Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

[Chris Coles]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

What is a nation trying to do? It has surely the most interest in getting as much investment into new technology as possible. The government cannot do that, yet, taking a look at where new funding comes from, it comes from either government funded, Small Business department grants or from government funded grants from the National Science Foundation.

Where are the savings institutions?

Why is there no program of direct LONG TERM equity funding from the savings of the nation into new industry?

They will answer that there is. But this report and film shows the weakness in their strategy in that the companies invested into are either funded by the very incumbents such as GM that have a vested interest in suppressing new innovation, or, they are funded by VC's that have no long term interest in the companies they invest in and as such they in turn sell the new company ASAP to the likes of GM.

What I am trying to get across is that there is no completely independent source of funding that has two separate remits:

1. To provide long term leadership in taking the responsibility of making sure there is more than adequate equity investment into new industry.

2 Ensure that such investment creates every possibility of a fully competitive industrial base.

You have to have your financial institutions involved with long term investment into the free nation. Right now, you do not have any form of long term strategy to fulfil that need.

None of your savings are targeted towards long term investment in the most competitive and innovative individuals in your society.

You cannot expect the government to make all that investment from tax income that is rapidly collapsing.

Someone has to start to take responsibility for long term investment of the savings of the nation back into the people of the nation.

[GRG55]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

What is a nation trying to do? It has surely the most interest in getting as much investment into new technology as possible. The government cannot do that, yet, taking a look at where new funding comes from, it comes from either government funded, Small Business department grants or from government funded grants from the National Science Foundation.

Where are the savings institutions?

Why is there no program of direct LONG TERM equity funding from the savings of the nation into new industry?

They will answer that there is. But this report and film shows the weakness in their strategy in that the companies invested into are either funded by the very incumbents such as GM that have a vested interest in suppressing new innovation, or, they are funded by VC's that have no long term interest in the companies they invest in and as such they in turn sell the new company ASAP to the likes of GM.

What I am trying to get across is that there is no completely independent source of funding that has two separate remits:

1. To provide long term leadership in taking the responsibility of making sure there is more than adequate equity investment into new industry.

2 Ensure that such investment creates every possibility of a fully competitive industrial base.

You have to have your financial institutions involved with long term investment into the free nation. Right now, you do not have any form of long term strategy to fulfil that need.

None of your savings are targeted towards long term investment in the most competitive and innovative individuals in your society.

You cannot expect the government to make all that investment from tax income that is rapidly collapsing.

Someone has to start to take responsibility for long term investment of the savings of the nation back into the people of the nation.

You and I do not disagree on this fundamental point Chris.

The US authorities could take the lead by overhauling the tax code to favour savings and investment, instead of consumption. Now I understand that Mr. Volcker has been asked to investigate changes to the tax code, so perhaps we can hold out some hope for some sane revisions.

[cjppjc]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

The US authorities could take the lead by overhauling the tax code to favour savings and investment, instead of consumption. Now I understand that Mr. Volcker has been asked to investigate changes to the tax code, so perhaps we can hold out some hope for some sane revisions.

Who is the April Fools now.

No disrespect intended.

[Rajiv]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

Here is another take on the hybrid car
Hybrid cars 'won't save the planet'

If you think you can save the planet by buying a hybrid car and an energy-efficient refrigerator while still maintaining an otherwise standard North American lifestyle, William Rees has an inconvenient truth to tell you.

That won't do it.

"Most of what passes for sustainable development misses the mark," says the University of B.C. professor, a co-developer with Mathis Wackernagel of the ecological-footprint concept. "Greening the economy . . . merely make[s] us more efficiently unsustainable."

That's the uncomfortable message Rees will be bringing to the UN World Urban Forum in two weeks, which is focused on urban sustainability.

But he does it, as he has been for a couple of decades now, hoping it will jolt people out of their complacent delusions that they can continue the status quo -- driving and flying long distances, buying food transported from Mexico or the Middle East, building ever-bigger houses -- with a few stormwater-collecting, green-roof modifications.
.
.
.
.
"Sustainability will be won or lost in the cities," said Wackernagel, speaking from Los Angeles. "Urban design determines at least 70 per cent of our ecological footprint. The biggest driver is the compactness of cities."

The organization is trying to get cities to sign on to collecting and analysing the data so city ecological footprints can be measured.

Wackernagel points out that city infrastructure is key.

"That infrastructure lasts for decades so the infrastructure we build today determines consumption in the future."

Cities that promote dense living patterns, which reduce car use, automatically reduce their ecological footprint just by creating that density.

Rees says many people are reluctant to accept the idea that they need to make significant changes if they don't want to send the entire ecosystem into collapse.

But unless they agree to live closer together on less land and consume less stuff, particularly less stuff from far away, they are rushing off the cliff.

.
.
.
.

I tend not to be so optimistic!

