The Paxterra Engineering Holy Grail? What is the lowest cost possible for a freeway capable, reasonably safe, pure-electric, two-seat vehicle?
Paxterra Strategic Summary
Overview
The purpose of this White Paper is to describe a plan for the creation of an alternative-energy powered fleet of vehicles numbering in the hundreds of millions by the year 2020.
The product development theories presented here are being applied presently in the development of a new form of personal transportation produced via a revolutionary methodology known as "Paxterra".
Summary:
Given the state of technological advancement, automotive propulsion using combustion engines no longer makes sense. Ecological degradation and climate change, the warfare and suffering inflicted to secure fossil fuel supplies, and the net cost-per-mile of the transportation provided, all beg for the elimination of the combustion engine. Why, then, do we continue to buy gas?
I propose that the reason for the internal combustion engine (ICE) long dominating our vehicle fleets is not a lack of technology but, rather, one of public policy. This policy has been largely shaped by the very industries that profit most from it's inefficiency: Vehicle Manufacturers, Oil Companies.
Alternative vehicle designs have been kept from the marketplace by the enormous expenses associated with introducing a new vehicle brand. There is one place, however where the playing field is more even and, for now, wide open: The Motorcycle.
Because Motorcycles, as defined by law, may have three wheels, and three-wheeled vehicles are perfectly adequate for most simple transportation, there is a huge gap in the "barrier-to-entry" for freeway capable vehicles.
This paper, and other appended information, proposes a new way of obtaining an electric vehicle fleet without any necessary changes in public policy and very little in capitalization. No new technological breakthroughs are needed. No new laws need to be written and passed. Public policy support is great and it will grow in the future, but we’re not waiting for it. They can catch up with us.
Real-World Testing
As verification of the claims made herein Paxterra Electromotive, a company engaged in the development of a high-performance electric vehicle, will incorporate the proposed principles and methods suggested, and, under actual market conditions, test this hypotheses commercially. The vehicle prototype should be ready for Market Beta testing in late 2012.
The Urgent Need For Action
CO2 emissions from the ever growing populations adopting ICE vehicles is resulting in climate changes that threaten all life on our planet. China and India see automobiles as their next big growth industry. It is very important to make sure these new fleets are not dominated by combustion vehicles as the trends today would indicate.
We will not wait for the majority to demand electric vehicles but we will help them to understand all the reasons why they should. The revolutionary changes necessary to reduce the use of combustion engines will not be initiated by the political or corporate leaders we have today because government and large corporations have joined forces against the common good of the majority of people. Democracy and Capitalism, once counterbalancing dynamos, have become, instead, a unified hammerhead that is destroying the middle class way of life that was Democracy’s best promise while running, roughshod, over Earth’s delicate ecosystem. Paxterra’s purpose is to counter this insanity with well engineered solutions that make economic sense and turn some heads with completely new, high-performance, world class products.
Electromotion
The change to electromotive propulsion is as revolutionary today as the switch from horses, mules, and oxen to cars, buses, and trucks was 100 years ago. The electric motor has one moving part, lasts practically forever, and is at least four times more energy efficient than a combustion motor.
Under an Open Source model such as that used by IBM when it wanted fast growth of the PC production, powertrain, chassis, and body designs could be created and offered for anyone to use, free of charge. These vehicles designs could be replicated anywhere in the world using simple tools and readily available materials.
Combined with wind, micro-hydro, solar, and other clean energy systems these transportation systems become very clean forms of transportation, lowering both air pollution and CO2 levels while completely avoiding the need to import incexpensive and dangerous gasoline.
Why Not Trains, Trams, Trolleys and High Speed Rail?
Sure, I'd much rather hop out my front door with a backpack and head for the nearest trolley, train, tram, etc. than fire up my combustion motor dinosaur but we, here in the U.S., missed that opportunity over seventy years ago when we allowed several major corporations to buy up most of the metropolitan rail and purposely put it out of business in favor of buses, and eventually, cars.
One legacy of that decision that is very positive for our needs today is the amazing system of roadways, highways, and Interstates that we built. The costs of drainage, levees, road base, overpasses, bridges, cuts, grading, fencing, guard rail, paving, lighting, reflectors, street signs, etc, ad infinitum, must be astronomical. ( I haven't found a number for this incredible engineering and construction feat, but I'd like to know). What we need to change, very quickly, is the type of vehicles that use this incredible system.
That is precisely what Paxterra Electromotive is all about. Keep the roads; swap out the fleet.
And It’s Actually Fairly Easy
Electric vehicles are relatively simple. Most of the great leaps in transportation technology have been made through increasingly complex mechanisms. The move to electromotive power is one of greater simplification.
NASA put people on the moon over forty years ago. Astronauts drove on the Lunar surface in an ELECTRIC VEHICLE. It held two astronauts and all their scientific gear. Logic would seem to dictate that, by now, we should be able to do this on earth. The answer to that question is yes, but only if we want to.
Why Now, Finaly?
Until recently, there were no affordable batteries that would provide both the range and safety that could compete with combustion powered vehicles using relatively cheap (but very dangerous) gasoline. What changed all this was the, nearly simultaneous, worldwide adoption of the laptop computer and the cellular phone as must-have items. These hungry little mobile devices need superior batteries to become useful products. Due to the huge demand for these two products Lithium battery production has increased greatly. Notice that this was in no way due to athe auto industry pushing the boundaries. We should thank, instead, all those who pushed the limits of mobile computing by developing laptops and smarter, thirstier, cell phones.
Now, in anticipation of even greater profits, these same battery companies, and more and more new ones, are producing the larger-capacity Lithium batteries suitable for use in electric vehicles in great quantities. This is what electric vehicles have needed to become competitive with combustion engined vehicles.
The End of an Era and Goodbye to Pistons
The Great Repeating Cycle of Innovation and the theory of "Slack Water"
In a very short evolutionary period Humanity invented: the spoken word, art, agriculture, animal husbandry, architecture, the written word, printing, weapons, the wheel, currency, mathematics, medicine, gunpowder, electricity, ships, telegraph, balloons, steam engines, trains, steamships, radio, submarines, aircraft, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, semiconductors, missiles, computers, networks, satellites, space ships, the world wide web and countless other things.
All of these technologies fundamentally changed the way the we live and, as a whole, have come to shape the destinies of all future inhabitants of planet Earth. Many of these technologies, such as warfare, have proven ineffective over the long run. Endless wars have brought no great Peace. Others, such as fossil fuel combustion, have proven dangerous to life on this beautiful planet that is our only home and need to be greatly curtailed.
In each of the transitional periods following the introduction of a major technological development there is a kind of “slack water” as the tide changes. Small, start-up ventures are able to navigate very freely in this new “landscape” and may even dominate the new markets. In many of these technological revolutions yesterday’s market behemoths completely miss the new opportunities because of mindset, myopia, or the vectored momentum of their ventures. They just couldn’t “turn the tanker in time”.
Paxterra Electromotive’s core business strategy is based on this consistent pattern of technological evolution. We are the small speedboat going the other way. The “big ships” of personal transportation, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagon, Honda, Volvo still haven’t changed course very much. Despite the hype behind their new electric models they will continue to produce combustion-powered vehicles for many years because they have purchased huge capacity for it and they must amortize these investments in manufacturing automation through combustion vehicle sales.
Why It’s Happening Again and Why It is Very Different This Time
For the first time in Human history a force larger than Humanity may be playing the leading role in the cyclic change process. It is no longer “free markets” that will dictate the success of a product. Earth has something to say this time.
According to almost all legitimate scientists combustion gasses are altering Earth’s climate enough to create potentially catastrophic global climate change. Success will increasingly be seen as getting our needs met while protecting and restoring, not destroying, Earth’s ecosystem.
