Oil Archives - Zureli

Search for any green Service

Find green products from around the world in one place

Window cleaning

Singapore Safety Glass

Recycle Plastic Bags into Oil with New Machine

Posted on December 1, 2023 by dishanth

A Japanese inventor learned how to recycle plastic bags into oil with a new machine.

A Japanese inventor has designed an innovative machine that can recycle plastic bags into oil. 70-year old Akinori Ito created the recycling device to process hard-to-recycle plastic waste into usable fuel.

Ito’s machine shreds plastic bags into flakes and then melts them at high heat, producing an oil liquid similar to light crude. The unconventional recycling method aims to reduce waste while generating income for local communities. The machines come in a variety of sizes, from desktop-sized to community-scale.

“I don’t want this equipment to just be used by major companies. I want it to be used in small towns and villages,” Ito shared.

His compact recycling unit measures around 4.5 meters long by 2.5 meters wide with various control stations. Up to 1 kilogram of plastic bags can be loaded into the shredder per hour.

The shredded plastic is then fed into a hot furnace, melting the material at temperatures up to 430 degrees Celsius. The intense heat decomposes the hydrocarbons and will recycle plastic bags into oil.

Different grades of fuel oil can be created depending on the temperature and components used. Higher heat produces lighter oils akin to diesel or gasoline. The oil can then be sold to buyers as recycled petroleum products.

Japan generates over 9 million tons of plastic waste annually but recycles only 22% of it, government statistics report. The country imports much of its energy and previously recycled most plastics into lower-grade uses like concrete filler. The ability to recycle plastic bags into oil is something that Japan needs.

Motivated by both the waste and energy issues, Ito spent over 20 years perfecting a system to upcycle plastics into usable crude oil.

After testing various methods, the retired electronics engineer pioneered the pressurized hot furnace technique to recycle plastic bags into oil.

“I didn’t expect oil made from plastic bags would be such good quality when I first produced it,” shared Ito. “The quality of oil is high enough to be sold to consumers.”

By selling the oil produced, local groups and municipalities can fund new recycling efforts in a self-sustaining loop. “I hope more people will use the machine in their community,” said Ito.

Several Japanese municipalities have already installed Ito’s invention to process hard-to-recycle plastic films, bags, wrappings, and other waste into oil.

The city of Akita estimates they can convert several hundred kilograms of plastic waste per day into nearly $500 worth of oil. Some groups report producing over 80 liters of oil daily.

But challenges remain in scaling up the niche recycling concept. Collecting sufficient plastic volumes is difficult in smaller towns. Removing ink and labels from plastic bags is an added step. The systems also require maintenance of technical equipment.

Still, supporters believe Ito’s invention provides an important outlet to reduce unrecyclable plastics piling up in Japan and other countries. His machine offers a rare solution for polyethylene films that lack recycling markets globally.

If expanded, systems that recycle plastic bags into oil could reduce environmental and crude oil imports for countries while generating income. With further development, experts envision entire localized supply chains optimizing the plastic-to-fuel concept.

For his innovation, Ito was awarded the Medal of Honor from Japan’s Ministry of Environment in 2018. His persistence in creating a real-world solution also highlights the power of grassroots initiatives to spur change.

Said Ito: “I don’t want my technology to end up sitting on the shelf. I want it to be used practically to help communities.”

Source Happy Eco News

Shift to green energy ‘could cost oil states $13 trillion’ by 2040

Posted on February 16, 2021 by dishanth

A new report says that oil and gas producing countries face a multi-trillion-dollar hole in their government revenue.

The report from the think-tank Carbon Tracker looks at the financial impact as the world cuts back on fossil fuels.

It says some countries could lose at least 40% of total government revenue.

It estimates the cumulative total revenue loss for all oil-producing countries by 2040 will be $13 trillion (in 2020 dollars).

That is as efforts to contain the rise in global temperatures drive the decarbonisation of energy supplies.

Carbon Tracker describes its report as a wake-up call to oil producing countries and international policymakers. It says they have planned on the basis that demand for oil will increase until 2040.

But the agency warns that demand will have to fall to meet climate targets, and oil prices will be lower than oil producers and the industry currently expect.

The report looks at what would happen to government revenues if the increase in global temperature is limited to 1.65C.

The $13 trillion figure for lost revenue is compared with what it calls “business as usual” expectations of continued growth. It includes countries whose economies are not dominated by oil – such as the UK, the US, India and China.

The main focus of the report, however, is a group for which the loss of oil income will be much more challenging, 40 countries it calls “petrostates”.

