Recently in Global Warming Category

when you have to urge companies to lead...

A week before Obama spoke to Congress last month, there was this little article about BYD.

Obama urged us to become a technology leader in green automobiles, hybrid cars, and batteries. Obama said America can lead the way.

As I heard him say that, I was thinking about BYD. I've never heard of this company before I read this article.



Check out this portrait of the CEO. It is so staid and serious and old fashion but Mr Wang Chuanfu struck me more as a visionary.

BYD makes lithium ion batteries. The ones we rely on in all our gadgets. The same battery technology required for electric and hybrid cars. A few years ago Chuanfu's battery company bought a car company because he saw something.

He recognized that trying to beat established companies at making cars was foolish. It was too hard to catch up. As he put it, "who can beat the Swiss at making a Swiss watch?"

No, what he saw was a wide open playing field for electric cars because the giants left the door open for decades. As we dragged our heals resisting the future, the future has become more and more obvious. And that future represents a huge opportunity for new companies like BYD.

I have say, I see a lot of merit in his analysis. While we futz around trying to urge our auto companies to lead, someone else can just do it. And I suspect they will.

Maybe a few years down the road, we will all have heard of BYD.

CONTINUE  

what are they trying to tell us?

The WSJ ran this photo last week. It gave me pause.

What are these animals trying to tell us? It is hard to imagine they got so confused they swam on shore. Why would they beach themselves? These are intelligent mammals not fish.

Taken with the local news about the "crashing fish stocks" of Pacific Salmon, one wonders about the survival of non-farm animals.

(I cannot find the photo in WSJ but there Google turned up hundreds of other articles about the issue, some with the same photo.)

what a waste

I have been critical about any attempt to bailout the Big3 auto companies. After showing decades of resistance to change, it seems like throwing good money after bad.

Instead, we ought to put that money to use investing in new companies with new ideas like Tesla.

At least I thought so. This profile in the WSJ Magazine really gave me pause.

I have heard a lot about Tesla. It is kind of a darling of techies. Electric engines, carbon fiber body. The future.

Sadly this profile of the CEO Elon Musk made him look like a total prick and not someone I want to support. I didnt know he co-founded paypal and SpaceX. Assuming the article is true, I also didnt know he was such a paranoid egomaniac. Tech is full of young guys who think they are smarter than everyone else and any problems they face are because other people, who arent as smart, are holding them back. Oh brother.

As I read about all the people he has fired and all the jobs that couldnt be done unless he did them himself, I got concerned. When I read about his feud with Henrik Fisker and his Mark Cuban-esque comments about others, he lost me.

It was really disappointing to see these two pioneers waste energy on competing with each other when there is so much need overall. It is also disappointing to see them pursue the super-luxury car market.

We dont need more toys for the super-rich; we a modern Model-T, an emission-free car for Everyman. I expect the Volt to be a total failure but I was hoping a Tesla could do it. Oh well.

same old crap in cars

If you put together all the news stories about the auto industry recently, you can see a picture of historic change in the industry. The end of domestic car leasing because of massive losses. The very possible end of one of the big 3. Big changes.

And yet, as I read this WSJ review of the new Nissan Murano by J. Sabatini I was dumbfounded by how unchanged things are. They compared 4 vehicles: 2009 Nissan Murano S AWD, 2008 Mazda CX-7 Sport AWD, 2008 Ford Edge SE AWD, and 2009 Subaru Tribeca 5-Passenger.

4 family sedans (cross-over SUV's) under $30k and every one of them weights 4,000lbs, has almost 2x the power of my 1996 cross-over SUV and gets 18MPG max. Given that EPA estimates are overstated by 10%, that means all these family vehicles gets LESS than 18MPG!!

It is criminal. Where are the carbon fiber vehicles? Where are the electric vehicles? Where are the high MPG vehicles?

What will it take to force us to change our ways?

re-envisioning the American car

The idea of car sharing is a terrific but I dont think the implementation is there yet.

Given where most American's live, we have made cars essential to us. They are a tool. Personal transportation and goods transportation.

If you look at your toolbox, you probably have a large set of tools because different tasks require different tools. Sure you can try to hammer a nail with a screwdriver or a wrench but neither will work as well as a hammer. And you will never be able to screw in a drywall screw with a hammer.

But look at cars and the number of different tasks we try to do with a single vehicle:

  • Drive yourself to work.
  • Drive your family on vacation.
  • Carry groceries.
  • Carry furniture.