It is also the opinion of most in the scientific community that peak oil production has been reached. This is happening just as the emerging economies of China, Brazil, and India are beginning to demand vehicles in giant quantities. Because oil is also essential to the production of food, the next oil spike and/or shortage could leave us facing the decision: drive or eat?
Another Path
Here is an example to help put electromotive propulsion in perspective.
It takes about one hour of labor to make a 120 watt solar panel today. That panel will provide enough energy on an average day to power a small vehicle for about 6 miles. So if we use the US’s 36 mile average transit loop to calculate the needed solar panels to create all of our ground passenger fuel we get 36 devided by 6 = 6. Six solar panels; about one day of labor and $840 in material. That’s it and then you never need to buy gas again for about 50 years.
Yes, you will need to replace your battery pack every seven years or so. Several years from now batteries will be lighter, cheaper, more powerful, and last longer. It will be like upgrading your vehicle’s performance by simply plugging in the newest, best battery on the market at that point in the future. Manufacturers will provide trade-in incentives for consumers looking to upgrade their entire vehicle. Seven years is a long time to own a vehicle. The estimated average length of ownership in the US is about six years. Thus, for the buyer, the battery lasts the “life” of the car. Used vehicle wholesalers and used car buyers will experience their first electric vehicle as a used car with a new battery giving it like new, or better, performance. Used vehicle batteries may also have second lives as stationary grid back-up batteries.
Every mile traveled with wind or solar electrical generation keeps about a pound of CO2 from entering Earth’s atmosphere.
http://www.sightline.org/maps/charts/pollu_co2transp_ooh
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/category/Assumptions
General Motors Ad Campaign, 2008 - Trying their best to miss the boat, again!
One Example of the Lumbering Giants Vs. the Nimble Start-Up
None of the original large computer companies, IBM, DEC, or Wang pioneered today’s personal computers; they were mainframe and minicomputer thinkers. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates understood the power of owning your own microcomputer and created one of our largest industries today by ignoring conventional wisdom and building their dreams anyway. IBM played catch-up for years to the Apple II and, with Bill Gates help, nearly overtook the much more established Apple. If Steve Jobs had not pioneered the graphic user interface with the Lisa and Macintosh IBM would have rolled over apple by the late 1980’s. To further this point, this revolutionary graphic user interface that is now ubiquitous was originally developed by Xerox, a copier company in the 1960’s. Lesson from this: In Paradigm Shifts the Leaders Don’t Lead
Now port this example over to “who wants to own their own gas pump?”
Now were talking about a revolution. Forget about gas. e-volve! Use the Sun’s safe and plentiful energy beamed across space and converted to electric power by solar panels, wind turbines, or micro-hydro generators. Say goodbye to the Oiligarchy!
Why Range Anxiety Is Actually EMPTY anxiety.
Most people associate the Empty part of their gas gage with a very unpleasant experience. This experience is called a "fill up". Today, in the US, this is roughly a $60-100 expense which must be paid or your fancy gadget becomes a three thousand pound door stop. If you are like most people your driving is very regular and refills of electricity can coincide with parking your vehicle for the night. With an electric vehicle this anxious feeling can be eliminated and replaced by the knowledge that you are getting the energy for your transportation in the most efficient manner. It is like the driver of a horse cart coming home with a hungry horse; unharnessed and released to pasture the "empty" animal soon fills up on sustainable feed.
So the next time you glance down at your gas gauge and notice that you should soon go to a gas station and “fill up” do this: Pretend that you are driving an electric vehicle. Notice how close you are to home. Realize that you will soon be parked at your own “gas pump” and there is no need to go to any gas station. On the roof of your home there are as many solar panels as you need to make all your own fuel.
Do Some Numbers
Use this simple tool to calculate the panels you would need: Take your daily driving number and devide it by six. If you drive a Photon S3 36 miles per day you would have six panels, at 120 Watts each, on your roof. Not only will you not be going to the gas station for another $60 fill up, you won’t be paying anything since your solar panels make all your vehicle’s fuel. Because your solar panels are purchased as part of your vehicle system and included in the financing you pay very little extra per month to own the panels. After about 60 missed gas station fill-ups using the solar panels instead you will have paid off the solar panel costs. Now for the next 49 years you have locked in your vehicle’s fuel price at $O.
After about seven to ten years you will need to replace your vehicle’s battery. Most people keep a vehicle less than seven years so the cost of the new battery will be most likely borne by the new owner. If the original owner decides to keep the vehicle longer than average and replaces the old battery they will be paying less for a new one that lasts longer and powers the vehicle for longer distance.
(The average trade-in age for cars has crept upward to 6.2 years in October, up from 5.8 years in October 2007, according to auto industry researcher J.D. Power & Associates.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123188569970778793.html)
Emerging Vehicle Markets-
Who Is Buying Cars and Where Are They?
The customers for today’s newest vehicles are no longer in the United States, as they were in Ford’s day. Now they are in China and India. If these two gigantic populations follow the Ford methodology and start using their earnings from making cars to purchasing them and if these cars are powered by combustion engines the planet will not be able to take the greenhouse load generated. This would be a disaster like no other in history; a kind of planetary suicide.
Most of the drivers purchasing vehicles in the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, India, China will be buying their first car. Therefore they will not have the same expectations a sophisticated western buyer will have. Recently TATA of India introduced a $2500 car. No doubt the buyers did not miss the power windows and door locks since their bicycle or scooter did not have these either.
Gasoline is Dangerous
Here is one reason for electric vehicles we don’t often hear about: Gasoline causes cancer. On the gas pumps there is a sticker (in California) stating that the petrochemicals we are putting in our tank are “known to the State of California to cause cancer”. It is nearly impossible to avoid getting a small dose of these carcinogens each time you fill up, even if you are very careful. With an all-electric vehicle you only go to gas stations for bad snacks or to use the restroom, if at all. Another bonus.
Reason for High Wages At Paxterra Auto Plants
Most people would agree that Henry Ford was one of the brightest minds of the twentieth century. Ford’s genius in every aspect of the development of mass produced transportation is without parallel in the Industrial Age. One of his least well known innovations was doubling of the going wage for workers in his factories. He understood that to realize his large-scale dreams the people that built his vehicles would also need to be able to buy them. By raising their wages he turned them into customers. Paxterra will do the same as a Ford by paying relatively high wages and offering employees deep discounts on vehicle purchases.
At Paxterra we weigh much more than the bottom line when making decisions. Building vehicles in the United States of America is an important part of this business strategy. For this reason, whenever possible, domestic sources are preferred over distant suppliers.
Customer Profiling- Who Wants a Photon?
Paxterra’s first customers will primarily come from “the roughly 10% to 12% of the marketplace that pollsters tell us are willing to regularly seek out and buy green products, regardless of how much more they cost or what lengths one must go to find them. “ see Joel Makower article below for full text.
These persons could be called Green Early Adopters. “Early adopter” is phrase often used to describe consumers who purchase products before they are widely available and usually pay a premium for the privilege. These are the people who pay $700 for a digital watch (now $1), $800 for a four function calculator (now $1), and $3500 for a CD player (now obsolete). Their purchase decision may be a quest for the status ownership affords them (be the first on your block) or it have a moral underpinning. (I do this because it is important to make this transition away from fossil fuels). In the case of the Photon it will be a little of both.
Paxterra’s Early Adopters will not purchase Photons because, after careful analysis, they calculate they will save $1,500 on their annual fuel bill. They will buy them to make a political statement. They will buy them because they are allergic to Gasoline. They will buy them because Photons are perfectly green solutions to their vehicle needs. They will buy them so they can feel good knowing they can always make their own fuel no matter what happens to the world oil supply. They will buy them because the Sun has very consistent output and solar panels last 50 years and they can do the math. (and if not see appendix b. and see this is actually a pretty good deal after all and I really could use that extra $1,500.) Some people will buy Photons because they live in very congested areas and get to use High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, even when they are alone. Oh the little perks! Some will drive Photons because they are against wars for oil.