Saudi Arabia relies of oil for 60% of its revenue GETTY IMAGES

The predicted damage to government finances in these nations is stark; an average loss of 46% of oil and gas revenue.

The dependence on oil and gas revenue is very marked for some countries – more than 80% for Iraq and Equatorial Guinea. For another seven including Saudi Arabia the figure is more than 60%.

Some countries face very large losses of total revenue. For seven countries, including Angola and Azerbaijan the predicted loss is at least 40%. For another 12, including Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Algeria it is in the range of 20% to 40%.

For some in the Middle East and North Africa, the effect is moderated somewhat because their low production costs would give them a more prominent role in global oil and gas supply.

There is also a concern about what the report calls emerging petrostates. What they have to confront is a loss of potential revenue from oilfields where development is planned in the coming years. Ghana, Uganda and Guyana are among the countries facing this risk.

‘Diversification’

Some of the countries facing severe losses – from existing or potential oil and gas production – are among the poorest.

The report says diversification – of government revenue and national economies – is an urgent task. That will need to be tailored to the needs of each individual country but there are some steps it suggests will be of widespread use.

These include investing in education and improving the quality of government and the climate for business. Capital that is not invested in oil and gas can instead be used to invest in industries that are more resilient to the energy transition.

The report also says there is a strong case for the rest of the world to support this transition. It says there are moral reasons to do so as many of the countries concerned are so poor.

It would help get better climate outcomes. It could also help address the risk of petrostates becoming less stable. They could see social unrest as spending is cut or underfunded security services struggling to contain existing threats.

By Andrew Walker
BBC World Service economics correspondent

Source BBC

Can Renewables Become As Profitable As Oil And Gas?

Posted on January 6, 2021 by dishanth

Here’s the question for oil industry investors. Can oil companies scale up clean energy enterprises to replace business lost from a decline in fossil fuel revenues? Some of the oil companies put up a brave front as they boast of their decarbonization plans. Others ignore the question. But at the end of the day— and this is the takeaway— we don’t think they will replace lost fossil related income by massively investing in windmills and solar power. Here’s why. It’s a simple matter of risk and return. Investors accept lower returns when they make low risk investments (regulated utilities for example). Except for nuclear power, non-fossil fuel investments are lower in risk than fossil fuel investments. Energy exploration by its nature entails risk of financial loss. There is no such thing as a dry hole in the wind or solar industries. That is why renewable industries can attract new capital while offering investors steady but lower returns.

If oil managements do decide to enter the renewables business in a big way, as opposed to mere greenwashing, they may have to accept a lower rate of profitability. If they don’t, they will have a hard time obtaining business.

The inherently lower business risk of renewables distinguishes it from the oil business. Renewables do not require massive investments taking decades to fully develop in inhospitable and unfriendly places like the ocean floor. Their projects are bankable as soon as they have contracts signed. They do not compete against state controlled entities with few capital or environmental constraints. They can contract for a steady flow of revenues and pay regular dividends. Environmental accidents do not have multi-billion dollar consequences. Okay, weather can affect performance, but on balance performance averages out. In brief, renewable energy projects can be characterized as relatively small, or modular, with short duration of construction (planning takes longer), predictable revenues with limited foreign exposure. Low risk, low return. This profile doesn’t have the investment attributes of the oil business at all.

Maybe, though, the oil industry could find a suitable new opportunity in nuclear energy. From our perspective some of its investment attributes are similar: projects with long lead times, large concentration of capital in one project, relatively low risk of catastrophic accident but high risk that any accident will be really bad, ongoing need for negotiation with and cooperation from the government authorities. Big oil’s scale gives it an edge. New nuclear projects are too big nowadays for most energy companies.

And unlike renewables, if the nuclear builder negotiates aggressively it can extract an appropriately high return that reflects the risk. New nuclear construction is one business that most resembles the oil industry in terms of risk, possible return and scale. The obvious catch is that not many for-profit businesses want to get involved with new nuclear construction and operation for good reasons, all of which are well known to our readers.

But with better construction management, research to develop a new generation of reactors and permanent waste storage, who knows? A new generation of nuclear power plants might emerge just when the oil companies need to find big replacements for lost income. This is still a possibility. But if we assume that commercialization of new nuclear technology is at least a decade away that still leaves a big hole in prospective capital budgets. What to do in the meantime other than drill for oil?

In short, we don’t expect the oil industry to grow in any meaningful way with wind turbines and large solar arrays. The demand for capital in the renewable industry is high but the returns may not be high enough for oil investors.

