Comments on: Why Chevron Won’t Make Bio-Gasoline For $2.18 Any Time Soon

By: batuchka

batuchka — Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:18:00 +0000

I’d rather they ramp up electical energy generation via direct burning of biomass and make electric cars ownership very attractive with rebates, etc

By: vetxcl

vetxcl — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:39:00 +0000

Dumb title to the article which has an OBVIOUS answer. (Only three guesses allowed.)

And thanks for the links to promising projects.

So, what IS being done NOW that’s usable???

By: ga

ga — Sun, 12 May 2013 16:20:00 +0000

Put aviation on bio-fuels and upgrade fleets to nextgen platforms and turbo-props for <700mile routes. Building new long haul passenger rail is an unbelievable waste of money. Tax the heck out of carbon and it all works out.

By: ga

ga — Sun, 12 May 2013 16:08:00 +0000

Large American corporations survive with manipulation of long-term policy. Look at the trans fat battle. No more trans fats in french fries, countless lives saved annually. You’d think the McD and BK would be running ads gloating about their new tasty safe products. They don’t. It’s clear that they don’t want to be hit by another round of regulations for sodium, sugar or whatever. The last thing Chevron needs is to be fueling large numbers of cars and planes in California with biofuels. Such success will only hasten regulators to act.

By: jasavak

jasavak — Fri, 10 May 2013 05:33:00 +0000

This article makes no sense . Does the $2.18 include taxes ? If Chevron was able to produce a fuel that sold at the pump for $2.18 , why wouldn’t they ? If they wanted a profit of 15% instead of , the price could still be lower than $2.50.

If the $2.18 doesn’t include taxes or sufficient profit , would enough people be willing to buy the bio-gas at a price higher than standard gasoline ?

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:52:00 +0000

i love your repetition of the need for “sin” taxes — repetition is a crucial element of good messaging/communication.

keep it up!

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:52:00 +0000

Checked your website like you asked Scott.

Interestingly that in your press release stuff you post a piece about your company and Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat.

And absolutely nothing about shipping product, customers, no attention from the legitimate business community at all.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:42:00 +0000

When did you start commercial production, Scott?

What is your annual output?

By: Scott Wesley

Scott Wesley — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:28:00 +0000

Oh hell with all that! If you want profitability, then utilizing a biomass system that takes “ANY” pollutant, other then nuclear waste is the answer. MP BioMass can take CO2, petroleum waste, coal ash, MSW, sludge, sewage, animal waste, medical waste, old tires, and even costly woody biomass and convert into a very profitable renewable energy source GUARANTEED. Yes, we have a financial insurer that will guarantee our systems ROI of 5 years or less! We produce so much methanol and oxygen, while also producing electricity that it makes it extremely profitable for investors and end users. With an International patent even in China, and our first commercialized plant placed in Serbia in 2003. With all of the pure 99% methanol we produce, we could make that $2.18 gasoline become $1.98 gasoline! Please visit http://www.mpbiomass.com

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:59:00 +0000

Good point. Solazyme uses algae to produce an oil product, Codexis uses plant waste.

By: James Hilden-Minton

James Hilden-Minton — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:55:00 +0000

The biofuels industry will make in roads by targeting higher value chemicals. Why target a $4/gallon fuel, when you can just as well go after a $6, $8, $10/gallon specialty chemical instead? Check out companies like Solazyme and Codexis. After these companies tap the most profitable markets then they will turn their attention to lower margin fuels. Cheveron was thinking in terms of penetrating a high volume, low profit market. It could be profitable, but not to the tune of 20% ROI. The profit margin for things like cosmetics, lubricants, pharmaceuticals and nutriceuticals are much higher than that. It’s fine with me if Chevron wants to pass on markets they deem as too small to interest them, but that is where the future giants of biofuels will cut their teeth.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:55:00 +0000

Chevron can’t patent the idea of intercropping in tree plantations. And we’ll keep farming trees for lumber. Between intercropping and timber waste it should be possible to keep feedstock headed to processing.

What this looks like to be is a good source for liquid fuels for those applications needing a lot more power per weight/volume than batteries are likely to provide. In particular long distance air travel and ocean shipping.

If the fuel pencils out at less than $4/gallon then we’ve got one more piece of the puzzle.

We probably can’t replace all, or even a large percentage of our current oil usage with plant-gas. But luckily we can do our driving for far less than $2/gallon with electricity. And we can move our rail to electricity as well as put moderate length air travel on rails.

—

If the oil companies like Chevron can make 15%+ from oil operations then it’s too soon for them to start moving their capital to other less profitable activities. But the risk they take is that other companies will become well established and there will not be enough room for them to crowd in later on.

By: beernotwar

beernotwar — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:20:00 +0000

Even from a business perspective this is short-sighted. They could keep people burning fuel with internal-combustion engines longer if the price went down and people thought it was “green.” With sales for EVs increasing we will reach a tipping point before long where people realize it no longer makes sense to use this dirty means of locomotion at all. They’re hastening the day that they can’t sell a gallon of gas — dino or bio — to anyone.

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:46:00 +0000

Also, there might be an issue with finding enough usable land to grow trees. Still not a reason to kill it, just might not be able to bring down gas prices as low as calculated.

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:41:00 +0000

Easy fix – restrict carbon. If the price of carbon is high enough, the profits for FFs will shrink. Profits shrink, incredible R&D work goes on to find new avenues for profit. As long as these are long established companies, it won’t hurt them substantially… actually, it’s likely to make them more competitive in the long run.

By: earlrichards

earlrichards — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:21:00 +0000

To understand the sleaze-side of Chevron, see, http://www.truecostofchevron.com.

By: JustSaying

JustSaying — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:28:00 +0000

Yes, we need to remove all the government support to fossil fuel, and add some “sin” taxes. So that their less profit to be made in oil/coal/gas. Then the money would move toward helping keep the world a place where humans can live.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:08:00 +0000

The crucial datum here is the high profitability of Chevron’s existing oil-based operations. The same reasoning is presumably behind BP’s exit from solar. The logic is a “tragedy of the private domain”: the highest profits come from exploiting a short-term resource until the whole thing blows up. The fossil industries won’t adapt like the carmakers, they are choosing to go extinct.