PhotobucketReaders here generally know that 2GreenEnergy acts as an advocate for companies in renewables, electric transportation, and sustainability more generally – and that our associates help clients through the business issues that may be impeding success: raising investment capital, PR, etc. I’ve spoken with so many people on these subjects during this past year that I thought I’d summarize the top five impediments that I see companies facing. In other words, here are the five most common issues that prevent companies in this space from going forward in a meaningful way.

Impediment #1: Expecting Seed Capital for New, Unproven Ideas and Teams from People Who Don’t Know You. There are exceptions to this rule, but the rule itself is worth stating: take a second mortgage on your house, or hit up family and friends for the capital necessary to develop a working model of new technology. And do not expect the fact that you have a patent to convince investors that your idea is workable. I do not claim to know exactly how the patent process works, but I know enough to see that it is completely dysfunctional; I’ve seen patents for things that couldn’t possibly work in the real world.

Impediment #2: A Business Concept that Screams, “Me Too!” An investment banking firm that I work with locally here in California decided against one of the deals I brought them the other day, purely on the basis of “barrier to entry.” They liked the team, the business concept, the projected growth of the sector, the power-purchase agreement methodically signed into place – and several other things. But they refused to go forward when they realized that there was nothing proprietary or unique about the company’s approach to the market – and that my client could face competition from many different sources.

Impediment #3: A Business Plan that Is Too Short, Too Long, Confusing, Amateurish, or Just Not Compelling. The document that represents your idea needs to be fully professional, and tell your story in a concise yet complete way.

Impediment #4: Lack of Marketing Focus. I leafed through a 70-page business plan for an electric boat manufacturing company the other day. I thought they did a reasonably good job at educating the reader on the market, the imperative to replace noisy, smelly gasoline engines, etc. But I was amazed to find essentially zero discussion of what I consider to be the single most important aspect of any plan: sales and marketing. Who’s going to buy this? Why? How will they learn of the product and pursue that interest to completion? Business plans based on the mistaken notion that “if I build it they will come,” are non-starters.

Impediment #5. Ignoring the Power of Online Marketing. Unless you’re operating in a stealth mode for some reason, it is vital that you explore social media, blogging, and other ways of developing and promoting content that positions you as a thought-leader in your industry. I hesitate to say this, as it could be construed as bragging, but the average number weekly visitors at 2GreenEnergy doubled over the past three months – and that figure represented a doubling of the figure three months earlier. Do you know how much we’ve spent doing this? Virtually nothing. It happens automatically, as a natural consequence of a good SEO strategy and taking an advocacy position for something important, offering content that people find useful.

As always, I welcome comments and questions.

Tagged with: , ,

PhotobucketI just had an interesting experience that I thought I’d share. I’ve mentioned that I’m a partner in a company that imports and sells electric vehicles into island nations – starting with Bermuda. And what’s not to like about that? You’ll work hard to find a better set of factors militating toward EVs anywhere in the world: expensive gas, huge tax incentives, low speed limits, short drives, wealthy people, etc.

But here’s an interesting wrinkle: What to sell? Sure, the big OEMs are near to their proposed launch dates for cars like the Nissan LEAF and the Chevy Volt – and dozens of others are right behind them. But here’s an opportunity to sell something right now – if we can find the right car. Of course, there are several Chinese EVs rolling off the assembly lines, so why not consider them? In a word: quality.

I just got off the phone with a friend who has a relationship with Chinese manufacturer that’s been cranking these out for years. In fact, we bought one a year ago for a test in the real-world conditions in Bermuda. After about 14 months in that salty environment, it has rust holes the size of baseballs.

“Oh, I think what we have now is far better,” he told me. “You think?” I asked. “Sure, he replied. Why don’t you inspect the new model for yourselves.” Dude: we’re not metallurgists; we’re car dealers.

“Well, you can have some tests done,” he offered. But since when did it become the responsibility of the dealer to test the quality of the cars he sells? Isn’t that what manufacturers do? I know there are issues with China generally, but give me a break. Can he seriously expect us to distribute a product whose quality issues are completely unknown? How many Honda dealers would there be if Honda shifted the responsibility of QC to its dealers? Our job is to sell high-quality, high-value cars. His job is to make damn sure that the cars he’s selling us meets those criteria — regardless of what it takes to do that.

I’m unwilling to paint an entire nation and all of its product with the same brush, but we really do have a quality issue here. Any suggestions?

Tagged with: , , ,

PhotobucketIn a recent post, Bill Paul points out that the reaction to the oil spill in the Gulf should be algae-generated biofuels. But why not liquid ammonia, as Peak Oil pundit Matt Simmons would suggest? As Matt old me when I interviewed him for my book on renewables (and then reminded me in a phone call the other day) anhydrous ammonia is an ultra-clean, energy-dense alternative liquid fuel, for which an enormous delivery infrastructure is already in place. With the exception of hydrogen (for there is virtually no delivery infrastructure) ammonia is the only fuel that produces no greenhouse gases (GHG) on combustion. Ammonia will power diesel and spark-ignited internal combustion engines, and can be manufactured from simply water and air using clean renewable energy.

I’ll see if I can see Bill to comment on this.

Tagged with: , , ,

TV’s talking heads seem to think that wind and solar power are the answer to reducing America’s oil usage. How stupid can they be? Wind and solar make electricity, which won’t be ready to power large numbers of motor vehicles for many years.  Biofuel is the only short-term answer — not fuel-blending ethanol but fuel-substituting algae. I’m still waiting for one of TV’s talking heads to talk about the need for a massive program to put algae-derived gasoline refining on the map.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

PhotobucketRegardless of what happens with renewables, we can all agree that energy efficiency represents a large part of getting where we need to be in terms of sustainability. But trying to make sense of utilities’ billing policies for on- and off-peak usage — ostensibily aimed at encouraging sensible energy consumption — is impossible. Here’s a really good article by a consultant in the area that suggests the need for a simpler way of expressing the issues to the typical consumer. But isn’t the article itself 90 miles over the head of most of us?

