Huge day for the Obama Administration, Clean Energy, and EVs

Despite taking place in the heart of tea party country, President Obama braved the handful of teabaggers protesting everything from cap and trade, to solar power to yes, health care reform for the opening of Florida Power and Light's new solar energy power plant in Arcadia, FL. The 40 megawatt 90,000+ solar panel plant, which have been installed across 180 acres of the 5,000 acre FPL property, is expected to generate enough clean electricity to power 3,000 homes. So far the FPL plant is the largest operating solar power plant in the US. During the event President Obama also announced the largest stimulus fund award to date - grants of $3.4 billion awarded to one hundred private companies, utilities, manufacturers, cities and other partners for development of smart grid technologies. Below is the official White House press release.

“The $3.4 billion in Smart Grid Investment Grant awards are part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and will be matched by industry funding for a total public-private investment worth over $8 billion. Applicants state that the projects will create tens of thousands of jobs, and consumers in 49 states will benefit from these investments in a stronger, more reliable grid.

Speaking at Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, President Barack Obama today announced the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, funding a broad range of technologies that will spur the nation’s transition to a smarter, stronger, more efficient and reliable electric system. The end result will promote energy-saving choices for consumers, increase efficiency, and foster the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. "

Not to be outdone, Vice President Biden was in Wilmington Delaware today to announce Fisker Automotive's purchase and reopening of a GM auto plant that was recently closed down. The electric vehicle manufacturer, an EV competitor of California's Tesla Motors, is expected to manufacturer moderately priced sedans at its new Wilmington location. The new Fisker plant is expected to employ 2,000 workers, up from the 450 workers there when GM closed the plant down last summer. This is huge news for not only electric vehicle enthusiasts but our nations's beleagured automotive industry and manufacturing base.

My Green Inauguration Trip

This past week I made the trip down to Washington DC to see the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama. I had what I believe may have been one of the greenest inaugural trips out of any out of the owner. Instead of driving I carpooled with a friend who was already driving her Honda Civic Hybrid down to the capital. I think we only consumed 10 or 12 gallons of gas for the round trip. While in the capital I utlized one of the nation's better metro systems, I rode both natural gas and hybrid electric buses, and, when I wasn't too exhausted from standing out in the cold all day Tuesday, I made the one mile walk to and from the metro to the apartment I was staying at. Including gas, tolls, and metro fare I probably spent $50 on getting from Pittsburgh to DC and around DC. That's not too shabby. If you don't mind walking once in a while, and if you rely upon a car sharing service like Zip Car when you must have a car, living a car free life in Washington DC is very easy. Besides having hybrid electric buses I noticed that the district had a number of different electric vehicles for security and maintenance. Below is a picture of one of the electric security vehicles I came across while in the National Mall. Like this EV, DC was definitely 100% electric during the inauguration weekend.

The Ford Motor Company's Business (Survival) Plan

Below is the section on sustainability and electric vehicles from the business plan that Ford presented to the Senate Banking Committee on December 2nd. After reviewing this plan as well as the plans, the big three CEO's testimony to Congress, and also the financial health of the Detroit automakers, I have to say that Ford's relatively stronger balance sheet, their aggressive plans for rolling out electric vehicles, and having a chairman in Bill Ford who has longed to make Ford a green auto company, makes Ford the favorite to come out of this recession with a plan and strategy that will put them in a position of strength to compete with the Toyotas and Hondas who have been eating the big three's lunch throughout the past three decades. More to come on the plans of GM and Chrysler, but from first glance it looks like GM is asking for $18 billion to gut the company, while Chrysler seems to be a counting down the days until its cash shortage forces them to turn off the lights.

Here is the press release from Ford, which has links to both the plan (PDF) and appendix (PPT).

A WSJ reporter lived blogged the testimony, and it is worth reading in its entirety, especially the parts where Nardelli and Wagoner seem to be losing it.



Ford's Sustainability and Electrification Strategy
(page 16 in the report)

Ford’s sustainability plan will achieve continuous and substantial improvement in fuel economy and a corresponding reduction in CO2 through affordable technology in high volume. Ford’s plan is to make affordable fuel efficiency available to millions of consumers.

Our three-phased approach – with near-term,medium-term and long-term advanced technologies and products – begins now with advanced internal combustion engine and
transmission technologies, such as our EcoBoost engines going into production on several vehicles in 2009. The next major step in Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume of electrified vehicles, as battery costs improve and as the transition from Hybrids to Plug-in Hybrids to Battery Electric Vehicles occurs. (See Appendix, Slide 4.)

Next month at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, we will discuss in detail Ford’s accelerated vehicle electrification plan, which includes bringing to market by 2012 a family of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery electric vehicles. Our work will include partnering with battery and powertrain systems suppliers to deliver a full battery electric vehicle (BEV) in a van-type vehicle for commercial fleet use in 2010 and a BEV sedan in 2011. We will develop these vehicles in a manner that enables us to reduce costs and ultimately makes battery electric powered vehicles more affordable for consumers.