Maybe the oil industry has confused its end market with its business strengths. It seems to see itself as purveyor of energy on a mass scale. Okay, but that market will become crowded with purveyors of new energy products who work for less. Perhaps, instead, the oil industry’s strength is not its customer base but rather its skill as a financier, developer and operator of risky resources on a massive scale, akin to the giant mining and trading combines, but with more technological skill.

Oil and electricity are both commodities but with very different margin structures. Perhaps the oil industry would be better served by investing in potentially high margin commodity businesses like cobalt or rare earth metals, for example, without which no batteries can be made. Or, it could invest in resources or capital intensive processes that will be required for decarbonization.

In short, replace oil profits with windmill and solar profits? Other people can do it as well. Oil companies will need to do something big, and maybe as daring as drilling for oil in the old days. How about, for instance, a process to remove carbon dioxide from the air and turning it into chemicals and fuels on a vast scale? They need to start thinking on a bigger scale. Otherwise, why bother?

By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com

Source Oilprice.com

British Petroleum Signals Imminent Hydrogen and Offshore Wind Plays

Posted on November 4, 2020 by dishanth

BP is readying offshore wind bids during the next six months with heightened hydrogen activity also in the pipeline, the oil major’s CEO, Bernard Looney, said Tuesday.

During the company’s Q3 results call, Bernard Looney said BP would “probably” bid in offshore wind auctions that are scheduled in the next six months. The firm revealed a U.S.-focused partnership with Equinor in September, its first foray into offshore wind. Looney said bidding in auctions over the next six months would also be carried out in partnerships rather than independently.

In its home market in the U.K., there are active seabed leasing rounds. Denmark’s 800 MW to 1,000 MW Thor project closes to bids on March 15. The Netherlands’ Hollandse Kust (west) project, which could be as large as 1,400 MW, is scheduled to tender in Q2 2021.

BP is targeting 20 gigawatts of renewables by 2025 and 50 GW by 2030. It currently has around 10 GW completed or in the works and options on another 20 GW. Most of its early successes have come via its 50 percent stake in solar developer Lightsource BP.

Looney said the company is more likely to add megawatts via partnerships, like those with Lightsource BP and Equinor, and capacity auctions than through merger and acquisition activity.

“Partnerships will be…a key factor in this build-out, quite frankly, just like [they are] in the traditional oil and gas business. […] We partner all around the world today in oil and gas, and partnership will be no different as we look to build out our low-carbon position.”

“Over the coming six months, you’ll probably see us bid [in offshore auction rounds]. We’ll do that in partnerships; we consider that a sort of organic build-out,” he said, adding that there are no “material” merger and acquisition deals in the immediate future but that they should not be ruled out as a possibility.

French rival Total has made several huge deals to swell its own portfolio of renewables, including major solar deals in Spain and India and wind acquisitions in the U.K., Denmark and France. Three solar deals in Spain have netted the company more than 5 gigawatts of capacity.

Hydrogen action likely “in the coming months”

Like many of its peers, BP is eyeing the potential of hydrogen across its business. Looney again stated that hydrogen is unlikely to become a significant accounting line until 2030. Despite that, he trailed an uptick in hydrogen activity in the short term.

BP is backing both blue and green hydrogen. A gas power plant in northeast England with carbon capture and storage capabilities will be the foundation of a low-carbon industrial cluster with blue hydrogen fed to industrial customers.

“I think hydrogen is a core part of what we believe in for the future,” he told analysts, adding that the focus for BP will be heavy transport and industry, with the company looking at using hydrogen at its own refineries in Germany. It is also exploring a green hydrogen distribution trial with utility RWE.

“We are believers in hydrogen being a fuel of choice, and maybe the fuel of choice for heavy-duty transport over the medium term. We’re in the midst of exploring that more [and the] partnerships that we might have around the world. That’s work that’s ongoing at the moment,” said Looney.

“You should expect to see a bit more from us in the coming months and certainly as we head into 2021,” he added.

BP results beat expectations

BP’s Q3 results saw it post a modest, and surprise, profit of $100 million. Financial analysts had been expecting a similar-sized loss. The figure compares to losses of $6.7 billion in the second quarter of 2020 when oil and gas asset write-downs hit it hard.

The company also managed to dial its debt down by $500 million as it continues to improve its balance sheet and invest in low-carbon technology and services. To that end, the company halved its dividend earlier this year, the first dividend cut in a decade.

CFO Murray Auchincloss reiterated BP’s spending priorities, which start with the dividend, followed by reducing debt, low-carbon investment, oil and gas investment, and, finally, share buybacks, in that order.

