Fighting Entering a Game You Could Easily Go Into and WIN

Why aren’t the energy companies/providers asking to install solar panels for you on your roof?

Major energy producers across the country are grappling with the pros and cons of residential power customers adding solar panels to their roof tops.  The solar panels connect directly to the grids controlled and maintained by companies like PG&E and Southern California Edison here in California.  The pros include relieving stress from over taxed grids and allowing companies to focus more on their big corporate customers, the cons include losses from those smaller customers that are no longer paying costs to maintain the grid.  So here’s a good question, why are these major energy producers letting upstarts like Solar City and Sun Run make off like bandits in the solar installations and leasing programs?

In It to Win It

It’s seems this simple: you have the names, addresses, and energy consumption information of EVERY resident/customer.  If I was SCE, I’d be leasing solar panels to anyone who wanted them.  Much like some companies are doing now by going to big box retailers like Wal-Mart and installing solar on expansive roofs, energy producers should go to builders of new tracks of homes, and existing neighborhoods and turning them into solar farms.  SCE would still be making all the money off of energy production and sells, while greening the grid and cutting out the middle man.  Instead of paying companies to build huge solar arrays out in the desert that take years to get through EIRs (environmental impact reviews), we can cut the time and costs on these projects in big ways, and spend less on transmission lines.    

Major energy companies have huge resources to be able to buy large quantities of solar panels and receive mass discounts from bulk purchases.  One of the major pros of having residential solar, is having energy produced in exactly the same place it is being used, mitigating any loss of energy in transmission of power that occurs at any energy production facility (nuclear, natural gas, coal, etc.)  Yet again, I don’t understand why energy providers aren’t falling over themselves to enter into residential solar.  There are several legal avenues through property law they could even take advantage of, including granting of easements on roof tops to energy companies.  Perhaps energy profits from residential purchasers will drop as solar costs plummet below any other competitor, but at least energy companies will be making that money and not third parties like Solar City.

The genius behind Solar City and their brethren is that they enter into lease agreements with their customers for 10 years.  That’s guaranteeing you have these customers for 10 years!  Not one time purchasers that fluctuate.  Years of revenue practically guaranteed. 

Don’t Build California High Speed Rail Like We Built the Bay Bridge

-->

A recent article by the UT San Diego made some good points on the way to its underlying bad thesis that California shouldn’t build the High Speed Rail.  Looking for ANY reason to take a knock at HSR, the UT stated the obvious, that the building of the Bay Bridge that connects Oakland and the East Bay to the city of San Francisco has been a disaster.  What was slated to cost $1.1 Billion and be finished in 2003, is now over $6 Billion and 10 years past due.  Let’s not even get started on the last minute SNAFU that is setting the Bridge back a few more months and several more million dollars.

Absolutely, the Bay Bridge’s new eastern span is a mess.  The one argument that no one is making is “We shouldn’t even be building it”.  There is no doubt that the work horse bridge needed the new span, there is no doubt that the old span is not safe, and there is no doubt that without the bridge all together a serious economic harm would be done to the entire Bay Area.  So all that is left is to attack, and rightfully so, the management and quality control at every step of the construction.  People should lose their jobs, suits should be filed for negligence against contracting corporations for their terrible and dangerous work, and lessons should be learned so as NEVER to be repeated.

Let’s look at every mistake that was made, at every junction on the Bay Bridge and use it as a template for avoiding the same mistakes on HSR.  Let’s FIRE all the people who made those mistakes or should have caught those mistakes and hire new people.  Let’s find new mechanisms for oversight that should have been in place by our state and federal transportation leaders in the process of the Bay Bridge, and use that oversight on HSR. 

No one should be talking about whether or not we should be building HSR (echoes of frustration when we built the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges 75 years ago around the Great Depression, and of hair burning screeching from the start of BART’s construction), because we will look back more than likely and say “good thing we built HSR”.  Could I be wrong?  Sure, and I can admit that.  But the cost of me being wrong after building HSR is far smaller than the repercussions of HSR critics being wrong and not building HSR (i.e. constant gridlock on the I-5 that chokes our air with smog and weakens our environment, infrastructure, and economy).    