One thing is guaranteed if we stick to our founding principles: People will love our vehicles and that love will spread!
Open Source Business Models
So what about the "Business Model" and "Open Source Products"? I will admit to not knowing all the answers to this question and perhaps that is why it so intrigues me. I believe because of social networks and crowdfunding great new products will find their business models "on the fly" and can somewhat let go of the question and simply keep people interested in the product to the point that they start to order them.
Equation for the Business Model
Here is the basic financial equation I have been attempting to satisfy for most of my R&D career:
P=PV-COGS
Where P is net profit, PV is Perceived Value, and COGS is Cost of Goods Sold. At Paxterra we add the "G factor" so you get: P=G(PV-COGS). G is Green, so the higher the "Green Factor" the greater the actual "profit". Making money is not enough. Products create culture and some of our culture is killing this beautiful gem of a planet. Without a postive G-factor Paxterra would not proceed with a project no matter how much Perceived Value is created. Positive G-Factor will ensure support from the masses. Figuring out how obtain G-factor throughout the product development process is one of the great challenges we have at Paxterra.
Rules of the Road
Here is the greatest distinction I can think of between other Open Source ideas such as Linux or IBM Compatible Hardware and automobiles: Technologies such as Computers have very specific requirements for the Operating System to function; get a bit in the wrong place and the whole thing crashes. Therefore those that write software have to be incredibly good with the OS they are using. Because the global software community could only accomodate one or two OS’s we ended up with only two main OS choices, and now Linux as well under Open Source.
The roads, highways, and interstates don't care about little things like bits. If you follow the rules of physics your vehicle will function perfectly on the roadway even if it accomplishes this in a unique fashion. With the exception of a few countries that drive on "other side", the worlds roads all have the same "operating system". Therefore while software developers can only address a handful of hardware/ software platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, GPRS, GSM, Palm OS, GPS, etc.) there can be thousands of vehicle ventures all using their own, unique "operating systems"; many winners instead of the usual two or three were used to getting in emerging technologies. I expect there will be thousands of small and large ventures that build products, or re-configure existing ones, for popular Open Source Electric Vehicles. Who wants to make fenders?
Background Research Links
How Many Cars will China have by 2020?http://www.spacemart.com/reports/China_to_have_200_million_vehicles_by_2020_state_media_999.html
China's auto sales hit 13.64 million units last year, overtaking the United States as the world's top car market, while sales this year are forecast to hit 15 million units.
“Viewing the 30 giants that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, analysts are predicting that the 10 with the largest portion of sales inside the U.S. will show average revenue gains of just 1.6 percent over the next year, while the 10 with the largest portion of their sales abroad will grow by an average of 8.3 percent.”
“Increasingly this means China, India, and Brazil. Ford and GM are still largely dependent on US sales but becoming less so. GM sold more cars in China last year than in the US.”
“American companies that are less dependent on American consumers have been showing the biggest profits.
Wall Street gets this.”
Go to Source: Robert Reich blog
Competition
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/17-electric-cars-overview-2005-to-2008.php
http://nissan-leaf.net/2010/08/13/nissan-leaf-vs-renault-fluence-ze-why-doesnt-america-have-both/
Range Anxiety
Mr. Voelcker also interviewed Nissan’s Director of Product Planning, Mark Perry about range anxiety in conjunction with his piece on the low warning system on the LEAF, and Mr. Perry again stated that:
“We (Nissan) believe range anxiety is a falsehood…(that) electric-car drivers turn out to adjust fairly quickly to their cars’ abilities, and soon stop worrying about the car in daily use. If Leaf owners have a day where the total journeys add up to more than 100 miles, they simply plan to use another vehicle in the household fleet.”
Passenger Vehicle Market Trends
Pike Research
https://www.pikeresearch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/EVP-10-Pike-Research.pdf
2011 Will Be a Test of Electric Vehicles’ Commercial ViabilityDecember 28, 2010http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/2011-will-be-a-test-of-electric-vehicles%E2%80%99-commercial-viability
Electric vehicle (EV) market introductions will get into high gear in 2011, accompanied by the widespread arrival of charging station networks. During the course of this momentous year for the automotive industry, many consumers will form their early impressions of the EV driving experience. According to a new white paper from Pike Research, 2011 will serve as an important test of commercial viability for the new electric vehicles. The paper, which includes 10 predictions about the EV market in 2011, is available for free download on Pike Research’s website.
“The automotive industry is bedeviled by fundamental questions of how consumers will accept and use electric vehicles,” says senior analyst John Gartner. “There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the issues of price sensitivity, range anxiety and the importance of charging station networks, the length of time required to charge EVs, and other important matters. These questions can only be answered through real-world experience that is gained from commercial launches. 2011 is the year in which many of these answers will come into greater focus.”
A few of Pike Research’s industry predictions include the following:
Pike Research’s white paper, “Electric Vehicles: 10 Predictions for 2011”, provides in-depth analysis of some of the most important topics facing the automotive industry as it works for the successful market introduction of EVs. Conclusions and predictions in this paper are drawn from the firm’s ongoing Clean Transportation research coverage, with forecasts included for key market sectors. A full copy of the white paper is available for free download on the firm’s website.
Pike Research is a market research and consulting firm that provides in-depth analysis of global clean technology markets. The company’s research methodology combines supply-side industry analysis, end-user primary research and demand assessment, and deep examination of technology trends to provide a comprehensive view of the Smart Energy, Clean Transportation, Clean Industry, and Building Efficiency sectors. For more information, visit www.pikeresearch.com or call +1.303.997.4619
Rules of the Road
Here is the greatest distinction I can think of between other Open Source ideas such as Linux or IBM Compatible Hardware and automobiles: Technologies such as Computers have very specific requirements for the Operating System to function; get a bit in the wrong place and the whole thing crashes. Therefore those that write software have to be incredibly good with the OS they are using. Because the global software community could only accomodate one or two OS’s we ended up with only two main OS choices, and now Linux as well under Open Source.
The roads, highways, and interstates don't care about little things like bits. If you follow the rules of physics your vehicle will function perfectly on the roadway even if it accomplishes this in a unique fashion. With the exception of a few countries that drive on "other side", the worlds roads all have the same "operating system". Therefore while software developers can only address a handful of hardware/ software platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, GPRS, GSM, Palm OS, GPS, etc.) there can be thousands of vehicle ventures all using their own, unique "operating systems"; many winners instead of the usual two or three were used to getting in emerging technologies. I expect there will be thousands of small and large ventures that build products, or re-configure existing ones, for popular Open Source Electric Vehicles. Who wants to make fenders?
Funding
“Business is never so healthy as when, like a chicken, it must do a certain amount of scratching around for what it gets.”
- Henry Ford
Thus far Paxterra has been funded by a few individuals who saw the potential to create a new kind of vehicle and helped get it to this stage. We are very close to putting the final touches on the Drive Train and Frame/Suspension and beginning our on-road tests. From here on I see the funding coming from fans of the concept, those interested in starting their own venture using the technology, as well as eventual customers who go through the remaining development process with us and secure a place in line when production starts as their reward for support. ( I know I want one).
As we are now preparing for our first online funding effort and it brings to mind a successful one that I was involved in: The Cindy Sheehan led protest at the Bush ranch in Texas in 2005. I joined Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, Texas at the entrance to George Bush's Pig Farm a week after she got there and stayed until Katrina hit and Bush flew off to go golfing in San Diego. As the momentum grew the money started flowing in through PayPal. We went from bags of potato chips to a full field kitchen, huge tent, stage, sound system, trailers, buses, trucks, you name it. I don't know the exact numbers but it was a great example of relatively small donations creating a huge difference due to the sheer volume of "pent up need for Peace".