[Guest]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

Denser cities in our future (must see film).

[GRG55]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

Here is another take on the hybrid car
Hybrid cars 'won't save the planet'



I tend not to be so optimistic!

I find it hilarious that the new Toyota Prius, due out in 2010, is following the exact same pattern as its conventionally powered cousins did over time.

It is slightly longer, slightly wider, slightly heavier, with a larger engine [the current 1.5 litre gasoline engine will be replaced with a 1.8 litre version], but overall is supposed to get the same EPA fuel economy as the current version.

Interesting what feedback from consumer focus groups [it's not big enough, it's not fast enough...] drives a car company to do, eh...;)

[Rajiv]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

You echo what I am implying. People will not change until thay absolutely have to.

Which is why I am not as optimistic as Rees!

[petertribo]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

If you are an inventor who has invented a product which will decrease the money supply, no matter how good (or rather especially if it is good), it will never see the light of day. Inventors don't realise this though of course.

All your comments very well put. The last one particularly germane, people do not have a clue as to how the US Patent System actually works and stifles innovation and progress.

Those interested in the theme of decentralization and empowering citizens to manage their own economic destinies might be interested in a talk (free mp3 download at link below) given by Iqbal Quadir on using cellphones in Bengladesh to create local economic activity:

Making money WITH the poor

When Iqbal Quadir applied to US colleges from his home town in Bangladesh he was surprised to discover that not all American universities were found in Washington, DC. That’s how it was in Bangladesh, where everything of importance was centralized in the capital city, Dacca. He later realized that Bangladesh was not unique; in most developing countries, the infrastructure is concentrated in one or two cities, leaving the rural areas almost blank. As he acquired degrees and experience in finance, he realized that this centralization is not only a mark of poorer countries, it is probably a cause of their poverty.

Quadir presented this broad outline of development in order to give context for his belief that technology can alleviate poverty. He reminded us that 500 years ago, when the western countries were still “developing” their own societies, their political systems were no better, and often worse, than the instable corrupt regimes of many developing countries today. England had a series of kings who were impeached, arrested, ousted, or beheaded for their crimes. It was only after citizens were empowered by economic markets did the balance of power shift from the central king to decentralized citizens. All steps that devolve power away from a central authority — including laws, trade, and education — will raise democracy.

In Quadir’s view, it’s not that centralization per se creates poverty. Poverty is the natural beginning state of all societies, east or west. Rather, decentralization is the engine which removes poverty and brings wealth. To the degree that infrastructure, education, and trade can be decentralized, wealth will rise in proportion. To the degree that infrastructure, education and trade are centralized, poverty will remain. [my bold]

Whereas many of us in the west, particularly the digital west, agree with this intuitively, we act contrary to this observation when we give large-scale aid to poor countries. As Quadir’s colleague William Easterly argues in his book The Elusive Quest for Growth, the billions and billions of dollars spent on aid for developing countries has not only *not* helped, it has set them back decades. Aid, as we know it, kills development. This harm occurs because almost all previous aid has funneled through a central government or semi-governmental organizations and that official route tightens centrality. Even if the governments were saintly, and they are definitely not, the scale of money flowing through these centralizing nodes prohibits the distribution of resources, infrastructure, trade, and education. The more aid that arrives, the less development can actually happen.

Technology is the escape from this quandary. Quadir came to see that “technologies that connect” could liberate productivity. He matched his experience in Bangladesh as a 13-year-old boy having to walk 10 kilometers to get medicine, only to find out the medicine man he sought was not home, and then walking back empty handed, having wasted a day — all because there was no connection between his home and the pharmacist. Many years later in New York he wasted a day at work when there was no electricity to run phones or computers. Productivity required connectivity. If connectivity could be decentralized then it would lead to increased wealth.

Quadir settled on the cell phone as a way to decentralized connectivity. In the early 1990s cell phones were big, dumb, and very expensive. Calls were $3 per minute. Only the rich could afford them. But he wanted the poorest people in the world to get them. How would this be possible?

First, he believed in Moore’s Law: that the phones would decrease in price and increase in power every year. That seemed inevitable to him. He said he could see “micro-chips marching toward the poor.” He was right about that. Second, he piggybacked his hopes on a remarkable invention of another Bangladeshi, Mohammad Yunus, who developed micro-financing (and later won a Nobel prize for this invention). In Yunus’ scheme a woman who owned virtually nothing could get a loan of $200 to purchase a cow. She would then sell the surplus milk of the cow to pay back the loan, earn both milk and an income for her family, and maybe buy another cow. Ordinarily, no bank would have lent her this trifling amount because she had no collateral, no education, and the costs of overseeing such a small loan with small gains, would have been prohibitive. Grameen Bank, Yunus’ creation, discovered that these illiterate peasants were actually more likely to repay these small loans, and were very happy to pay good interest rates, and so that in aggregate, these micro-loans were more profitable than loaning to large industrial players.

