As public anger over the Gulf oil spill mounts, a new report from CERA finds that the U.S.’s single biggest source of imported oil in 2010 will be Canadian tar sands oil. Tar sands oil production causes truly horrible pollution. Could this be the start of a genuine environmental revolution in the U.S.?
It looks like Deloitte Consulting has taken another stab at predicting the EV adoption curve – this time pointing out a comparison to the long consumer acceptance cycle of the common clothes washer. Deloitte cleverly notes that 80 years were required to reach 80% of households in America. From this they suggest that electric cars will follow a similar long, slow, shallow growth curve.
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?
Abhishek writes in:
“… 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.
It’s always gratifying to receive notes of appreciation for what we do here at 2GreenEnergy. A reader from Kenya writes:
Hi, and thank you so much for the information you have been sending my way. It is incredibly difficult to find current opportunities in green energy and or finance in Africa — let alone my country.
I am currently a law student at the University of Nairobi but the field of carbon trading, renewable energy and offset trading is my real career interest. I also serve in the Law Journal at my campus and we are working on an environmental law journal.
Once again thank you for the information. It is like a cool rain in the desert.
“A cool rain in the desert.” I have to say that I like that a lot.
I just wrote a post on Renewable Energy World about the Tesla-Toyota deal this week that has so captured the attention of the electric vehicle world. In the article, I note that, while it’s reason to cheer, it gives us pause. Why exactly did it happen, and what does it imply about the EV movement as a whole?
Many of us have noted with some frustration that the US government has been conspicuously inactive in laying out a migration path to renewable energy.
Some have noted that the lack of a federal renewable portfolio standard (RPS) or national system to reduce emissions has created a climate in various states have taken the initiative. After all, shouldn’t we take solace in the idea that 27 states and the District of Columbia have binding renewable portfolio standards? Utilities that operate in these areas are must generate a certain percentage of their electrical power from renewable sources. It’s also true that many countries outside the US have taken aggressive posture with respect to clean energy. Every week we hear about enormous commitments in this direction from nations all over Europe, Asia, and South America. Shouldn’t we be happy about that?
Sure. But let’s keep asking the obvious question: What’s up with the US? What is it exactly that is causing our national leaders to sit on their hands – an approach that is so clearly wrong?
(more…)
The prestigious National Research Council, in laying out a roadmap for carbon reduction, has concluded that known technologies won’t be enough to save planet’s atmosphere. This should keep every investor looking over the horizon for the next potential breakthrough. No company is too small to be overlooked in investors’ search for returns of 100% and more. I predict there are going to many firms that double and triple in stock price in coming months and years.
Frequent contributor Jim Gilbeau writes that he and Jeff Bertsch started a new solar business, which he describes as follows:
Once elected, President Obama asked America’s business capitalists/entrepreneurs to use their abilities, to think up new and creative ideas to get America back on track, so we could remain the leaders of the world economy.
So the questions was, how could we create jobs (for us and our fellow citizens), and help create new manufacturing companies (for U.S. exports).
(more…)
I can’t say that I make a serious attempt to follow the politics of Great Britain — even as they apply to the energy sector — but I do check out BusinessGreen periodically. It’s really a wonderful source of information.
Whenever I read BusinessGreen, I’m reminded of how sessions of Parliament are peppered with loud grunts and groans from those dissenting from the presenter’s point of view. I can only imagine that this necessitates considerable care to walk a tight line if the speaker expects to avoid that type of heckling.
Good evidence of this came from recently appointed energy secretary Chris Huhne, who vowed that “the renewables industry will come of age under this government.” But while Huhne clearly embraces renewable energy, he is quite clear in his support of the fossil fuel industries, insisting that he is completely committed to the continued development of both North Sea oil and gas and low-carbon energy sources. Huhne said the new government would aim to “fully exploit” the remaining North Sea oil and gas fields, and would potentially reform licensing rules to encourage continued development in the sector.
Speaking during his first official visit as energy and climate change secretary to Aberdeen, Huhne said: “There could be 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent left to exploit, but the UK competes against every other basin in the world for investment and I am committed to making sure that we have a licensing regime and investment environment that attracts quality companies and investment to fully exploit the remaining potential.”
I can almost hear the grunts and groans from here.
I’m aware that the vast majority of those reading this do not live in the state of California, USA – and thus have no reason to want to understand “Proposition 16” as it exists on our June ballot. Why then would I burden readers with something that does not directly affect them? Because it illustrates exactly how power utilities can abuse the democratic process, and use huge sums of money (derived, of course, from the consumers themselves) along with deliberately misleading advertising to wrangle positions of even greater monopoly — while thwarting the adoption of renewables.
Pacific Gas and Electric is the sole sponsor of Prop 16. The measure exists on the ballot solely because PG&E spent $35 million getting it there. And the reason for the proposition is singular: if passed, the bill would further strengthen the stanglehold PG&E has over its customers, by changing the State Constitution to require a two-thirds majority from any community wishing to look elsewhere for electric power — making that possibility practically impossible to achieve. As PG&E CEO Peter A. Darbee proudly told investors on a recent conference call, Prop 16 would discourage communities within its massive jurisdiction from any attempt to buy power from a competitor – this is the one and only consequence of the referendum.
Outside of the media purchased with PG&E’s money, Prop 16 has been roundly jeered – largely for the sheer brazenness of the attempt to buy a constitutional amendment with only real beneficiary: PG&E itself.
According to a white paper from UC Berkeley School of Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment:
An independent analysis of Proposition 16 finds that it would protect the monopoly status of investor-owned energy utilities and block the development of publicly owned electric power companies, if passed by California voters. At the same time, the initiative could conceivably slow the development of renewable energy.
I also have to say that this is the wrong state to try something like this. The proposition is broadly opposed by every group associated not only with environmentalism and sustainability – but also with basic fairness and belief in the democratic process. I’ll be very surprised if their $35 million buys PG&E anything more than the public loathing it so richly deserves.