Our plan also includes building on our competence in hybrid vehicles, as demonstrated by the industry-leading fuel economy of the Ford Escape and Ford Fusion hybrids. We are now developing our next generation full hybrid technology, which includes plug-in capability, for vehicles in 2012 and beyond. We are targeting a substantial increase in hybrid volume through a greater than 30% reduction in cost, installation of hybrid capability in global platforms and hybrid vehicles that are uniquely styled.

We cannot, however, accomplish significant electrification by ourselves. The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requires American-developed breakthroughs in high-power energy batteries (e.g. lithium ion). In order to make significant progress in electrification, Ford supports establishing a U.S. public/private partnership to accelerate the development of this capability, including supporting infrastructure, within the United States.

Project Better Place is on a Roll

Last week Shai Agassi, CEO of Better Place, announced a $1 billion project that will bring his electric vehicle network to the Bay Area. Now there is news that Agassi has struck a deal with the Governor of Hawaii to bring his electric car network to Aloha state by 2012. This is huge news for everyone concerned with the environment and energy independence, and it is proof that the state of Hawaii is serious about cutting its dependence on foreign oil by 70% by the year 2030.

MSN Autos Editorial Bashes Tesla Motors, skeptical of GM's Volt

Auto critic Lawrence Ulrich tells us to "get read to pull the plug" on Tesla motors. Mr. Ulrich says that transmission glitches and the delayed roll out of its model "S" roadster is proof that the demise of Tesla is around the corner:

While the fledgling electrocar specialists haven’t hung a “gone fishing” sign on the front door just yet, it might be just a matter of time. That isn’t changing anytime soon, regardless of how much money company founder and newly appointed CEO Elon Musk can scare up for his pet project. And this group of Silicon Valley geniuses isn’t alone. You can simply add Tesla’s name to the long list of electric car builders that have talked a big game and failed to deliver.

Yes, the production delays and the issues with the model S's transmission have made Tesla motor's customers, fans, and followers like myself a little anxious. We want to see this company succeed and live to be a model for 21st Century American auto manufacturing. One reason I think Ulrich is too quick to write off Tesla motors is the man behind the company - Elon Musk. I've read several interviews and stories about him in magazines such as Fast Company. He may come off to some as arrogant but you can't argue with success - and someone who puts his money where his mouth is. In his latest interview Musk discloses that has invested $55 million of his personal money in the company, which has raised close to $200 million overall. Musk also listed a string of his accomplishments and successes, which include PayPal, which he co-founded, and added "I've never had a failure, and I'm not going to add one now." Do you think that this guy would let Tesla Motors fail this early in the game?

Ulrich does expect them to fail, and it is clear that he doesn't think tech geeks belong in the auto industry. He says that starting a real car company takes billions. Well, eventually, yes, it does, but a brief history lesson is in order here. If Mr. Ulrich studied some history of the struggles of Henry Ford he would realize that starting a car company from scratch is a journey of ups and downs, and, as Ford showed, it takes perseverance and dedication to see it through. In fact, Ford's first auto company, The Detroit Automobile Company, failed soon after it was started due to financing issues.

So, while the road has been bumpy and the company is already on CEO #4, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic. First, Tesla Motors will survive the devastation of our capital markets. The company did have to lay off a lot of its employees and delay its production of its 4 door $70k Sedan, but it was recently able to secure another round of financing and will soon be on the receiving end of a DOE loan, and may very well see a small slice ($400mm) of the proposed $25 billion auto industry bailout. Secondly - they are rolling vehicles off the production line, and they are still taking orders and offering test drives for potential customers. These facts seem to be absent from Ulrich's column, and while he does think GM's Volt is more likely to be accepted by consumers than Tesla's pure plug-in vehicle, he is also skeptical of GM having much success with the Volt, even saying that sales of 10,000 units in its first full year would be a "monumental success." I doubt this guy feels the same way, and I have a strong feeling that if GM can stay afloat and produce the Volt closer to the $30k price point, they will have difficulty producing enough vehicles to meet demand. The Volt is really the future of GM, they are putting all their chips on its success, and if you combine that with the Volt's range extending gasoline/E85 tank, not to mention a federal tax credit of $7500, it is difficult to think that the Volt will be a flop. Forget Ulrich's column where he is trying to hard to be a contrarian, and forget about the demise of the electric car, because the revenge of the electric car is around right around the corner!

Update: I may have found an even more ridiculous column, this time in the New York Times Business section, that is critical of Tesla Motors for requesting $400 million of the $25 billion auto industry bailout. The column's writer, Randall Stross, is so short sighted in his analysis it is painful:

The program is intended to encourage automakers to improve fuel efficiency, but should it be used for a purpose like this, as the 2008 Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act? Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to benefit fewer people?