Greener Cars ARE SELLING...STOP THE LIES

It seems to me that far too often there are journalistic hit jobs on the electric vehicle popping up in my news feed.  I just don’t get it.  I see the words “fail”, “disappointing”, “weak”, “death” when it comes to the sales of Pure Electric (PEV) and Plug-in Hybrid (PHV).  Of course, with the start of any new industry, technology, or product there are pumps in the road.  I love my iPhone, iPad, MacBook, etc, but that first generation iPhone was not worth the $500 or more dollars they were charging for a slow gadget with hardly any memory.

            Yet here we go again with another attack on the electric vehicle industry from the New York Daily News with more words like “struggling” and “weakness” thrown out there like objective facts, not the subjective silly putty that it is.  Below I have the article, with my point by point fact based rebuttal.

From the New York Daily News Article:

Struggling sales of cars like the Chevrolet Volt, Nissan Leaf show weakness in electric vehicle market

Despite fluctuating fuel prices and widespread media hype, automakers haven't wooed car buyers. Charging time, short range, and high overall prices continue to plague electric vehicle sales.

The Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid with the ability to run on its electric engine alone, is by far the most successful electric car in the United States.

The fledgling electric car business is in turmoil as predictions about potential sales have proven to be wildly optimistic despite volatile fuel prices and plenty of media hype.

Weak consumer demand is hitting both the big automakers like General Motors and Nissan -- which have failed to meet sales targets on the plug-in Volt and all-electric Leaf -- and smaller start-up firms trying to carve out a piece of a very small niche.

"Electric vehicles don't make any more sense today than they did in 1912," says Sean McAlinden, an analyst with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The only difference here, Sean, is that we’ve advanced the technology by about 100 years.  Batteries are powering more of our lives, including our phones, computers, and heart pumps.  So why can’t they power our cars?  Car design has changed, including the understanding of aerodynamic drag (.25 being the target or better) to improve range.  We also have electricity in EVERY house hold, as opposed to the 1912 numbers when most of America was rural farmland, not city based metropolises of today.  I won’t even get started on the basic advancement in the chemistry of the batteries in 100 years, I’m just flabbergasted that you even said this.

"They take too long to charge, the range is too short and they cost too much."  The assumption that these cars cost “too much” is my least favorite argument.  NO ONE pays full price up front for a car.  They take out loans or a lease on a car and pay month by month.  Here, there is automatic pay off every month with gas savings, a pay off that is shaving off of an increased monthly car payment.  Look at California where gas prices are $4.67 a gallon.  Pay-off gets better and better, where electricity prices are basically flat.  Range and anxiety questions are automatically squashed when people look at the PHV like the Prius Plug-in and the Volt.  And have you NEVER seen someone push their gas-emptied car to a gas station?  Really?

Electric cars also face stiff competition from hybrids and improved fuel efficiency in conventional vehicles as automakers update their fleet to meet tougher government standards.  Competition is good, makes both hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles strive for improvement.

Toyota recently announced plans to drastically scale back the release of its all-electric eQ and Honda has limited the release of its Fit EV to 1,100 US customers over the next two years.  This while Toyota sales record numbers of their new Prius line, including the plug-in, and Honda is releasing a similar accord.

The Chevy Volt -- which can switch over to a regular gasoline engine once the battery runs out of juice -- is by far the most successful electric car in the United States.

After a slow start, Volt sales have tripled this year with help of discounted leases and a decision by California to allow them in fast-moving carpool lanes on the state's clogged freeways.

But sales of 16,348 through September are still far short of the 45,000 Volts that the US Department of Energy forecast in a 2011 report that GM could sell per year.  BUT TRIPLE THE SALES OF LAST YEAR.  If GM does that or just double next year, then these targets can be hit or surprassed.