Doing The Right Thing
When it comes to alternatives to oil fueled vehicles I believe there are those who will throw a few bucks our way just hoping we win. The payback is in knowing they are doing the right thing and making a statement. Also, they can order a vehicle when production starts. Usually we wait for products to be produced by the major manufacturers. In the case of our vehicles I don't think we can wait any longer. Major motorcycle, car, and truck manufacturers are completely wedded to the combustion engine. They have been dragging their feet for decades and, in the case of GM, actually killed a great design by an engineering team led by a hero of mine, Paul MacCready. We don't need the "powers that be" anymore. Let's go in a completely new direction and make them come over to our side. Jobs and Wazniak did this with Apple Computer, we can do it with Paxterra.
I'm more interested in a world that works than what sells—Paul MacCready
Whatever Happened to Green Consumers?........... by Joel Makower
Here's a pop quiz: Two products are sitting next to each other in a store. They're practically identical, but one is environmentally better -- let’s say it's recycled, recyclable, biodegradable, less toxic, or contains less packaging. Both are priced about the same.
Which would you buy?
For those with even a scintilla of eco-consciousness, the answer is a no-brainer: the "greener" one is preferable.
So, given that public-opinion surveys report that roughly three Americans in four call themselves "environmentalists," and that marketing studies tell us that roughly 7 in 10 consumers would gladly choose the greener product over its less-green counterpart, why has green consumerism remained a largely marginal aspect of shopping?
The chasm between green concern and green consumerism is, for me, one of the more curious and frustrating aspects of the environmental movement. For all the activism and consciousness-raising, for all the thinking locally and acting globally, the overwhelming majority of consumers haven’t exactly demanded greener products. Only a relative handful of consumers regularly go out of their way to make environmentally preferable buying choices.
It seems the so-called green consumer movement was one of those well-intended passing fancies, a testimony to North Americans’ never-ending quest for simple, quick, and efficient solutions to complex problems.
What happened? Here are five reasons why the environment has failed to become a mainstream market force:
1. There's no mandate. Though polls tell us that most consumers prefer greener products, the polls are misleading: they fail to ask the right questions. If you pose a question as a green-versus-ungreen choice, as I did at the beginning of this column, the answer is obvious: everyone prefers the greener choice. But if you probe deeper into consumer attitudes, the real answer is that consumers will choose the greener product -- IF it doesn’t cost more… comes from a brand they know and trust . . . can be purchased at stores where they already shop . . . doesn’t require a significant change of habits to use . . . and has at least the same level of quality, performance, and endurance as the less-green alternative.
That’s a high hurdle for any product. No wonder mainstream consumers turned off to environmentally conscious shopping.
2. The public is dazed and confused. Shopping with Mother Earth in mind is no mean feat, even for the most savvy of shoppers. After all, understanding the environmental implications of something as simple as paper versus plastic shopping bags requires digesting a fair amount of science, some of which is inconclusive, contradictory, or simply arguable. Both, after all, come from limited, declining resources, can be made from recycled material, and can be recycled. Which is better? Even the scientists don’t agree. (Of course, the greenest bag is the reusable organic cotton or hemp bag you use thousands of times before it must be turned into compost, but that notion rarely gets considered at the end of a checkout line.)
3. People lack perspective. Similarly, most people don't have a clue about the relative environmental impacts of the things they do every day. For example, a good many self-described green consumers don't seem to find irony in jumping into their poorly tuned, gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles with a cold engine and underinflated tires to drive a couple miles out of their way in bumper-to-bumper traffic in order to purchase their favorite brand of recycled paper towels. Will buying the right laundry detergent or ice cream make the world safe for gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and chain saws? You make the call.
The whole notion of green consumerism unwittingly contributes to this lack of perspective. It implies that greener purchases can help "save the earth." The dirty little secret of green consumerism is that we’re not likely to shop our way to environmental health.
4. Companies making greener products are afraid to speak up. With good reason. Those early purveyors of "degradable trash bags" and "ozone-friendly aerosols" got their wrists slapped, so marketers are understandably gun-shy on making environmental claims, particularly those that are scientifically debatable. And most companies aren't environmentally pure, so to call attention to one’s green goods risks calling attention to one’s ecological skeletons. Better to keep one's corporate mouth shut, right?
5. Green benefits aren't always evident. As the Levi’s example demonstrates, many environmental initiatives companies take don't show up on product labels. For example, Anheuser-Busch saves millions of pounds of aluminum a year by shaving 1/8" off the diameter of its beer cans, though they don’t put eco-labels on cans of Busch and Bud. Nonetheless, they’re having a significant impact when you consider the energy and resource inputs of aluminum, and the energy savings from trucking lighter-weight cans. It’s certainly a greater environmental contribution than that of consumers pondering "paper versus plastic."
For now, it seems green consumerism is destined to be limited to the roughly 10% to 12% of the marketplace that pollsters tell us are willing to regularly seek out and buy green products, regardless of how much more they cost or what lengths one must go to find them. Despite its frustrations, green consumerism remains a powerful, largely untapped tool for environmental change. The fact is, as I pointed out a decade ago, every time we open our wallets, we cast a vote, for or against the environment. And the marketplace isn’t a democracy: It doesn’t take 51% voting in one direction to effect change. A relatively small number of consumers can be a potent force. The model works. We just need to make it work harder.
Joel Makower is a well-respected journalist and best-selling author, and a leading voice on business and the environment. A writer and lecturer, he is also editor of "The Green Business Letter," a monthly newsletter on corporate environmental responsibility. Makower serves as president of Green Business Network, producers of GreenBiz.com, a comprehensive web portal on business and the environment.This article is distributed courtesy the Center for a New American Dream’s bi-monthly syndicated column which explores the connections between consumption, quality of life, environment, and values. For more information about the Center, click on www.newdream.org, email [email protected] or call 1-877-68-DREAM.
https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12d4f7762dad4d56
Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1
Policy Section
http://robertreich.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
Sierra Club on Sprawl
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/roads.asp
The Auto Bailout Is Going Off the RoadRobert Reich
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009
GM just announced it was laying of 21,000 more of its workers, as a means of assurring the Treasury Department the company is worthy of more bailout money. A Treasury official was quoted as saying approvingly that the goal is a “slimmed-down” GM.
What? Having General Motors or Chrysler cut tens of thousands of jobs in order to be eligible for a government bailout reminds me of “saving” Vietnam by bombing it to smithereens. Aren’t we giving these companies billions of taxpayer dollars to save jobs? If not, we’re just transferring money from taxpayers to GM and Chrysler bondholders and shareholders.
I agree with those who say the United States needs an auto industry. But there’s no point spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars for an auto industry that’s a tiny fragment of what it was before. We could achieve that objective by doing nothing.
Besides, as I’ve said before, the “American auto industry” shouldn’t be defined as auto companies whose headquarters are in the United States. The true “American auto industry” is Americans who make automobiles. At the rate the Big Three are shrinking even as they’re bailed out, foreign automakers with American plants may soon employ more Americans than the Big Three do. The Big Three have gone global anyway. A Pontiac G8 shipped by GM from Australia contains far less American labor than a BMW X5 assembled in the United States. General Motors’ European subsidiaries include Opel and Saab. Ford also has operations around the world. It even owns Volvo.
The purpose of any auto bailout ought to be to help American auto workers keep their jobs, regardless of whether they work for GM or Toyota or anyone else. Or if they lose their jobs, help them get new ones that pay almost as well. Yet we’re doing exactly the opposite: We’re paying GM and Chrysler billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat while they cut tens of thousands of American jobs and slash wages. There’s no good reason why taxpayers should foot any of this bill unless the Big Three agree to keep their workers employed while they try to turn themselves around. -Robert Reich
Overview
The purpose of this White Paper is to describe a plan for the creation of an alternative-energy powered fleet of vehicles numbering in the hundreds of millions by the year 2020.