Does Stross really think tax payer money is in better hands if all of it goes to the big 3? Hello McFly!!! Does Stross realize that Tesla is requesting less than 2% of the total package? It is clear that he doesn't know much about Tesla Motors, and that they will be producing two electric vehicles to be sold lower price points within the next 2 to 5 years, and that the survival of Tesla Motors is actually more important than the big 3 in terms of the technological advancement of America's auto industry. Two tech heavyweights offer their take on Stross's column, including Jason Calcanis, an owner of a Tesla model S, who wrote a point by point retort of Stross at his blog. His conclusion is worth re-posting here:

Randall says “Can you conceive any way that federal dollars could be
put at greater risk — and for no equity in return, keep in mind — to
benefit fewer people?”

Sure, how about the Iraq war, which costs around $400m a day–dollars
that we have no chance of ever seeing again (as opposed to a loan,
which is paid back with interest).

Your editorial should have started with this fact: if we leave Iraq a
week early, we can give two billion dollars in loans to *five*
electric car companies. That’s your lead right there, Randy. That’s
leadership, that’s the truth and that’s your job as a journalist. Not
this “damn the billionaires” crap. In fact, the billionaires in this
country have done a hell of a lot (see Gates, Buffet, Turner and
countless others)…But that’s for another email. Let’s get back on
the subject.

You need to put things back in their proper perspective instead of
obsessing about the fact that some of the investors in Tesla are
really rich, that the first version of the car is slightly more
expensive than a luxury car, and that battery power is *only* going to
*double* every ten years.

You really should rewrite the editorial and give the public a fair
world view instead of one warped by some short-term populist
propaganda. Tesla isn’t about rich Silicon Valley guys in sports cars:
it’s about extracting ourselves from the environment-killing,
human-rights violating, terrorist-supporting regimes in the Middle
East. The only reason we deal with countries that suppress women and
homosexuals and give money to terrorists who kill based on a religion
is because we are dependent on their oil. If we didn’t need their oil,
we would treat them like we treat other rogue regimes–isolate them
until they got their act together.

Companies like Tesla are the direct path to our independence from such
treachery.

Tesla Motors supplying Mercedes Benz with electric battery - what does this mean for electric vehicles?

Update: As pointed out by Jason in the comments to my last post, it has been confirmed that none other than Tesla Motors will begin supplying Mercedes Benz with an electric battery to power Mercedes' new electric car, rumored to begin production in 2010. This is huge news to EV advocates and I think it shows how automakers are hesitant to invest too much into Hydrogen vehicles since it is taking the governments so long to provide the necessary refueling infrastructure. This news backs up my claim that electric vehicles are the fastest way to energy independence.

The biggest concern with EVs is that right now the majority of the electricity for charging the vehicles will have to come from dirty GHG emitting coal or natural gas poewr plants. If we want to replace our oil addiction with more electricity usage something has to give, and right now that means a decision between new coal plants or new nuclear plants.

Constantine "Costa" Samaras, a clean energy advocate and PHD candidate at Carnegie Mellon, wrote a report with one of his colleagues on how cleaner power sources are needed in order for plug in electric vehicles to have a positive impact on GHG reduction. Here are some quotes that summarize their report:

The potential for PHEVs to achieve large-scale GHG emission reductions is highly dependent on the energy sources of electricity production...If large life cycle GHG reductions are desired from PHEVs, a strategy to match charging with low-carbon electricity is necessary.

...For large GHG reductions with plug-in hybrids, public policies that complement PHEV adoption should focus on encouraging charging with low-carbon electricity.

Back in May Costa wrote this note to me explaining their study (my apologies for not posting sooner!):

We have a new paper out in Environmental Science and Technology looking at life cycle GHGs from plug-in hybrids, including battery production and use of cellulosic ethanol. It it titled "Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for Policy". The policy headline is the types of power plants installed in the next two decades will not only affect how much we can reduce emissions from electricity, but also from vehicles if we plan on plug-in hybrids playing a substantial role. If you want to buy a PHEV two or three vehicle purchases in the future, the types of plants installed today will be in the mix that powers that vehicle. While maybe obvious, it is missing from the current discussion on PHEVs, which assumes decarbonizing the power sector as external to the PHEV discussions and policy, when in fact it is a critical system component. We also find that running on traditional coal, PHEVs have higher life cycle GHGs that ordinary hybrid vehicles.

Our press release is here:

http://www.cit.cmu.edu/media/pr_08_apr25.html

and a post at Green Car Congress about our paper is here:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/study-meaningfu.html

Best,
Costa

Tesla Motors announces new $60k sedan

The Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, announced just yesterday that Tesla motors has agreed to locate the production of its new Model S sedan within the State of California. The new electric powered 5 passenger sedan will go for around $60k ($35k less than Tesla's two seat roadster) and will be able to travel roughly 230 miles per charge. Now this is what I am talking about. I've always thought that electric vehicles offered us the quickest path towards energy independence. I was happy to hear that GM was investing in the plug in technology with the Chevy Volt, but at 40 miles per charge that vehicle is a joke next to the Tesla models. Tesla plans to start production of the new model sometime in 2010. An even cheaper vehicle with a price tag of around $30k is expected to be announced in the near future.