From Tech Maven Fritz Maffry: More Insights on the Technology, Economics, and Politics of CleanTech
China is moving ahead on environment and economic plans for electric vehicles. They already are 2-3x ahead of US sales on units, mostly tilted towards lower cost models but moving upstream also. The genuine action orientation of China has them shuttering 100s of coal power plants, moving Beijing to 100% electric taxis, and growing solar significantly.
The platform of pools of smart pod type shuttles is becoming hugely important; VW rolled out their concept version which is adding credibility to the approach. There are literally dozens of companies pursuing this, and we counted over three dozen project trials. This version of autonomy with optimization, flexibility, low fuel costs, low labor costs, low maintenance costs is going to be remarkable, and level 4 implementation is now knocking on the door of practicality. As we have said before, the shared Uber-type model, Navya type platform, Google or Tesla autonomous tech: that combination changes everything, and any smart city effort that doesn’t have that integral to plans is lacking, to be sure.
Solar is now projected by Bloomberg to be in many instances the cheapest form of electricity, beating nuclear, wind, coal, natural gas–really everything when external costs are figured in. Planning frameworks that don’t recognize solar and autonomous pool cost curves are frankly wrong-headed at this point; status quo players won’t help you to change policy; they want the opposite and their actions are consistent with that, while their rhetoric may be otherwise.
Related to the noise and the signal from policy perspective, the U.S. federal government is embarking on a new approach, aimed at accomplishing many things. To be sure, it will be a mixed bag, and we cannot say it is surely going to be wonderful, but neither can we say it is not potentially going to improve several conditions. To illustrate, historically the two causes of lung disease from pollution were coal power emissions and automotive emissions. If a tax is put on carbon, and external costs are measured more meaningfully, instead of a heavy footprint regulatory model we may have a “market that recognizes costs” that has a much lighter bureaucratic footprint.
Should we expand the EPA when it is much more actionable to actually go to the root cause in a market and business-engaged fashion, streamlining smart regulations? c is doable and desirable, whereas the regulatory approach has a carry cost that might not be essential if we are dealing with the problems in other ways.
Status quo bureaucracy doesn’t want to entertain that a new way might be better, yet tech and business are confident something better can be done. We know for sure that business leadership in automotive and tech are engaged in ongoing dialog to “reconstruct” an approach to change here. The devil will be in the details, but the noise doesn’t even take into
account what could be done. Certainly smart engagement with business at the table along the way is essential to getting the details right. We await clarification on details before we can say it is obviously right, but the direction has a lot of merit conceptually.
Municipal governments and the local models have proved to be ineffectual in driving effective uptake on these changes. They tend to be always bureaucratic, slow, poorly engaged with tech business drivers. Too much domination by status quo entities who “control” the machinery locally.
This will be challenged by tech innovation cycles, and by new federal engagement with business that allows for less local pork carve-ups. Traditional timelines and power bases are ineffectual, and private monopoly domination is not fertile for innovation. Imagine if AT&T were still the monopoly in advanced services and telco functionality; we mos certainly would have had no amazing revolution. The electric ecosystem of autonomous, solar, battery, and connected electric transport requires a more dynamic approach than what is realistically possible for a monopoly utility. It is absurd that an open framework on more experimental basis with new governance is not the considered norm, and local machinery wants to do the wrong thing over and over. They will be compared to the best on cost and performance, change is imperative.
The measure that matters is t-e broad-based success of electric vehicles and autonomous technology, which is already obviously successful by numbers and capabilities. Any approach that is not engaging with flexible strategy and intending to work with at least 5-6 of the leaders is too one dimensional a plan.