The product development theories presented here are being applied presently in the development of a new form of personal transportation produced via a revolutionary methodology known as "Paxterra".
Summary:
Given the state of technological advancement, automotive propulsion using combustion engines no longer makes sense. Ecological degradation and climate change, the warfare and suffering inflicted to secure fossil fuel supplies, and the net cost-per-mile of the transportation provided, all beg for the elimination of the combustion engine. Why, then, do we continue to buy gas?
I propose that the reason for the internal combustion engine (ICE) long dominating our vehicle fleets is not a lack of technology but, rather, one of public policy. This policy has been largely shaped by the very industries that profit most from it's inefficiency: Vehicle Manufacturers, Oil Companies.
Alternative vehicle designs have been kept from the marketplace by the enormous expenses associated with introducing a new vehicle brand. There is one place, however where the playing field is more even and, for now, wide open: The Motorcycle.
Because Motorcycles, as defined by law, may have three wheels, and three-wheeled vehicles are perfectly adequate for most simple transportation, there is a huge gap in the "barrier-to-entry" for freeway capable vehicles.
This paper, and other appended information, proposes a new way of obtaining an electric vehicle fleet without any necessary changes in public policy and very little in capitalization. No new technological breakthroughs are needed. No new laws need to be written and passed. Public policy support is great and it will grow in the future, but we’re not waiting for it. They can catch up with us.
Real-World Testing
As verification of the claims made herein Paxterra Electromotive, a company engaged in the development of a high-performance electric vehicle, will incorporate the proposed principles and methods suggested, and, under actual market conditions, test this hypotheses commercially. The vehicle prototype should be ready for Market Beta testing in late 2012.
The Urgent Need For Action
CO2 emissions from the ever growing populations adopting ICE vehicles is resulting in climate changes that threaten all life on our planet. China and India see automobiles as their next big growth industry. It is very important to make sure these new fleets are not dominated by combustion vehicles as the trends today would indicate.
We will not wait for the majority to demand electric vehicles but we will help them to understand all the reasons why they should. The revolutionary changes necessary to reduce the use of combustion engines will not be initiated by the political or corporate leaders we have today because government and large corporations have joined forces against the common good of the majority of people. Democracy and Capitalism, once counterbalancing dynamos, have become, instead, a unified hammerhead that is destroying the middle class way of life that was Democracy’s best promise while running, roughshod, over Earth’s delicate ecosystem. Paxterra’s purpose is to counter this insanity with well engineered solutions that make economic sense and turn some heads with completely new, high-performance, world class products.
Electromotion
The change to electromotive propulsion is as revolutionary today as the switch from horses, mules, and oxen to cars, buses, and trucks was 100 years ago. The electric motor has one moving part, lasts practically forever, and is at least four times more energy efficient than a combustion motor.
Under an Open Source model such as that used by IBM when it wanted fast growth of the PC production, powertrain, chassis, and body designs could be created and offered for anyone to use, free of charge. These vehicles designs could be replicated anywhere in the world using simple tools and readily available materials.
Combined with wind, micro-hydro, solar, and other clean energy systems these transportation systems become very clean forms of transportation, lowering both air pollution and CO2 levels while completely avoiding the need to import incexpensive and dangerous gasoline.
Why Not Trains, Trams, Trolleys and High Speed Rail?
Sure, I'd much rather hop out my front door with a backpack and head for the nearest trolley, train, tram, etc. than fire up my combustion motor dinosaur but we, here in the U.S., missed that opportunity over seventy years ago when we allowed several major corporations to buy up most of the metropolitan rail and purposely put it out of business in favor of buses, and eventually, cars.
One legacy of that decision that is very positive for our needs today is the amazing system of roadways, highways, and Interstates that we built. The costs of drainage, levees, road base, overpasses, bridges, cuts, grading, fencing, guard rail, paving, lighting, reflectors, street signs, etc, ad infinitum, must be astronomical. ( I haven't found a number for this incredible engineering and construction feat, but I'd like to know). What we need to change, very quickly, is the type of vehicles that use this incredible system.
That is precisely what Paxterra Electromotive is all about. Keep the roads; swap out the fleet.
And It’s Actually Fairly Easy
Electric vehicles are relatively simple. Most of the great leaps in transportation technology have been made through increasingly complex mechanisms. The move to electromotive power is one of greater simplification.
NASA put people on the moon over forty years ago. Astronauts drove on the Lunar surface in an ELECTRIC VEHICLE. It held two astronauts and all their scientific gear. Logic would seem to dictate that, by now, we should be able to do this on earth. The answer to that question is yes, but only if we want to.
Why Now, Finaly?
Until recently, there were no affordable batteries that would provide both the range and safety that could compete with combustion powered vehicles using relatively cheap (but very dangerous) gasoline. What changed all this was the, nearly simultaneous, worldwide adoption of the laptop computer and the cellular phone as must-have items. These hungry little mobile devices need superior batteries to become useful products. Due to the huge demand for these two products Lithium battery production has increased greatly. Notice that this was in no way due to athe auto industry pushing the boundaries. We should thank, instead, all those who pushed the limits of mobile computing by developing laptops and smarter, thirstier, cell phones.
Now, in anticipation of even greater profits, these same battery companies, and more and more new ones, are producing the larger-capacity Lithium batteries suitable for use in electric vehicles in great quantities. This is what electric vehicles have needed to become competitive with combustion engined vehicles.
The End of an Era and Goodbye to Pistons
The Great Repeating Cycle of Innovation and the theory of "Slack Water"
In a very short evolutionary period Humanity invented: the spoken word, art, agriculture, animal husbandry, architecture, the written word, printing, weapons, the wheel, currency, mathematics, medicine, gunpowder, electricity, ships, telegraph, balloons, steam engines, trains, steamships, radio, submarines, aircraft, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, semiconductors, missiles, computers, networks, satellites, space ships, the world wide web and countless other things.
All of these technologies fundamentally changed the way the we live and, as a whole, have come to shape the destinies of all future inhabitants of planet Earth. Many of these technologies, such as warfare, have proven ineffective over the long run. Endless wars have brought no great Peace. Others, such as fossil fuel combustion, have proven dangerous to life on this beautiful planet that is our only home and need to be greatly curtailed.
In each of the transitional periods following the introduction of a major technological development there is a kind of “slack water” as the tide changes. Small, start-up ventures are able to navigate very freely in this new “landscape” and may even dominate the new markets. In many of these technological revolutions yesterday’s market behemoths completely miss the new opportunities because of mindset, myopia, or the vectored momentum of their ventures. They just couldn’t “turn the tanker in time”.
Paxterra Electromotive’s core business strategy is based on this consistent pattern of technological evolution. We are the small speedboat going the other way. The “big ships” of personal transportation, Toyota, GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagon, Honda, Volvo still haven’t changed course very much. Despite the hype behind their new electric models they will continue to produce combustion-powered vehicles for many years because they have purchased huge capacity for it and they must amortize these investments in manufacturing automation through combustion vehicle sales.
Why It’s Happening Again and Why It is Very Different This Time
For the first time in Human history a force larger than Humanity may be playing the leading role in the cyclic change process. It is no longer “free markets” that will dictate the success of a product. Earth has something to say this time.
According to almost all legitimate scientists combustion gasses are altering Earth’s climate enough to create potentially catastrophic global climate change. Success will increasingly be seen as getting our needs met while protecting and restoring, not destroying, Earth’s ecosystem.
It is also the opinion of most in the scientific community that peak oil production has been reached. This is happening just as the emerging economies of China, Brazil, and India are beginning to demand vehicles in giant quantities. Because oil is also essential to the production of food, the next oil spike and/or shortage could leave us facing the decision: drive or eat?
Another Path
Here is an example to help put electromotive propulsion in perspective.