Quadir proceeded to ask, what if the women could rent a cell phone instead of a cow? Grameen Bank could make a micro-loan to the poor for the purchase a cell phone, which they then could sell/rent minutes to the rest of the village. The enterprising phone-renter would benefit and more importantly, the entire village would benefit from the connectivity. It did not really matter if the minutes were expensive, because when you have no connection, you are willing to pay dearly for it. Quadir started off his GrameenPhone with 5 cell towers, and eventually GrameenPhone erected 5,000 towers.

In 1993 when Quadir began, Bangladesh had one of the lowest penetrations of telephones on the planet — only one phone for every 500 people. GrameenPhone project unleashed 25 million phones. Today there are 100 times as many phones, or one per 5 people. Just as Quadir had envisioned, this decentralized connectivity has increased productivity. Without connectivity people waste a lot more time on economic errands. With cell connectivity farmers maximize their profits by getting real-time prices at distant markets; shepherds can call a vet, or order medicine. One study concluded that the total lifetime cost of an additional phone (including the cell tower and switching gear) was about $2,000, but that each phone enabled $50,000 of increased productivity. And surprisingly, the poorer the country to begin with, the greater the increase in wealth from connectivity.

A lot of myths cloud the good intentions of developmental aid, Quadir says. Myths such as: poor countries have no resources, or that the poor don’t have discretionary spending, or aren’t concerned with brands,or aren’t good credit risks, and so on. All these assumptions have been proven untrue over and over again, and especially so with GrameenPhone. The chief myth it dispelled was that government needs to subsidize technological development, when in fact there is good money to be made enabling the productivity of the poor. As Quadir says, “You don’t make money on the poor, but with the poor.” At dinner I asked Iqbal what he would have done differently with GrameenPhone. He replied, “Kept more shares.”

Quadir is now searching for other technologies to decentralize, and thereby become a tool to erase poverty. He is director of the Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship at MIT, which has been funded with $50 million. He is investigating whether energy can also be dethroned from its current mode of extremely centralized generation. Only 10% of the electricity produced at its source remains at the end of the wires as they reach homes and factories. Perhaps there are ways to decentralize its generation, which would trigger connections at the local level, and in his scheme, elevate wealth and democracy. If it worked, decentralized energy might also work in rich countries, increasing wealth and democracy in our part of the world as well.
[my bold]

Throughout his talk, Quadir reiterated: “To raise productivity (and wealth), raise connectivity. It’s that simple.”

Kevin Kelly

http://blog.longnow.org/2008/05/23/i...s-the-poorest/

This is the type of innovative thinking we need, not the old and tired nostrums of parasitic industries preying on consumers for their loot.

[Rajiv]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

I started a thread in July on this - Iqbal Quadir: How Technology Is Empowering the Poor

and in November on Yunus - Muhammad Yunus Creating a World Without Poverty

No responses to either one!

[petertribo]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

I started a thread in July on this - Iqbal Quadir: How Technology Is Empowering the Poor

and in November on Yunus - Muhammad Yunus Creating a World Without Poverty

No responses to either one!

Sorry I missed those. Very fascinating end around the Big Lumbering Corporations. Hope to see more of this type of economic activity as we proceed. Big Tobacco crashed, maybe these other Corporate Dinosaurs can go the same way. Americans are certainly fed up fighting BIG OIL's wars for raw materials.

[petertribo]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

There are countless other examples: hemp being outlawed so the logging and nylon industries could monopolise and not lose money...

If you are an inventor who has invented a product which will decrease the money supply, no matter how good (or rather especially if it is good), it will never see the light of day. Inventors don't realise this though of course.

is.gif

One of the "countless examples" may be finally able to overcome the Corporate Interests:

Sponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the bill would allow U.S. farmers to grow industrial, non-psychoactive hemp, which manufacturers use for everything from soap to shoes to car upholstery. Current law allows hemp to be imported, but not cultivated domestically.

See that, psycho-naysayers? "Non-psychoactive".

Ron Paul:

It is unfortunate that the Federal Government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our Nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that Federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained Federal Government.

Nine additional House lawmakers are supporting the bill: seven Democrats and two Republicans.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot...duce-hemp.html

That's a Federal Government which acts on behalf of Corrupt Corporate Interests to restrain trade and competition in the market place.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

All this conspiracy theory bullshit is tiresome. The auto industry has been brutally competitive for decades. Do you really think that not one single global player in this industry would take an obvious opportunity to fill a real demand? Get serious...

It doesn't need to be some sort of conspiracy. I've seen old technology compete with new in the computer business many times. Unless the new can gain some toehold that the old isn't competitive in, or unless the new is so overwhelmingly better that it can overcome the inherent advantages of the incumbent, it won't succeed.