By John Parnell

Source: Green Tech Media

Tesla’s $25,000 Electric Car Means Game Over For Gas And Oil

Posted on October 21, 2020October 21, 2020 by dishanth

The monumental Tesla Battery Day last week clearly wasn’t as monumental for some as they had expected. The day after the much-anticipated event, Tesla shares dropped by nearly 10%. This seems to be partly because the “million mile battery” wasn’t part of the presentation. The fickle investment community was hoping for an easily understood revolutionary announcement like an EV battery that will do a million miles without needing replacement. What they got instead was a series of incremental improvements based on technologies that were hard to understand and not very well explained. But the tail end of the Battery Day presentation was incredibly significant and foretells the final nail in the coffin of the traditional car industry based around fossil fuel propulsion.

Elon Musk teased a potential future car costing as little as $25,000. TESLA

Without much more than a single slide and a couple of sentences, Elon Musk delivered the punchline revealing where all the minor improvements up until that point in the presentation were leading. Numerically, it was a 56% reduction in battery costs. But then he explained that this would enable a $25,000 Tesla TSLA -2.1% “with fully autonomous capability”. In atypical style for Musk, he didn’t make any bolder claims about what this car would be able to deliver, but we can read between the lines.

Musk infamously cancelled the Standard Range version of the Model Y, stating that under 250 miles EPA range was too low, and subsequently that 300 miles of EPA range was the “new normal”. From this we assume that the $25,000 car will have at least 300 miles of EPA range, which would mean well over 300 miles with the more frugal WLTP test. You can also be certain this car will be fast because there’s no such thing as a slow Tesla, so it will definitely do 0-60mph in under 6 seconds. There have already been rumors of Tesla planning a small hatchback / subcompact vehicle, with a design teased back in January, and this will likely be the format of the new car given the price.

The Tesla Inc. Model 3 is displayed during AutoMobility LA ahead of the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles, California, U.S., on Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018. With two of the world’s biggest carmakers under harsh scrutiny, the Los Angeles Auto Show will be a welcome chance for the industry to generate some positive publicity. Photographer: Dania Maxwell/Bloomberg

The $25,000 tag doesn’t initially sound that impressive, when you can buy an internal combustion engine Toyota Corolla in the USA starting at under $20,000. But this isn’t the market the car will be aimed at. The Tesla Model 3 starts at just under $40,000 in the US, and was clearly aimed at the luxury mid-sized market epitomized by the BMW 3-series, which its sales have annihilated in the USA. The new $25,000 car – shall we call it the Model 2? Everyone else is – will be aimed at another European icon, the hugely popular VW Golf, which represents quality at an affordable price. You can pick one of those up for just over $23,000.

Obviously, the “Model 2” is still a theory, but Musk was talking about the new battery enhancements being able to deliver the price enabling a Tesla EV at this level in 1.5-3 years’ time. So in around 3 years you could well have the choice of a well-built German fossil fuel car, or a semi-premium EV with over 300 miles of range and much faster performance – that will then go on to be much, much cheaper to run because even in the USA, electric miles are considerably less expensive than fossil fuel ones. In the UK, where petrol and diesel prices are astronomical, the running cost differential will be huge.

Tesla teased a sketch of small car aimed at China in its official WeChat channel back in January 2020. TESLA

Teslas tend to come across to the UK at around the same price numerically in pounds as they are in dollars – the Model 3, which is $40,000 in the US, is around £40,000 in the UK. But the VW Golf is also numerically about the same. So a $25,000 Tesla Model 2 would probably be around £25,000, in the same ballpark as the VW Golf 8, which starts at just over £23,000 in the UK. VW’s all electric ID.3, just released in Europe (but not being launched in the US so far), will be right out of the picture, because it’s closer to the Tesla Model 3 in price.

Which would you choose for $25,000 – a Tesla Model 2 EV or a VW Golf with a conventional fossil fuel engine? No longer will the argument hold that “I can’t buy the EV because it’s too expensive”, because they will be the same price. You could still say “300 miles is not enough to get me all the way from New York to Los Angeles or London to Edinburgh in one go”, but who really does that? In three years from now, recharging will be much more ubiquitous, too – and it’s hardly a trial for Tesla owners already. When you can buy an EV with over 300 miles of range that is faster and equipped with better technology than an internal combustion engine VW Golf, as well as being much cheaper to run, only groundless anti-electric prejudice will stop you. There won’t be any real reason to buy a car that runs on fuel derived from oil and gas anymore.

By James Morris

Source: Forbes