It takes about one hour of labor to make a 120 watt solar panel today. That panel will provide enough energy on an average day to power a small vehicle for about 6 miles. So if we use the US’s 36 mile average transit loop to calculate the needed solar panels to create all of our ground passenger fuel we get 36 devided by 6 = 6. Six solar panels; about one day of labor and $840 in material. That’s it and then you never need to buy gas again for about 50 years.
Yes, you will need to replace your battery pack every seven years or so. Several years from now batteries will be lighter, cheaper, more powerful, and last longer. It will be like upgrading your vehicle’s performance by simply plugging in the newest, best battery on the market at that point in the future. Manufacturers will provide trade-in incentives for consumers looking to upgrade their entire vehicle. Seven years is a long time to own a vehicle. The estimated average length of ownership in the US is about six years. Thus, for the buyer, the battery lasts the “life” of the car. Used vehicle wholesalers and used car buyers will experience their first electric vehicle as a used car with a new battery giving it like new, or better, performance. Used vehicle batteries may also have second lives as stationary grid back-up batteries.
Every mile traveled with wind or solar electrical generation keeps about a pound of CO2 from entering Earth’s atmosphere.
http://www.sightline.org/maps/charts/pollu_co2transp_ooh
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/category/Assumptions
General Motors Ad Campaign, 2008 - Trying their best to miss the boat, again!
One Example of the Lumbering Giants Vs. the Nimble Start-Up
None of the original large computer companies, IBM, DEC, or Wang pioneered today’s personal computers; they were mainframe and minicomputer thinkers. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates understood the power of owning your own microcomputer and created one of our largest industries today by ignoring conventional wisdom and building their dreams anyway. IBM played catch-up for years to the Apple II and, with Bill Gates help, nearly overtook the much more established Apple. If Steve Jobs had not pioneered the graphic user interface with the Lisa and Macintosh IBM would have rolled over apple by the late 1980’s. To further this point, this revolutionary graphic user interface that is now ubiquitous was originally developed by Xerox, a copier company in the 1960’s. Lesson from this: In Paradigm Shifts the Leaders Don’t Lead
Now port this example over to “who wants to own their own gas pump?”
Now were talking about a revolution. Forget about gas. e-volve! Use the Sun’s safe and plentiful energy beamed across space and converted to electric power by solar panels, wind turbines, or micro-hydro generators. Say goodbye to the Oiligarchy!
Why Range Anxiety Is Actually EMPTY anxiety.
Most people associate the Empty part of their gas gage with a very unpleasant experience. This experience is called a "fill up". Today, in the US, this is roughly a $60-100 expense which must be paid or your fancy gadget becomes a three thousand pound door stop. If you are like most people your driving is very regular and refills of electricity can coincide with parking your vehicle for the night. With an electric vehicle this anxious feeling can be eliminated and replaced by the knowledge that you are getting the energy for your transportation in the most efficient manner. It is like the driver of a horse cart coming home with a hungry horse; unharnessed and released to pasture the "empty" animal soon fills up on sustainable feed.
So the next time you glance down at your gas gauge and notice that you should soon go to a gas station and “fill up” do this: Pretend that you are driving an electric vehicle. Notice how close you are to home. Realize that you will soon be parked at your own “gas pump” and there is no need to go to any gas station. On the roof of your home there are as many solar panels as you need to make all your own fuel.
Do Some Numbers
Use this simple tool to calculate the panels you would need: Take your daily driving number and devide it by six. If you drive a Photon S3 36 miles per day you would have six panels, at 120 Watts each, on your roof. Not only will you not be going to the gas station for another $60 fill up, you won’t be paying anything since your solar panels make all your vehicle’s fuel. Because your solar panels are purchased as part of your vehicle system and included in the financing you pay very little extra per month to own the panels. After about 60 missed gas station fill-ups using the solar panels instead you will have paid off the solar panel costs. Now for the next 49 years you have locked in your vehicle’s fuel price at $O.
After about seven to ten years you will need to replace your vehicle’s battery. Most people keep a vehicle less than seven years so the cost of the new battery will be most likely borne by the new owner. If the original owner decides to keep the vehicle longer than average and replaces the old battery they will be paying less for a new one that lasts longer and powers the vehicle for longer distance.
(The average trade-in age for cars has crept upward to 6.2 years in October, up from 5.8 years in October 2007, according to auto industry researcher J.D. Power & Associates.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123188569970778793.html)
Emerging Vehicle Markets-
Who Is Buying Cars and Where Are They?
The customers for today’s newest vehicles are no longer in the United States, as they were in Ford’s day. Now they are in China and India. If these two gigantic populations follow the Ford methodology and start using their earnings from making cars to purchasing them and if these cars are powered by combustion engines the planet will not be able to take the greenhouse load generated. This would be a disaster like no other in history; a kind of planetary suicide.
Most of the drivers purchasing vehicles in the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, India, China will be buying their first car. Therefore they will not have the same expectations a sophisticated western buyer will have. Recently TATA of India introduced a $2500 car. No doubt the buyers did not miss the power windows and door locks since their bicycle or scooter did not have these either.
Gasoline is Dangerous
Here is one reason for electric vehicles we don’t often hear about: Gasoline causes cancer. On the gas pumps there is a sticker (in California) stating that the petrochemicals we are putting in our tank are “known to the State of California to cause cancer”. It is nearly impossible to avoid getting a small dose of these carcinogens each time you fill up, even if you are very careful. With an all-electric vehicle you only go to gas stations for bad snacks or to use the restroom, if at all. Another bonus.
Reason for High Wages At Paxterra Auto Plants
Most people would agree that Henry Ford was one of the brightest minds of the twentieth century. Ford’s genius in every aspect of the development of mass produced transportation is without parallel in the Industrial Age. One of his least well known innovations was doubling of the going wage for workers in his factories. He understood that to realize his large-scale dreams the people that built his vehicles would also need to be able to buy them. By raising their wages he turned them into customers. Paxterra will do the same as a Ford by paying relatively high wages and offering employees deep discounts on vehicle purchases.
At Paxterra we weigh much more than the bottom line when making decisions. Building vehicles in the United States of America is an important part of this business strategy. For this reason, whenever possible, domestic sources are preferred over distant suppliers.
Customer Profiling- Who Wants a Photon?
Paxterra’s first customers will primarily come from “the roughly 10% to 12% of the marketplace that pollsters tell us are willing to regularly seek out and buy green products, regardless of how much more they cost or what lengths one must go to find them. “ see Joel Makower article below for full text.
These persons could be called Green Early Adopters. “Early adopter” is phrase often used to describe consumers who purchase products before they are widely available and usually pay a premium for the privilege. These are the people who pay $700 for a digital watch (now $1), $800 for a four function calculator (now $1), and $3500 for a CD player (now obsolete). Their purchase decision may be a quest for the status ownership affords them (be the first on your block) or it have a moral underpinning. (I do this because it is important to make this transition away from fossil fuels). In the case of the Photon it will be a little of both.
Paxterra’s Early Adopters will not purchase Photons because, after careful analysis, they calculate they will save $1,500 on their annual fuel bill. They will buy them to make a political statement. They will buy them because they are allergic to Gasoline. They will buy them because Photons are perfectly green solutions to their vehicle needs. They will buy them so they can feel good knowing they can always make their own fuel no matter what happens to the world oil supply. They will buy them because the Sun has very consistent output and solar panels last 50 years and they can do the math. (and if not see appendix b. and see this is actually a pretty good deal after all and I really could use that extra $1,500.) Some people will buy Photons because they live in very congested areas and get to use High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, even when they are alone. Oh the little perks! Some will drive Photons because they are against wars for oil.
One thing is guaranteed if we stick to our founding principles: People will love our vehicles and that love will spread!
Open Source Business Models
So what about the "Business Model" and "Open Source Products"? I will admit to not knowing all the answers to this question and perhaps that is why it so intrigues me. I believe because of social networks and crowdfunding great new products will find their business models "on the fly" and can somewhat let go of the question and simply keep people interested in the product to the point that they start to order them.
