But the most important feature GE’s product is that it exists at all. As I reported in my piece Tough Realities for Renewable Energy Businesses, I urge people to look at the actions of Fortune 25 companies as indications of the underlying truth in the world – and this is a fabulous example. A company with revenues of $157 billion is extremely unlikely to make a commitment to a product space whose revenues will come from a small minority of tree-huggers. This announcement is further evidence that the public and private sectors and moving very quickly – in lock-step with one another – to move electric transportation ahead.

Eighty percent of the adults who live in Manhattan do not own motor vehicles, and rely on buses, subway, taxis to get around — plus their own two feet … Manhattan is a rather atypical place. My guess is that only 1-2% of the US population lives in Manhattan or similar center-city areas.

Thanks for writing, Josh. You’re certainly right that Manhattan is atypical re: the issues facing car drivers. Every few years, I’ve been unlucky enough to find myself driving a car in The City that I love — but the driving climate that I royally hate.  And yes, with the traffic, the parking prices, the super-aggressive pedestrians and bicyclists, the taxi drivers from hell, ultra-complex signs and rules, rudeness, double and triple parking — they have FAR bigger driving challenges than transitioning from ICEs to EVs.

To me, the EV slam-dunks of the world are places like Bermuda (thus my team’s concentration on bringing EVs there): low speeds, short drives, narrow roads, great incentives, ridiculously high gas prices, and an eco-sensitive and wealthy population. As I joke with my friends, if I fail with EVs there, I’m jumping off a bridge.

I suppose, depending on the comparison you choose, one could suggest essentially any adoption curve at all. As I recall, people had a tough time selling LP records and turntables within about a microsecond of the advent of the CD. And we sure snapped up those cell phones in one hell of a hurry. On the other hand, mankind had footwear for many thousands of years before the introduction of the left and right shoe in the Nineteeth Century (that’s true, btw).

But one wonders: why did Deloitte choose to make a comparison to a technology that – due to a combination of unusual factors almost a century ago – was slow to take root? Who’s being served by this? Can anyone possibly think that this is a fairminded and sensible report?

“… electric vehicle startups require large amounts of capital to go into production. The continuous need for large capital infusions makes partnerships with established companies with large balance sheets essential. I think some of these ventures would eventually be absorbed by the Hondas and Toyotas of the world.”

Good points, Abhishek — thanks for writing in. And yes, you’re right that a great deal of consolidation is in the cards. But I guess I always thought there was a place for the start-up EV manufacturer — but so far there has been essentially nothing but carnage.

I’m wondering what’s behind all this failure. I’m reminded of the numerous “Plug In” conferences I’ve attended, expecting a feeling of exuberance in the air — but instead sensing a kind of dread. And that dread is simply what you’re talking about: the fear that the big guys will do this at their leisure — and then crush the start-ups like so many grapes.

Having said this, we need to acknowledge that starting a car business from scratch is a lofty endeavor. I’m amazed to see that CODA just raised $58 million in series-C money. Those are some bold investors, I can tell you that.

If I were giving advice, I’d suggest aiming for a niche. Compete in a space that is well-defined – probably one that is too small to receive the attention of the large OEMs.

But here’s an interesting wrinkle: What to sell? Sure, the big OEMs are near to their proposed launch dates for cars like the Nissan LEAF and the Chevy Volt – and dozens of others are right behind them. But here’s an opportunity to sell something right now – if we can find the right car. Of course, there are several Chinese EVs rolling off the assembly lines, so why not consider them? In a word: quality.

I just got off the phone with a friend who has a relationship with Chinese manufacturer that’s been cranking these out for years. In fact, we bought one a year ago for a test in the real-world conditions in Bermuda. After about 14 months in that salty environment, it has rust holes the size of baseballs.

“Oh, I think what we have now is far better,” he told me. “You think?” I asked. “Sure, he replied. Why don’t you inspect the new model for yourselves.” Dude: we’re not metallurgists; we’re car dealers.

“Well, you can have some tests done,” he offered. But since when did it become the responsibility of the dealer to test the quality of the cars he sells? Isn’t that what manufacturers do? I know there are issues with China generally, but give me a break. Can he seriously expect us to distribute a product whose quality issues are completely unknown? How many Honda dealers would there be if Honda shifted the responsibility of QC to its dealers? Our job is to sell high-quality, high-value cars. His job is to make damn sure that the cars he’s selling us meets those criteria — regardless of what it takes to do that.

I’m unwilling to paint an entire nation and all of its product with the same brush, but we really do have a quality issue here. Any suggestions?

He asks such questions as:

How do you compute the amount of pollution generated from coal and natural gas? Do you take the national average for a kilowatt hour of energy? I’ve read it’s just over one pound of CO2 per kWh. Or do you allow for regional variation? California is among the best in terms of per capita efficiency and a low CO2 grid, and we’ll be the first state to mass adopt EVs. Oregon and Washington have an even cleaner grid and will match CA in per capita EV ownership. Seems only fair to allow for our cleaner grid in the calculations.

In my estimation, a far bigger factor here is that the vast majority of the energy used to charge EVs comes off-peak, where it would largely be wasted (dumped back to ground) anyway. Therefore, even EVs powered by the dirtiest of coal-fired power plants represent very little additional pollution. We could put an estimated 90 million EV on the road this afternoon without the need for a single additional power plant — coal, nuclear, or whatever. Thus this issue, I believe, is largely moot.

