 phase supply, which is widespread — even in houses in several countries.
> Tesla's standard is clearly superior
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.
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.
- At 400Kw, you're using DC, not AC anyway (whether three or single phase). Three phase is useful for faster (and more efficient) L2 charging (e.g. in the 10-50Kw range)
- 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
- 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
> At 400Kw, you're using DC
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?
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?
This is silly, no Teslas charge at 400 KW, so obviously that doesn't exist. Noone within the industry has expressed concerns in making the NACS connector do 400KW.
It already runs at higher amperages than CCS, despite the lower KW.
It already runs at higher amperages than CCS, despite the lower KW.
> This is silly, no Teslas charge at 400 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...
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...
I don't think you understood his point.
He wasn't making one.
Yes, I was. There is nothing about NACS that limits things to 250KW.
No, you weren't. Remember: the claim is that NACS is "clearly superior" to CCS Type 2 Combo.
It's clearly not.
It's clearly not.
> Teslas 2019 and earlier will need a CCS retrofit to use all chargers.
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.
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.
No, this is just a calculated move kind of like biofuel. There is like 20yrs fossiling it up all in.
Hedging is always smart
> 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%.
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.
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.
> The only way they can significantly decrease "their" carbon emissions is by selling less of their product
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-...
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-...
I have this theory that one day gas stations will be used primarily for their EV charging stations, which they will power by burning gasoline
Most of the existing gas station infrastructure is poorly suited for EV. Not enough room and owner operators can't afford superchargers (~$250K a pop in LA).
Newer chains like Racetrak and Buc-ees might work and have the space/capital but they're not suited for denser urban areas.
Newer chains like Racetrak and Buc-ees might work and have the space/capital but they're not suited for denser urban areas.
Hosts don't have to pay for superchargers. That's why they often show up at relatively small, or even mostly unoccupied locations.
No driver wants to be stuck at a fuel station for 20 minutes.
Yes they will stop being fuel stations, but they're the last places I want to charge.
Yes they will stop being fuel stations, but they're the last places I want to charge.
Really? We EV road trip a lot and I'd love a 7/11 type mart.
- 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!
- 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!
Similar to what used to be some more developed rest stops (areas).
Sheetz baby, Sheetz!
Yesterday's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38028418
[deleted]
I've tried to use BP pulse chargers multiple times here in the UK. Never a good experience -the process of getting started is convoluted, and their ux is unhelpful and unclear to anyone who is just wanting to charge their car.
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.
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.
It’s cool that Tesla is now selling their superchargers to other charging networks.
Is it only a matter of time before they rebrand as "BE" (British Energy)?
They already rebranded 22 years ago to remove the word "British" and were only known as "BP" (or bp in lower case in their logo branding).
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.
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.
> but after the Macondo disaster
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.
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.
I agree. First time I've ever heard of Macondo.
BP now formally stands for Beyond Petroleum, so that laughable rebrand is already started.
Like Norways flagship Statoil change to Equinor.
Limp greenwashing
Like Norways flagship Statoil change to Equinor.
Limp greenwashing
British Power?
> British Power?
That would be BTUs - British Thermal Units ;)
That would be BTUs - British Thermal Units ;)
Burning Pariah
..has Empire vibes
There is a band that until 2021 was called "British Sea Power", and then they dropped British, specifically to avoid those vibes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Power
It always seems strange to me that petroleum companies are entangling themselves with electricity and renewables. The Energy sector is not really a homogeneous thing, its basically held together by regulation, but otherwise their expertise is on very different levels: exporting pollution, being buddies with the world's most horrible regimes, dealing with wars and geopolitics etc.
"Tesla chargers" is sensational because recently every major automotive manufacturer adopted the "Tesla" charging port (NACS). Having fast charge spots retrofitted into existing gas stations, closing the gap between gas and ev sounds awesome. They need as much extra utility infrastructure as your house when installing
What do they plan to do? connect an oil based generator to the charging station?
> oil
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...
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 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%.
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.
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.
Says they are installing them at their gas stations. Probably a lot of money to be made from getting people to stop to charge and buy sodas etc.
Yep, imagine an EV version of Buc-ees, replacing 100 gas pumps with superchargers... keeping the Walmart-sized snack-shop:
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)
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)
Yeah, buc-ees makes for a great charging stop. Just wish the walk from the chargers wasn't quite so long.
Surprised they don't have a Disneyland-like parking lot tram.
It'd be useful for the one in Leeds, AL. The walk is huge and the temps are usually terrible.
Ok, this is the furthest I've even seen for a charger at a Bucees. It's ~450ft. About a 90 second walk.
This is so American. It's like 200ft from the chargers to the store entrance...
Yep, they also recently purchased TravelCenters of America, which was a mismanaged chain of large gas stations with a lot of potential.
This combination makes a lot of sense, though they should work on revitalizing some of the brands involved.
This combination makes a lot of sense, though they should work on revitalizing some of the brands involved.
They’re actually nearly useless at non-rural gas stations. There’s no money to be made. Far and away most people on an ev will not stop at a charge station anywhere within a couple hundred kilometers of their home.
There's a lot of people who don't live in homes where they can install a charger.
Doubtful. It makes sense for oil companies to begin (though realistically continue) investing in alternative energies if they want to survive beyond this century due to the continued decreased cost of alternative fuel/energy sources.
Do they use an oil based generator to power the lights in the convenience store or the payment processors?
They will get the ev credits and they will be able to offset the production of fossil fuel.
[deleted]
BP were actually doing a lot of solar cell research from the early 1970s
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...