Equation for the Business Model
Here is the basic financial equation I have been attempting to satisfy for most of my R&D career:
P=PV-COGS
Where P is net profit, PV is Perceived Value, and COGS is Cost of Goods Sold. At Paxterra we add the "G factor" so you get: P=G(PV-COGS). G is Green, so the higher the "Green Factor" the greater the actual "profit". Making money is not enough. Products create culture and some of our culture is killing this beautiful gem of a planet. Without a postive G-factor Paxterra would not proceed with a project no matter how much Perceived Value is created. Positive G-Factor will ensure support from the masses. Figuring out how obtain G-factor throughout the product development process is one of the great challenges we have at Paxterra.
Rules of the Road
Here is the greatest distinction I can think of between other Open Source ideas such as Linux or IBM Compatible Hardware and automobiles: Technologies such as Computers have very specific requirements for the Operating System to function; get a bit in the wrong place and the whole thing crashes. Therefore those that write software have to be incredibly good with the OS they are using. Because the global software community could only accomodate one or two OS’s we ended up with only two main OS choices, and now Linux as well under Open Source.
The roads, highways, and interstates don't care about little things like bits. If you follow the rules of physics your vehicle will function perfectly on the roadway even if it accomplishes this in a unique fashion. With the exception of a few countries that drive on "other side", the worlds roads all have the same "operating system". Therefore while software developers can only address a handful of hardware/ software platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, GPRS, GSM, Palm OS, GPS, etc.) there can be thousands of vehicle ventures all using their own, unique "operating systems"; many winners instead of the usual two or three were used to getting in emerging technologies. I expect there will be thousands of small and large ventures that build products, or re-configure existing ones, for popular Open Source Electric Vehicles. Who wants to make fenders?
Background Research Links
How Many Cars will China have by 2020?http://www.spacemart.com/reports/China_to_have_200_million_vehicles_by_2020_state_media_999.html
China's auto sales hit 13.64 million units last year, overtaking the United States as the world's top car market, while sales this year are forecast to hit 15 million units.
“Viewing the 30 giants that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, analysts are predicting that the 10 with the largest portion of sales inside the U.S. will show average revenue gains of just 1.6 percent over the next year, while the 10 with the largest portion of their sales abroad will grow by an average of 8.3 percent.”
“Increasingly this means China, India, and Brazil. Ford and GM are still largely dependent on US sales but becoming less so. GM sold more cars in China last year than in the US.”
“American companies that are less dependent on American consumers have been showing the biggest profits.
Wall Street gets this.”
Go to Source: Robert Reich blog
Competition
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/17-electric-cars-overview-2005-to-2008.php
http://nissan-leaf.net/2010/08/13/nissan-leaf-vs-renault-fluence-ze-why-doesnt-america-have-both/
Range Anxiety
Mr. Voelcker also interviewed Nissan’s Director of Product Planning, Mark Perry about range anxiety in conjunction with his piece on the low warning system on the LEAF, and Mr. Perry again stated that:
“We (Nissan) believe range anxiety is a falsehood…(that) electric-car drivers turn out to adjust fairly quickly to their cars’ abilities, and soon stop worrying about the car in daily use. If Leaf owners have a day where the total journeys add up to more than 100 miles, they simply plan to use another vehicle in the household fleet.”
Passenger Vehicle Market Trends
Pike Research
https://www.pikeresearch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/EVP-10-Pike-Research.pdf
2011 Will Be a Test of Electric Vehicles’ Commercial ViabilityDecember 28, 2010http://www.pikeresearch.com/newsroom/2011-will-be-a-test-of-electric-vehicles%E2%80%99-commercial-viability
Electric vehicle (EV) market introductions will get into high gear in 2011, accompanied by the widespread arrival of charging station networks. During the course of this momentous year for the automotive industry, many consumers will form their early impressions of the EV driving experience. According to a new white paper from Pike Research, 2011 will serve as an important test of commercial viability for the new electric vehicles. The paper, which includes 10 predictions about the EV market in 2011, is available for free download on Pike Research’s website.
“The automotive industry is bedeviled by fundamental questions of how consumers will accept and use electric vehicles,” says senior analyst John Gartner. “There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the issues of price sensitivity, range anxiety and the importance of charging station networks, the length of time required to charge EVs, and other important matters. These questions can only be answered through real-world experience that is gained from commercial launches. 2011 is the year in which many of these answers will come into greater focus.”
A few of Pike Research’s industry predictions include the following:
- “Range anxiety” will prove to be more fiction than fact.
- Automakers will get pushback from EV owners regarding the length of time it takes to fully charge a vehicle.
- Many EV charging stations will spend the majority of their time idle.
- The landscape for charging equipment will undergo a seismic shift as the category swiftly moves toward becoming a commodity market.
- The majority of people who drive a plug-in vehicle won’t own it.
- Fuel cell vehicles will be sold to fleets and consumers in small but growing numbers.
Pike Research’s white paper, “Electric Vehicles: 10 Predictions for 2011”, provides in-depth analysis of some of the most important topics facing the automotive industry as it works for the successful market introduction of EVs. Conclusions and predictions in this paper are drawn from the firm’s ongoing Clean Transportation research coverage, with forecasts included for key market sectors. A full copy of the white paper is available for free download on the firm’s website.
Pike Research is a market research and consulting firm that provides in-depth analysis of global clean technology markets. The company’s research methodology combines supply-side industry analysis, end-user primary research and demand assessment, and deep examination of technology trends to provide a comprehensive view of the Smart Energy, Clean Transportation, Clean Industry, and Building Efficiency sectors. For more information, visit www.pikeresearch.com or call +1.303.997.4619
Rules of the Road
Here is the greatest distinction I can think of between other Open Source ideas such as Linux or IBM Compatible Hardware and automobiles: Technologies such as Computers have very specific requirements for the Operating System to function; get a bit in the wrong place and the whole thing crashes. Therefore those that write software have to be incredibly good with the OS they are using. Because the global software community could only accomodate one or two OS’s we ended up with only two main OS choices, and now Linux as well under Open Source.
The roads, highways, and interstates don't care about little things like bits. If you follow the rules of physics your vehicle will function perfectly on the roadway even if it accomplishes this in a unique fashion. With the exception of a few countries that drive on "other side", the worlds roads all have the same "operating system". Therefore while software developers can only address a handful of hardware/ software platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, GPRS, GSM, Palm OS, GPS, etc.) there can be thousands of vehicle ventures all using their own, unique "operating systems"; many winners instead of the usual two or three were used to getting in emerging technologies. I expect there will be thousands of small and large ventures that build products, or re-configure existing ones, for popular Open Source Electric Vehicles. Who wants to make fenders?
Funding
“Business is never so healthy as when, like a chicken, it must do a certain amount of scratching around for what it gets.”
- Henry Ford
Thus far Paxterra has been funded by a few individuals who saw the potential to create a new kind of vehicle and helped get it to this stage. We are very close to putting the final touches on the Drive Train and Frame/Suspension and beginning our on-road tests. From here on I see the funding coming from fans of the concept, those interested in starting their own venture using the technology, as well as eventual customers who go through the remaining development process with us and secure a place in line when production starts as their reward for support. ( I know I want one).
As we are now preparing for our first online funding effort and it brings to mind a successful one that I was involved in: The Cindy Sheehan led protest at the Bush ranch in Texas in 2005. I joined Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, Texas at the entrance to George Bush's Pig Farm a week after she got there and stayed until Katrina hit and Bush flew off to go golfing in San Diego. As the momentum grew the money started flowing in through PayPal. We went from bags of potato chips to a full field kitchen, huge tent, stage, sound system, trailers, buses, trucks, you name it. I don't know the exact numbers but it was a great example of relatively small donations creating a huge difference due to the sheer volume of "pent up need for Peace".