The new beat out the old fairly often in the computer business, because the rate of computer technology change has been awesome for the last half century. In more established markets and technologies, such as the automobile, newcomers have less of an advantage, and a more difficult time establishing themselves.

Of course, one expects the incumbents to fight back, and to successfully repulse all but the strongest alternatives. Tin foil hat wearers (self included) will describe this in conspiratorial terms; that too is a certainty.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

[ATTACH]1359[/ATTACH]

One of the "countless examples" may be finally able to overcome the Corporate Interests:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot...duce-hemp.html

That's a Federal Government which acts on behalf of Corrupt Corporate Interests to restrain trade and competition in the market place.

As a child I grew up sleeping on real Linen sheets and can atest to their superior qualities. Today it is impossible to find anything made of real Linen. A major industry that can be revived once again is in everybodies best interests...

[GRG55]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

Funny that Hank didn't get appointed to the Advisory Board of Government Motors. Then again he was associated with the Republicans and it was the Dems that bought the company...

"Non-capital intensive business model"? That sounds like code for "we don't actually make anything ourselves". C'mon now, has anybody here ever heard of a company that actually manufactures automobiles that wasn't capital intensive? Maybe Hank plans to do for the United States electric car industry what he helped to do for the United States financial system...:rolleyes:

Electric-Car Startup Coda Gets More Cash Plus Hank Paulson As Advisor

Now that Tesla isn't the only electric-car startup in town, the news keeps coming. Today's updates are from Coda Automotive, based in Santa Monica, California. We've written before about their 2011 Coda Sedan all-electric car, which will beat Tesla, Nissan, and others to market when it launches next year.

Today, Coda said it has raised $24 million in its second round of financing. Not only that, it has added President George W. Bush's former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. (Hank) Paulson, Jr. to its advisory board--a logical fit given his extensive business and political experience in China...

...What appealed to former Goldman Sachs banker Paulson so much that he not only joined the advisory board, but invested in Coda Automotive himself?

"Coda's non-capital intensive business model and globally collaborative partnership strategy persuaded me to join the advisory board," said Paulson. "Coda Automotive's approach will enable them to release the Coda electric sedan next year."...

[GRG55]

Re: Who Killed the Electric Car? A "MUST SEE" FILM

Funny that Hank didn't get appointed to the Advisory Board of Government Motors. Then again he was associated with the Republicans and it was the Dems that bought the company...

"Non-capital intensive business model"? That sounds like code for "we don't actually make anything ourselves". C'mon now, has anybody here ever heard of a company that actually manufactures automobiles that wasn't capital intensive? Maybe Hank plans to do for the United States electric car industry what he helped to do for the United States financial system...:rolleyes:

Electric-Car Startup Coda Gets More Cash Plus Hank Paulson As Advisor

I was intrigued by that "non-capital intensive" comment from Paulson, so I did a bit more trolling around.

If this is the "new American economy" being created, ya'll are in big trouble my friends...

From the Coda website:
"At its core, Coda Automotive is a company built on ingenuity and ideals...

...Our business model is unique. We maintain complete control of our brand, design, and intellectual property, while finding solutions to help reduce the cost of manufacturing...

Coda employs a core team of highly proficient and driven individuals, supported by a global network of partners. Yet, our spirit is that of pure American entrepreneurialism..."

That should probably read "...pure FIRE economy American entrepreneurialism..." because this whole thing strikes me as "The Best of FIRE" packaged in a politically-correct, eco-green, recycled-material, where's-my-government-incentive wrapper. A few more tidbits:

Mac Heller
Co-Chairman; 20 years at Goldman Sachs in executive positions including Head of Mergers and Acquisitions, Worldwide and Co-Head of the Investment Banking Division...

...Formally, the company has closed its Series B investment round of $24 million. Both Series A round investors--Miles Rubin, founder and co-chairman of Coda, and Angeleno Group, a large venture firm focused on clean tech--returned for the B round.

That's always a good sign, as is new investors signing on. Here, the newbies comprise both firms and individuals, including Minnesota investment bank Piper Jaffray...

Other new investors...Thomas "Mack" McLarty, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff; Farallon Capital Management founder and partner Thomas F. Steyer; and, of course, Hank Paulson...

More from the Coda site [did they hire away Obama's head speechwriter?:rolleyes: ]:

"...Coda is not a fashion statement for the elite. It is a model for the mainstream. Together we can change the world. And the time for change is now..."

I don't know if Coda will "change the world", but I am pretty sure Hank will make some jingle from it. As for being mainstream...

"...The 2010 Coda Sedan will sell for $45,000 before a $7,500 Federal tax credit (and possibly an additional California credit as well)..."

...well at $45k a pop, some of you folks in the USA have a different definition of mainstream versus elite, compared to where I live.

Long live the FIRE economy...:p