For the daily commute, a small even tiny vehicle is ideal but that vehicle wont carry the whole family and it certainly wont move any furniture around. So we tend to purchase vehicles that are much larger than our normal needs because there is not an easy alternative. (I will leave aside the psychological needs of "power" and "luxury".) Many households purchase several vehicles and leave them sitting around for the time they are needed.

On the other hand, my experience with U-Haul and the Home Depot pickups has been unsatisfactory. It takes a lot of time, the service is poor, the vehicles are crap, and it feels expensive (although a real comparison may show it is actually much cheaper). I definitely see the appeal of having a spare vehicle around for a special use.

But I can envision a world where we all have vehicles just large enough for our basic needs and there is an easy way to rent nice vehicles that suit our unusual needs - like a vacation or moving.

I dont know if car sharing companies are working on that but Im hopeful we will eventually get there.

Car Sharing Gains Traction

Higher Fuel Costs, Congestion Make People Reevaluate Their Needs; But Hurdles Remain

August 18, 2008

Wall Street Journal

A combination of high energy costs, urban congestion and changes in the way people feel about cars is increasing interest in the idea that a car can be something you borrow and give back, not a cherished possession.

The concept of car sharing -- buying the right to use a car instead of the car itself -- has been kicking around for decades. It's an idea that many Americans can relate to at this time of year, when summer vacations can land you in a city where you need a car or a van for just a few hours and renting seems like a hassle.

...

Sanjay Rishi, leader of IBM Corp.'s global auto industry consulting practice, says interest in car sharing reflects a dwindling passion for automobiles in some parts of the world, such as Europe. That, plus rising fuel prices, means fewer consumers will want to spend money on big vehicles that serve what he calls "the maximum need."

Selling consumers more vehicle than they need has been the mainstream auto industry's business model for most of the past century. The wreckage created in Detroit by the bust of the bubble market in large sport-utility vehicles is just the latest example of how dependent auto makers are on the strategy. Mr. Rishi predicts that going forward, more consumers will be content with a car that serves their "median need," and will look to get occasional use of larger or more luxurious cars through car sharing.

quote of the day, July 12 2008

Here is my quote for the day:

Critic of the Firms Sadly Says 'Told You'

By JOHN D. MCKINNON

July 12, 2008

Wall Street Journal

So how does he feel to be proved correct about the possible risks of a huge government bailout? "Terrible," he said. "I would have preferred that Congress had listened when something could have been done."

The quote is from an article about a guy who has criticized the structure and corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 25 years, since he served in the Treasury department for Ronald Reagan.

While the housing problems are bad and a clear result of greed and corruption, the quote makes me think mostly about global warming. Money is important but global warming is life and death.

Another article in today's paper details the Bush Administrations battles to prevent the EPA from doing anything about global warming. Sure, the White House now publicly agrees that global warming is real (a reversal of their original position) but apparently it is not real enough to actually do something about. Why? Because change will be expensive.

Maybe someone in 2050 can fix the problem with "scientific advances". Maybe more people need to watch Al Gore's movie and think about that scale with the world on one side and gold on the other...

Will Congress be able to do anything better with a new President?

Administration Releases EPA Report, Then Repudiates It

Blueprint to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Called Too Costly

By STEPHEN POWER and IAN TALLEY

July 12, 2008

Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration published a government blueprint to reduce the U.S. output of global-warming gases, but at the same time rejected the document out of hand -- saying it relied on "untested legal theories" and would impose "crippling costs" on the U.S. economy.

Essentially, the White House presented critics of the report with a prepackaged rebuttal brief, in what is expected to be the Bush administration's last major effort to frame the national discussion on responding to global warming before a new president inherits the issue. The White House argues the Environmental Protection Agency must not be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, for fear it would be able to block development across the country.

The EPA document was written to respond to a Supreme Court order: The court instructed the agency to decide whether greenhouse gases are a danger to public health or welfare. Instead, the final document took no position on the court's question -- yet escalated the extraordinary battle between the agency and the White House.

The White House rejected an earlier draft that did find a danger to welfare, which would trigger application of the strict rules of the Clean Air Act to regulating greenhouse gases. This time, the agency stopped short of the endangerment finding, but still drew up a road map for using the Clean Air Act. That led the White House to warn of a government "command-and-control" regime that would regulate virtually every aspect of American life from cars to factories, hotels and lawnmowers.