I wrote to its author, and asked him this: In a world with time-of-use metering, what exactly is the problem with extremely clear, consumer-friendly wording that lays out a pricing structure that encourages off-peak consumption? Can’t we tell consumers that they will pay through the nose for electricity at 2 PM – 6 PM, but that they will get it for a small fraction of that at 3 AM — a time at which the utilities can sell it quite profitably? And if we do, won’t most folks adjust their lives accordingly? People (the vast majority of us) who care about our utility bills understand this, and react accordingly.

I don’t understand why this subject has to be so complicated. If I’m missing something, I hope someone will clue me in.

Tagged with: , ,

I’m trying to make a bit more time each day to blog on other sites. As you can imagine, trying to make some level of impact on each of the sites associated with renewables — or with energy more generally — could be a full-time job for dozens of people. But I’ll make an effort; it will be interesting to see which sites attract more readers.

Here’s a piece on greenwashing and clean coal that I just put up on EnergyBlogs.com.

We’ll see what happens here.

Tagged with: , ,

I’m not sure how many people clicked on this link on my reference to greenwashing in yesterday’s piece on corporate sustainability, but I encourage everyone to check out this marvelous site. It doesn’t surprise me that GE tries to establish the validity of clean coal, or that Arrowhead drinking water claims that its bottles are eco-friendly because they use less plastic that they did before — or even that the Hummer3 is fuel-efficient because it’s smaller than the previous even-worse versions of this obscenity. But fortunately, thanks to websites like GreenOptions, such blatent examples of greenwashing come at the expense of some pretty heavy-duty ridicule. Good going, fellows.

Tagged with: , , , , ,

PhotobucketIn response to my recent piece on sustainability, a friend of a friend whose name I won’t use writes:

Thanks for the link, but sustainability can come only after one gets a business started. Day 1 you receive the money, day 2 is about sustainability. Sustainability is also about a term called the triple bottom line …. Now, back to finding the money to start our business.

To which I responded,

(Name):

I don’t want to sound holier than thou, but I respectfully disagree. There’s nothing the matter with being a capitalist; I’ve made a considerable buck in my life as well. But I ask you to look at what you’re saying:

You’re starting a business, (company name), to manufacture electric vehicles and you want money to do that … and you’ll think about sustainability after you get your money?

What’s the metaphor again? Putting the cart before the antelope? No… the wildebeest? No, that’s not it either…

I’m sorry; I’m not trying to be a smart-ass. But trust me here: if you were making potato chips, that would be one thing.  But you’ll raise money for this business to the degree that you’re sincere about doing something decent for the other seven billion people on this planet. Do you think we need a new group to build more Hummers, plastic water bottles, or Big-Macs? No. Don’t join the rapists. You have the rare opportunity to make a difference in a positive way; take advantage of this moment. 

I’m reminded of the heyday of my marketing consulting business as a (much) younger man. My biggest years happened when I was so busy working to make my clients successful that it was November before I had a chance to ask my bookkeeper, “Hey – have we made any money yet?”

Do yourself and everyone around you a favor — get into it, man. You will thrive to the degree to which your business adds honest value to its customers.  Trust me here.

Tagged with: ,

With the White House emphasizing that BP is liable for billions in damages from the Gulf oil spill, it would seem only a matter of time before BP files for court protection under bankruptcy laws. The company would continue to operate, and quite possibly the US taxpayer will get stuck for more of the cleanup costs.

Tagged with: , ,

PhotobucketI had lunch last week with Pete May, publisher of GreenBiz and many other related websites. He’s a magnificently smart fellow, and quite well dialed-in to the corporate sustainability movement — attending numerous conferences, and doing everything necessary to keep his finger on the pulse of what’s happening in this space.

I asked him about some of the themes that resonate most with directors of corporate sustainability, and threw out some suggestions. He said, “That’s good, but it’s essentially ‘Sustainability 101.’ These people have consultants coming at them from 15 different directions at the same time. You have to make sure you’re telling them something they don’t already know.”

I have to say that this does strike me as an interesting challenge. I read a whitepaper yesterday that drew the distinction between the thinking of the mid-20th Century from Milton Friedman and Peter Drucker (essentially that corporations exist for the financial benefit of their shareholders) and today’s thinking — that corporations should maximize profit without compromising the quality of life for future generations.  Twenty-one pages later, that was pretty much it. It certainly left me thinking about my lunch with Peter.  If this whitepaper wasn’t Sustainability 101, I wouldn’t know what to call it.

I’m not an expert in this space, but I’m making a concerted effort to learn more about it. And in this process, I’m betting that the brass ring in corporate sustainability resides in helping businesses actually improve their profitability — not through greenwashing — but by legimitately aligning themselves with nature — developing a meaningful and effective way for strategic planners to learn from natural systems and processes.

Business leaders are looking for a process by which they can extract themselves from old-line thinking, and begin to think like the planet. They want a set of paradigm breaking exercises that stimulate new visions for business products, services, and processes — each inspired by 3.7 billion years of evolution.

We at 2GreenEnergy are teaming up with a wonderful organization called Ethical Impact to provide a series of webinars on this exact subject; we’re very excited about the potentials.  Please write me for more details if you’re interested.

I also remind readers: you’ll struggle mightily to invest 23 minutes of your life any more productively than by watching this incredible presentation on the subject by sustainability/biomimicry pioneer Janine Benyus.

Tagged with: , , ,