But don’t expect the EPA to grasp this point too quickly.  These are the same people who are still trying to determine the MPG ratings for a plug-hybrid like the Chevy Volt.  Apparently, the fact that this is number that has no possible definition (it could be 50, 500, 5,000 or 50,000 depending on how the car is driven) does not deter them from spending many man-years studying and debating the issue.  It makes just as much sense to argue about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. 

In any case, I applaud Paul for his incisive and fair-minded article, and I encourage readers to check it out here.

1) What does Big Auto think (or, at least, claim that they think) about EV production rates? Considering there are 230 million cars on the road in the US alone, the needle will not be moving in the short-term:

Nissan: Has pre-orders for 56,000 LEAF all-electric cars.

GM: Last year, had 50,000 expressions of interest in the Chevy Volt, though presumably that figure is somewhat larger now.

Mitsubishi: Bumped up its 2011 production schedule of the i-MiEV from 8,500 units to 9,000.

Better Place: Placed an order with Renault for 100,000 electric vehicles based on the Fluence ZE for its deal with Israel.

2) But is there any reason to believe anything coming out of Detroit?

Today, the population of Detroit is about half of what it was in 1950. The city has 33,500 empty homes and 91,000 vacant lots. A recent AP article asserts that vacant property totals 40 square miles. But Big Auto is not at all apologetic for the meltdown, and points out they couldn’t have foreseen the dynamics of oil prices that created sharp inflection points in the demand for fuel-efficient vehicles in favor of the Hummer and other gas-guzzlers. If this is false, they’re disingenuous; if it’s true, they’re incredibly obtuse. Either way, it’s hard to trust what they’re saying.

One thing for sure: there is nothing good in EVs for the big OEMs. They are happy to drag this transition out for decades, selling gas- and diesel-based cars and trucks as long as possible.

3) The Department of Energy apparently is not bullish on pure (battery) EVs.

Check out this report on the future of the automobile. Although the author sees lots of hybrids in our future, he really doesn’t see any pure EVs. Remarkable. I have to think this is simply a mistake.

4) Industry analysts are hedging their bets.

As reported in EV World, Accenture recently performed a survey that showed that six out of 10 consumers are more likely to buy a hybrid or electric vehicle “only when it is superior to gasoline-only models in every way.”

I understand that merely “being green” isn’t good enough for the vast majority of car buyers. But this report strikes me as the usual MBA malarky — a consultant who reads your watch and then tells you what time it is.  What about the other 40%? Isn’t that a substantial market? And what exactly does “superior in every way” mean, exactly? How will the typical consumer react to a value proposition that includes dramatically lower fuel cost and huge reductions of other pieces of his total cost of ownership?

My belief: Give me a freeway-speed battery EV with comparable fit and finish to a garden-variety 5-passenger sedan, a 75-mile range, and price tag under $25,000 after rebate, and you won’t be able to manufacture enough of them.

Another partnership of which I’m happy to be a part is its subsidiary, EV World Associates. I’m trying to create a video to tell our story there, the first vesrion of which you can see below. You’ll see at a glance that the images are too low-res and that it needs help in a million different directions. But I think that the basic message is clear: we’re here to serve.

I was speaking with my friend Bill Moore (of EV World fame) just now about how cheesed off we should all be by this. I mentioned that $12.5 billion is quite a heist. “Isn’t that one of the biggest burglaries in history?” I asked. “Yes,” Bill said. “But they’re too big to arrest.” 

Jay Leno, move over.

While they were fresh in my mind, I thought I’d note a few of the most interesting highlights from Steve’s presentation:

• Of those who know anything at all about fuel cells, most have opinions that are based on sources that have made essentially no effort to treat the subject fairly. 
• It is true that the process by which hydrogen (the “fuel”) is electrolyzed from water and then, in the car, recombined with oxygen to form water is less efficient that the process of storing electrical energy in a battery and converting it to kinetic energy in an electric motor.  However, this is largely missing the point; there are far more important factors that affect fuel cells’ utility in transportation that are normally overlooked.
• Both types of electric vehicles (fuel cell and battery) offer the potential for completely clean transportation; the issue is how the energy is generated in the first place.
• Over the past few years, the efficiency of fuel cells has improved faster than the relevant statistics (energy density and cost) of batteries.   
• Technologies by which drivers can refuel their cars for longer trips will bedevil the battery electric vehicle market for the foreseeable future.  Better Place is not a good fit for the US, and ubiquitous quick-charging is many decades away, if it ever comes at all.  So if you want clean vehicles that can be refueled in a matter of a few minutes (versus many hours), hydrogen is your only answer.

I guess the most memorable moment of the interview was the concept of personal emotion and politics.  Steve is at a loss to understand why people with a sincere devotion to environmental stewardship would manipulate the facts to denegrate a technology that is strategic to moving us in the right direction.  “This is truly strange behavior. Fuel cell advocates don’t try to derail the battery industry.  It’s obvious that both have strengths and weaknesses, and form complementary paths in our journey to clean transportation.”

I guess we’d all like to think that meeting the challenges of reducing our carbon footprint are purely technological, rather than political.  Or — if the challenges in fact do have political components that it’s “the good guys against the bad guys” — and that there is a kind of “brotherly love” among the fans of renewable energy and electric transportation.  But my recent interviews have suggested that this is not the case.  All I can say is what I remind my kids of constantly:  This is not going to be easy.  Let’s not fight among ourselves and make it impossible.