As fuel prices rise, consumers have been far more attracted to Toyota's Prius hybrid, which saw sales double this year to 183,340 vehicles.  And where did Prius sales start in 2000?  There were only 5,800 first generation Priuses sold in 2000, up to only 15K in 2001, and 20K in 2002.  I’m guessing you considered that a failure, even though today it’s the best selling car in California. 

Sales of the all-electric Leaf -- which has a maximum range of 73 miles (117 kilometers) -- are down 28 percent to just 5,212 vehicles in the United States this year despite a major marketing push.  The marketing push has really just kicked off, and sales in September improved.

Nissan -- which is preparing to open a new assembly for electric vehicles in Tennessee -- is falling well short of CEO Carlos Ghosn's ambitious goal to double Leaf sales for fiscal 2013.

Only two years ago, the Boston Consulting Group predicted electric vehicle sales could reach five percent or roughly 4 million to 5 million vehicles of the industry's total global sales volume by 2020. Now they are saying electric vehicles might represent just three percent of total global sales.  Could this be also due to the fact that hybrid are getting a bigger chunk of the sales and fuel efficiency will be mandated here in the US and in other countries?  Most importantly, let’s look at the trend for all these Hybrid, PEV, PHV’s out there.  Clearly adoption has begun, if not as early or as fast as some would have liked, but happening all the same. 

While the big automakers can cushion their massive investments in electric vehicles with sales of conventional cars, the painfully slow growth and the difficulties in adapting electric technology to the tastes of modern motorists have posed huge challenges for startups. 

Tesla Motors is falling behind in its efforts to produce a sleek new electric vehicle, the electric vehicle start-up company spawned by Silicon Valley billionaire Elon Musk acknowledged in a recent regulatory filing. 

That leaves the Palo Alto, California-based company in danger of failing to meet the terms of a $465 million Energy Department loan.  Would a little research hurt the writers at NY Daily News?  Tesla Motors is ramping up production, planning on paying its loan back early, and will be cash flow positive before the end of the year.  Does anyone doubt that the guy behind Pay-Pal and SpaceX can’t pull off car production too?  He just sent another space module the International Space Station!

Nonetheless, electric vehicles advocates remain upbeat and investors are not shying from the companies.

Tesla was able to raise $128 million by selling new shares of common stock and Fisker Automotive also raised $100 million in new capital last month despite problems with the launch of its extended range electric vehicle, the Karma.

Tony Posawatz, Fisker's third chief executive officer since February, acknowledged the company made mistakes but dismissed a crushing review by Consumer Reports, which described the Karma's design as flawed. 

"Customers do like these cars," said Posawatz, a former GM executive who had been responsible for bringing the Volt to market.

Fisker has sold more than 1,000 Karmas, which cost $103,000, since the car went on sale last December.

Posawatz also predicted the technology for electric and extended range electric vehicles will catch on.

"It took 10 years, but the Prius is the best-selling vehicle in California," he said at a recent meeting of the Automotive Press Association in Detroit.

The company is moving ahead with plans to build its next vehicle, a sedan dubbed the Atlantic that will costs roughly half as much as the Karma, and expects to raise another $200 million in private equity funding soon.

Meanwhile, Tel Aviv-based Better Place is looking for new direction after replacing founder Shai Agassi with a new chief executive officer.

Oversight on High Speed Rail

In the history of man and woman-kind, building things here on Earth (and the last couple of decades above Earth as well), nothing gets built exactly to plan.  Every plan is more of a wish, a hope of what the final product will look like.  The Great Wall of China can be seen from space, but it’s doubtful every brick and stone was laid according to plan.  The interstate highway system and the transcontinental railroad are systems we’ve relied on for generations, yet were filled with graf and over run costs.  Let’s be honest, the only way to do it on the cheap and quickly is do employ the Chinese model of cutting corners, paying labor nothing, and having the State run EVERYTHING (no takers?).

