BP's cynical approach to "biodiesel"

[rowante Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close rowante]

Re: BP's cynical approach to "biodiesel"

Hi everyone, I'm new... I've been lurking for a while and have a couple of points to ponder...

Oil companies (actually, all energy and resource corporations) love the current fuel paradigm: long, centralised supply chains from raw material to finished refined consumer product. This system (from the point of view of a multi-national corporation) is easy to control and the immense concentrated wealth produced allows them to pervert our democracies. There are billions of dollars tied up in (or owed for) oil refining technology and infrastructure that they are desperate to maintain as viable capital (or must be paid for). Once you see the industry through this prism most of their behavior becomes self-explanatory, in regards to biodiesel.

Always keep in mind that oil companies are now so huge and consolidated they are able to manipulate and control the market.. i.e. they are a cartel, ditto for the car companies.

Hydrogen is currently a product of the petroleum industry. BP's conversion of tallow to a "biofuel" simply opens up a new market for another petroproduct, there is nothing sustainable about this fuel. If I were using biodiesel as an ethical, environmentally friendlier fuel I wouldn't be buying the BP product.

[geoffdolbear Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close geoffdolbear]

Re: BP's cynical approach to "biodiesel"

Cheers!

I understand and agree with where you are coming from on this. The oil business is more than ever an activity of very large corporations, including some very large state-owned corporations.

However, I do not think the oil companies need to actively collude on prices and fuel flows to see the prices stay high. We have moved from a situation perhaps 10 years ago where there was more oil production capacity than was required by the demand into a place where the demand and potential supply are about even, maybe a little more demand than can be supplied. This is espeically true with the US gulf coast production still hurting from all the destruction from the hurricane a year ago - perhaps a million bpd out of operation. So the oil companies can sit back and see how far they need to raise prices to bring it into balance. And they are bright enough to do this without ever calling one another on the phone.

They are also bright enough to recognize that they need to get involved whenever any new technology threatens to upset the apple cart. First they fight it with all their might, then they buy in and take over. That will happen with all the suggested newer forms of fuels, including fuel ethanol and the biofuels made from fats and oils. For years they sat on the side and allowed little guys to take the risks and develop the products. Now they will be wading in and taking over.

You don't have to be a socialist to think this is rotten. However, it is better - and perhaps healthier for the stomache - to accept this as the way things are. (Gawd I am sounding old, aren't I...)

Geoff

[garettb Biofuels Forum Newbie Find all posts View Profile Close garettb]

Re: BP's cynical approach to "biodiesel"

In response to Home’s conclusion that there is “nothing sustainable about this fuel”, it seems as though, from what has formerly been discussed in this forum, that this statement is simply inaccurate.

Tallow will undoubtedly always be a byproduct of the world’s food producers and thus will always be around to use. Secondly, as discussed by Geoff, the byproducts of the NexBTL process seem to create less environmental degradation than the byproducts of the biodiesel industries common manufacturing process. If this is true and the emissions of NexBTL are similar to biodiesel, or at least provide the same environmental benefits to society, than it is in fact a more environmentally friendly fuel than biodiesel.

In my mind, again if the characteristics of NexBTL discussed in the former are true, it seems as though BP is the one being unjustly treated. The government subsidy on biodiesel was granted in a large part because a third-party, the rest of the world, benefits in the form of environmental quality whenever someone burns biodiesel. The government’s intervention in this instance is necessary since the market does not naturally take these benefits into account and consequently does not convey the efficient price level to individual consumers at the pump. If NexBTL provides more benefits to society than biodiesel, it is only just that the government grant it a larger subsidy.

It seems as though the issue here is really not NexBTL being classified as biodiesel, but that its being produced by an oil corporation and that its technology is not made available. This should be, and is a threat to everyone involved in the biodiesel industry. Since not only does NexBTL’s manufacturing process seem more cost effective, it has the potential to justifiably receive a greater subsidy than biodiesel. If this occurs, the markets for biodiesel will be cut significantly and potentially even disappear.

As far as ethics go, it is unfortunate that biodiesel producers may loose their jobs and be forced into another industry. Again, a multi-billion dollar corporation has developed new technology and come up with new ways to offer products at lower prices than would have ever been made possible with the resources of the common man. However, NexBTL seems to be able to lower the burden consumers feel at the pump as well as help ensure our world’s environmental quality.

If the qualities of NexBTL that were discussed are true, I not only support the subsidy of NexBTL, but also encourage that it is put in a different category than biodiesel and given a larger one. Why? If the biofuel industry’s many markets are governed in a manner that bring them to socially efficient levels, individuals will be given the right information when deciding whether to buy biodiesel, NexBTL, or even petroleum. When this is the case, it will be an easy decision for each individual, to cast their vote in the form of a dollar, to determine whether or not the benefits of environmentally friendly fuels outweigh the benefits of fossil fuels. Isn’t that democracy?