Doing The Right Thing
When it comes to alternatives to oil fueled vehicles I believe there are those who will throw a few bucks our way just hoping we win. The payback is in knowing they are doing the right thing and making a statement. Also, they can order a vehicle when production starts. Usually we wait for products to be produced by the major manufacturers. In the case of our vehicles I don't think we can wait any longer. Major motorcycle, car, and truck manufacturers are completely wedded to the combustion engine. They have been dragging their feet for decades and, in the case of GM, actually killed a great design by an engineering team led by a hero of mine, Paul MacCready. We don't need the "powers that be" anymore. Let's go in a completely new direction and make them come over to our side. Jobs and Wazniak did this with Apple Computer, we can do it with Paxterra.
I'm more interested in a world that works than what sells—Paul MacCready
Whatever Happened to Green Consumers?........... by Joel Makower
Here's a pop quiz: Two products are sitting next to each other in a store. They're practically identical, but one is environmentally better -- let’s say it's recycled, recyclable, biodegradable, less toxic, or contains less packaging. Both are priced about the same.
Which would you buy?
For those with even a scintilla of eco-consciousness, the answer is a no-brainer: the "greener" one is preferable.
So, given that public-opinion surveys report that roughly three Americans in four call themselves "environmentalists," and that marketing studies tell us that roughly 7 in 10 consumers would gladly choose the greener product over its less-green counterpart, why has green consumerism remained a largely marginal aspect of shopping?
The chasm between green concern and green consumerism is, for me, one of the more curious and frustrating aspects of the environmental movement. For all the activism and consciousness-raising, for all the thinking locally and acting globally, the overwhelming majority of consumers haven’t exactly demanded greener products. Only a relative handful of consumers regularly go out of their way to make environmentally preferable buying choices.
It seems the so-called green consumer movement was one of those well-intended passing fancies, a testimony to North Americans’ never-ending quest for simple, quick, and efficient solutions to complex problems.
What happened? Here are five reasons why the environment has failed to become a mainstream market force:
1. There's no mandate. Though polls tell us that most consumers prefer greener products, the polls are misleading: they fail to ask the right questions. If you pose a question as a green-versus-ungreen choice, as I did at the beginning of this column, the answer is obvious: everyone prefers the greener choice. But if you probe deeper into consumer attitudes, the real answer is that consumers will choose the greener product -- IF it doesn’t cost more… comes from a brand they know and trust . . . can be purchased at stores where they already shop . . . doesn’t require a significant change of habits to use . . . and has at least the same level of quality, performance, and endurance as the less-green alternative.
That’s a high hurdle for any product. No wonder mainstream consumers turned off to environmentally conscious shopping.
2. The public is dazed and confused. Shopping with Mother Earth in mind is no mean feat, even for the most savvy of shoppers. After all, understanding the environmental implications of something as simple as paper versus plastic shopping bags requires digesting a fair amount of science, some of which is inconclusive, contradictory, or simply arguable. Both, after all, come from limited, declining resources, can be made from recycled material, and can be recycled. Which is better? Even the scientists don’t agree. (Of course, the greenest bag is the reusable organic cotton or hemp bag you use thousands of times before it must be turned into compost, but that notion rarely gets considered at the end of a checkout line.)
3. People lack perspective. Similarly, most people don't have a clue about the relative environmental impacts of the things they do every day. For example, a good many self-described green consumers don't seem to find irony in jumping into their poorly tuned, gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles with a cold engine and underinflated tires to drive a couple miles out of their way in bumper-to-bumper traffic in order to purchase their favorite brand of recycled paper towels. Will buying the right laundry detergent or ice cream make the world safe for gas-powered lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and chain saws? You make the call.
The whole notion of green consumerism unwittingly contributes to this lack of perspective. It implies that greener purchases can help "save the earth." The dirty little secret of green consumerism is that we’re not likely to shop our way to environmental health.
4. Companies making greener products are afraid to speak up. With good reason. Those early purveyors of "degradable trash bags" and "ozone-friendly aerosols" got their wrists slapped, so marketers are understandably gun-shy on making environmental claims, particularly those that are scientifically debatable. And most companies aren't environmentally pure, so to call attention to one’s green goods risks calling attention to one’s ecological skeletons. Better to keep one's corporate mouth shut, right?
5. Green benefits aren't always evident. As the Levi’s example demonstrates, many environmental initiatives companies take don't show up on product labels. For example, Anheuser-Busch saves millions of pounds of aluminum a year by shaving 1/8" off the diameter of its beer cans, though they don’t put eco-labels on cans of Busch and Bud. Nonetheless, they’re having a significant impact when you consider the energy and resource inputs of aluminum, and the energy savings from trucking lighter-weight cans. It’s certainly a greater environmental contribution than that of consumers pondering "paper versus plastic."
For now, it seems green consumerism is destined to be limited to the roughly 10% to 12% of the marketplace that pollsters tell us are willing to regularly seek out and buy green products, regardless of how much more they cost or what lengths one must go to find them. Despite its frustrations, green consumerism remains a powerful, largely untapped tool for environmental change. The fact is, as I pointed out a decade ago, every time we open our wallets, we cast a vote, for or against the environment. And the marketplace isn’t a democracy: It doesn’t take 51% voting in one direction to effect change. A relatively small number of consumers can be a potent force. The model works. We just need to make it work harder.
Joel Makower is a well-respected journalist and best-selling author, and a leading voice on business and the environment. A writer and lecturer, he is also editor of "The Green Business Letter," a monthly newsletter on corporate environmental responsibility. Makower serves as president of Green Business Network, producers of GreenBiz.com, a comprehensive web portal on business and the environment.This article is distributed courtesy the Center for a New American Dream’s bi-monthly syndicated column which explores the connections between consumption, quality of life, environment, and values. For more information about the Center, click on www.newdream.org, email [email protected] or call 1-877-68-DREAM.
https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12d4f7762dad4d56
Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1
Policy Section
http://robertreich.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
Sierra Club on Sprawl
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/roads.asp
The Auto Bailout Is Going Off the RoadRobert Reich
THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2009
GM just announced it was laying of 21,000 more of its workers, as a means of assurring the Treasury Department the company is worthy of more bailout money. A Treasury official was quoted as saying approvingly that the goal is a “slimmed-down” GM.
What? Having General Motors or Chrysler cut tens of thousands of jobs in order to be eligible for a government bailout reminds me of “saving” Vietnam by bombing it to smithereens. Aren’t we giving these companies billions of taxpayer dollars to save jobs? If not, we’re just transferring money from taxpayers to GM and Chrysler bondholders and shareholders.
I agree with those who say the United States needs an auto industry. But there’s no point spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars for an auto industry that’s a tiny fragment of what it was before. We could achieve that objective by doing nothing.
Besides, as I’ve said before, the “American auto industry” shouldn’t be defined as auto companies whose headquarters are in the United States. The true “American auto industry” is Americans who make automobiles. At the rate the Big Three are shrinking even as they’re bailed out, foreign automakers with American plants may soon employ more Americans than the Big Three do. The Big Three have gone global anyway. A Pontiac G8 shipped by GM from Australia contains far less American labor than a BMW X5 assembled in the United States. General Motors’ European subsidiaries include Opel and Saab. Ford also has operations around the world. It even owns Volvo.
The purpose of any auto bailout ought to be to help American auto workers keep their jobs, regardless of whether they work for GM or Toyota or anyone else. Or if they lose their jobs, help them get new ones that pay almost as well. Yet we’re doing exactly the opposite: We’re paying GM and Chrysler billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat while they cut tens of thousands of American jobs and slash wages. There’s no good reason why taxpayers should foot any of this bill unless the Big Three agree to keep their workers employed while they try to turn themselves around. -Robert Reich