When you’re looking at a plan to build something as big as the California High Speed Rail system, you have to weigh the benefits of the system against any flaws in the plan.  The old adage of “you have to break some eggs to make an omelet” is appropriate to building/making just about anything.  I’m sure there was someone out there who complained about the International Space Station blocking their view of space, so it’s a no-brainer that building HSR here will cause some lawsuits.  Almost every immanent domain case involves legal action.  There are lawyers out there who specialize in this field on both sides.  So this will all be pro-forma. 

The benefits of building HSR are clear, but maybe not exact.  To build the darn thing we are going to have to put people to work, pay them, given them benefits, allow them to spend that money here in California, and pay taxes here in California.  These kind of jobs will be involved in laying the tracks, building the electric infrastructure, creating new train stations, etc…and this is not including the jobs created by improvements to Caltrain in the Bay Area and Metrorail in Los Angeles (more jobs). For every dollar spent on infrastructure, $1.59 is added to the American GDP (compared to Bush tax cuts at $0.29 to GDP).   

Perhaps the exact number of jobs created that both labor and Democratic leaders claim isn’t as high as the real number ultimately.  However, that’s like saying instead of getting 10 gold bricks, you’re only getting 8.  The jobs going to the central valley will breathe new life into an economic black hole.  It’s time we got over those extra 2 gold bricks.   

So let’s just look past it and focus on the task at hand, building it and building it right (or as close to right as possible).  The LA Times article that was critical of turning down the French and their experience on building HSR was fair in part, but California simply made another choice.  Should California still seek experience from abroad on the engineering and development?  Absolutely.  Without a doubt, the CAHSRA will hire foreign experts, as will Parson (contractor hired to help build the train).  In addition, our government officials need to bring in some of the strongest fiscal hawks out there to negotiate and execute each and every contract. 

CAHSR needs to find an anti-Rail public servant, perhaps a certain retiring Peninsula state senator, and put them in charge of oversight.  That public servant must have the authority not only to audit work and contracts, but to advise and assist in negotiations along the way.  If there is a book out there on what went wrong in the building of the new span of the Bay Bridge, he or she needs to make that the bible of oversight for HSR.

A famous line from one of my favorite movies is “First rule of government spending: Why build one, when you can build 2 and twice the price” (see Contact).  Let’s not reward overspending, but do the opposite, and reward contractors when things come in under budget and/or ahead of schedule.  Over schedule/budget?  Penalties can be written into contracts too to deter such things.  EVERY CONTRACT SHOULD BE LIKE THIS. 

Building a revolutionarily new and fast mode of transport for America’s most populated state is nothing short of Herculean.  Just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.  The benefits of having clean powered trains eliminating polluting cars and planes from California roads is far too important to not make this happen.  So let’s get past our disagreements on it being done, and let’s unify on getting it done right!

What can Gillard learn from Al Gore:

                After reading about polling numbers for PM Gillard of Australia and her governing Labor party that found however popular their policies are, and however positively Australians feel about the direction of their country, Gillard/Labor lose in match ups against opposition party.  Putting aside the recent showdown against Gillard and Rudd (#Ruddvenge) that saw the PM retain power, I felt like I was reading about the painful polling numbers of 2000 here in the US.

                It was a turbulent 7 years of a Clinton administration that saw a strong re-election and an impeachment of a sitting President, however in the beginning of 2000, 80% of Americans polled favored the direction of the US.  With unemployment around 4% (half of what it is today), there is little to question on why Americans felt good about their country.  Yet why, oh why, did Vice President Al Gore almost never poll better than his opposition?  And what can Gillard learn from this problem/opportunity?

                President Clinton in 2000 was seen as a potential drag on the Gore campaign, that was a big argument going on in the Democratic party in 2000.  Impeached though not convicted, a tarnished imaged was the face of the 2 term-president.  But numbers don’t lie, people were happy with the overall administration and the country.  All then Governor George W. Bush had to argue was potential for recession (a real one he would in fact create before the end of his 2^nd term). 