For example, in KC we have recommended working with Cruise/GM, Tesla, Google, BYD, and Nissan right now. Add in Apple, Mercedes, Volvo. Those are the lead change agents and tech firms poised to make magic happen. Then include LG Chem, Softbank, solar, tech like artificial intelligence, augmented reality, smart assistants, and autonomous program office. The right formula for a smart city is dynamic and takes advantage of all those, and is not likely to be effectively done by a coal utility or a limited bureaucratic approach. This necessary change will challenge the power structure of KC, as it must for broad-based innovation of the leaders to deliver best outcomes and fertile advancement.
We watch closely what now happens with the Trump administration. We have a good idea of what tech is doing, but they are embracing and investing in change much more proactively than local governments–and that incongruence is going to become a big pressure, to be resolved in some new way. Local government thinks it can kind of do more of the same, they are surely wrong in that regard.
This is not “the future”; this is an active progression underway, advancing all the time but needing to be purposefully advanced. Usual local economy drivers of real estate, finance, utility, local planners, are not getting it done. The public is just waking up in this region on these issues, but there will be pull coming from public now as they see the leaders succeed, and if advancing tech regionally is important, we can’t expect our companies to be successful if the local machinery is moving
in slow gear.
Below is context reading related to above-
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/the-us-spends-more-on-defence-than-all-of-these-countries-combined?utm_content=buffer052c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
[1]
China Will Replace All 67,000 Fossil-Fueled Taxis In Beijing With Electric Cars
[2]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind
[3]
San Francisco plans to require that all new buildings and parking be ‘100% electric vehicle ready’
[4]
http://www.omaha.com/money/buffett-who-campaigned-for-hillary-clinton-says-he-won-t/article_048f7eec-fcdf-11e6-aa8a-eb9980f75e57.html
[5]
Changing the Language of Renewable Energy, the Electric Monopoly’s Newest Ploy
[6]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-27/berkshire-built-apple-stake-to-133-million-shares-buffett-says?utm_content=markets&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-markets
[7]
Amazon Inc plans to do to the trucking industry what Uber did to the taxi business
Solar and storage: LG Chem says it already cheaper than grid
[9]
[10]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/geneva-motor-show-2017-vw-group-unveils-sedric-prototype-driverless/
[11]
Links:
——
[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/the-us-spends-more-on-defence-than-all-of-these-countries-combined?utm_content=buffer052c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
[2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/01/china-will-replace-67000-fossil-fueled-taxis-beijing-electric-cars/
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind
[4] https://electrek.co/2017/03/01/san-francisco-electric-vehicle-charging-ready/
[5] http://www.omaha.com/money/buffett-who-campaigned-for-hillary-clinton-says-he-won-t/article_048f7eec-fcdf-11e6-aa8a-eb9980f75e57.html
[6] https://ilsr.org/changing-the-language-of-renewable-energy-the-electric-monopolys-newest-ploy/
[7] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-27/berkshire-built-apple-stake-to-133-million-shares-buffett-says?utm_content=markets&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-markets
[8] https://electrek.co/2017/02/18/tesla-battery-cost-gigafactory-model-3/
[9] http://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-storage-lg-chem-says-it-already-cheaper-than-grid-96519/
[10] http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/06/san-ramon-driverless-shuttles-make-their-debut/
[11] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/geneva-motor-show-2017-vw-group-unveils-sedric-prototype-driverless/
Hi Craig,
The future is clearly with renewable energy, particularly solar. Anyone who imagines that there is a better way – or that coal is smarter is certainly thinking backwards and intent on taking the world right back to the dark ages.
This is where Trump gets it wrong! Fortunately for the rest of the world, there is only 1 Trump 🙂
Americans will live with the effect of their choice…however, 4 years passes on like 4 months; when it does, it behoves on the American electorates to do the right thing.
Make the day great.
Always,
Akaahan Terungwa
I can tell that I like you already. 🙂
Yes, there is a chance that Trump will survive all four years and we need to be prepared for that. And yes, to some (probably not me) it will seem like a much shorter period of time.
Most of all, you’re right that it behooves us Americans to do the right thing. And that’s the subject of the post I’m about to write on activism.