                Yet November 2000 Gore never could affectively sell his “peace and prosperity” campaign to keep the spoils of his administration going for the country into another 4 years.  Though the final count was intensely close, even that is a problem when such an overwhelming number of Americans felt good about the direction of the country.  IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CLOSE.

                Here comes Gillard facing similar issues, with Australian unemployment just above 5% (a miraculous low number compared to the recession torn America and what Europe is facing), and public sentiment mirroring how positive Australians feel about their country.  Yet Gillard is losing ground, even before Rudd tried to overtake her.  What can she do?

                What didn’t Al Gore do first, is use Bill Clinton enough.  Clinton was kept at bay from the campaign trail until about a month before the election…a fatal mistake for the Gore campaign.  Clinton the campaigner is something that few people my age have seen (even above Pres. Obama).  Clinton a made real difference for Gore at almost every stop.  Yet it was too late.  What was Clinton doing?  Simply reminding the county who they had to thank for the good economy and relative peace around the world. 

                And that’s what Gillard needs to do…get herself, and her once again vanquished foe, but predecessor Kevin Rudd, out there on the talk show circuit and campaign trail now!  Campaign for yourself and for your policies that have been successful.  Make nice in the Labor party and get the team off the bench.  Had Al Gore just had the benefit of being an incumbent President (an idea that was floated around), like Gillard has as PM, he could have won in 2000.  Gillard has an easier fight than Gore, so don’t blow it.

(This is my first blog…it’s rough…but I will improve)

LAND!

That’s the one word that I think is the largest issue with California’s ambitious High Speed Rail project.  It’s seen as a problem of clearing out large swaths of land from private and public entities (the “4 letter” word of eminent domain hard at work).  It will clear out some businesses up and down the Golden State, with its loudest opponents being in the Peninsula of the Bay area not wanting 4 tracks of train (they already have 2 tracks that have been there for generations thanks to CalTrain). 

But I argue that LAND, can also be an opportunity.  There are many opportunities that can be had when the California High Speed Rail Authority takes over land, and those opportunities are best in the middle part of the state where the train will get its likely start.  What we do with this land in addition to the train tracks can help create more jobs by adding more capacity to our green/renewable energy grid, advertising with space ripe for use, and developing previously unconnected parts of this vast state.

As a novas environmentalist, I’m mainly going to discuss the renewable energy capacity that can be built up on HSR’s right of way.  On every mile of track that this state will lay down, Environmental Impact Reports (EIR’s) will have to be conducted when “there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment”. No one on either side is going to try to claim that there isn’t an “effect” on the environment, so EIR’s will be conducted, challenged, and ruled on for the tracks.

Another industry that is knee deep in EIR’s is the renewable energy industry.  Solar (in its many forms), wind, and geothermal energy producers-to-be are buying up large parcels of land, getting loans and investors, seeking permits, and conducting very contentious EIR’s.   The LA Times recently had an article about the impact of foxes and other animals being displaced by large solar array projects.  We call that impact. 

Similar impact stories will be written when CAHSRA starts building, so as a great believer in trying not to kill as many birds with one stone, why not use the same land for the tracks for solar and wind energy.  This is not a new idea.  As we look to build a high speed rail system here in the US, we of course have been looking at both Europe and Asia for examples on how to do this.  As we look at Europe, let’s look at the Belgium where a solar tunnel was built around train tracks for 3.5M/w hours a year with 16,000 panels.  This tunnel only used 2 miles!  That’s a fraction of the hundreds of miles of sun rich span of earth that can be utilized to produced energy that not only feeds into these super fast trains, but also feeds into communities and the state as a whole.

So who’s the first taker?  Southern California Edison, PG&E, or a major solar power player?  Or will foreign powers like China invest in our transportation and renewable energy projects for potential big payouts?  There are many options for funding renewable energy projects here in California, which has the toughest targets for said energy in the country by reaching one-third as a goal by 2020.  With all these goals, including job creation, it’s hard not to want to find some projects that can do everything at once, and HSR is the best project that California or any other state has that can.  And let’s use California’s immense amount of land to solve a lot of problems.