Today on Wall Street

Monday, September 15, 2008

Why the Gasoline Engine Isn't Going Away Any Time Soon

Blame it on technology, cost -- and the American way of life
By JOSEPH B. WHITE


An automotive revolution is coming -- but it's traveling in the slow lane.

High oil prices have accomplished what years of pleas from environmentalists and energy-security hawks could not: forcing the world's major auto makers to refocus their engineers and their capital on devising mass-market alternatives to century-old petroleum-fueled engine technology.

With all the glitzy ads, media chatter and Internet buzz about plug-in hybrids that draw power from the electric grid or cars fueled with hydrogen, it's easy to get lulled into thinking that gasoline stations soon will be as rare as drive-in theaters. The idea that auto makers can quickly execute a revolutionary transition from oil to electricity is now a touchstone for both major presidential candidates.

That's the dream. Now the reality: This revolution will take years to pull off -- and that's assuming it isn't derailed by a return to cheap oil. Anyone who goes to sleep today and wakes up in five years will find that most cars for sale in the U.S. will still run on regular gas -- with a few more than today taking diesel fuel. That will likely be the case even if the latter-day Rip Van Winkle sleeps until 2020.

Read the full article in the Wall Street Journal.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

The Fuel of the Future

Validating Thomas Edison

At the turn of the last century, cars came in steam, electric, and gasoline versions. When Thomas Edison was asked which he favored, without hesitating, his reply was electric cars. They didn’t have the vibration, noise, and smell associated with gasoline cars or the long start up times and limited range of steam cars. Had someone listened to him at the time, we might not now be stuck with a 19th century technology that requires us to send huge amounts of money to countries whose chief exports are petroleum and terrorists.

In spite of huge vested interests in the status quo, it’s no longer a question of whether cars with combustion engines will end up in museums, but when. Ultimately, the demise of this technology will come down to economics and consumer satisfaction. The next generation of cars will cost less to drive, will require less maintenance, and won’t require the sacrifice of size or comfort.

The Contenders

If it were possible to harness all the hot air coming out of our politicians on this subject, we could probably power our cars indefinitely. However, until that day comes, the fuels being most widely considered are ethanol/biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity. There’s also a very interesting newcomer to this discussion, compressed natural gas (CNG).

The Bipartisan Choice

At present, subsidies for ethanol dwarf our spending on any other form of alternative fuel. This is the bipartisan choice, supported by both Democrats and Republicans. That alone should be a red flag.
Treating what is basically moonshine as the answer to our dependence on oil from the Middle East is as silly as it sounds. However, the politics behind this idea appear to be more than enough to trump common sense for the time being.

Farmers are the largest contributors to politicians in most states. While they’re generally found in more red states than blue states, they usually have sense enough to shower both parties with contributions and have bought broad support for ethanol subsidies as a result.

Meanwhile, the auto industry is desperately looking for another fuel to keep cars powered by the combustion engine alive because the parts and service business for the next generation of vehicles is likely to be a lot less lucrative. It doesn’t hurt that the auto industry is also one of the last bastions of union labor in the private sector or that Michigan is a swing state. As a result, both parties are inclined to make sure that what the auto industry wants, it gets. This brings to mind the saying “be careful what you wish for”.

Politics aside, ethanol is a train wreck. It costs more than gasoline to use because it reduces mileage. People don’t eat less just because their food is being turned into fuel so it drives up food prices by shrinking the supply of food while the population continues to grow. It requires a huge and very expensive infrastructure. Finally, it can never be produced in enough quantity to satisfy the demand for vehicle fuel in this country. It never has been, and never will be, a serious solution to our energy problem. All it shows is that government solutions to problems invariably involve the politically connected and waste huge amounts of taxpayer dollars.

Renewable, Plentiful & Sooooo Expensive

Hydrogen is the next candidate. It’s everywhere. It’s plentiful. It’s renewable. You can even make the stuff from water. When it comes to alternative fuels, it might also be the only idea that’s makes ethanol look good in comparison.

There is no pure hydrogen anywhere on this planet, so it requires energy to separate hydrogen molecules. Almost all the hydrogen today is produced from natural gas in a conversion process that requires more energy than it produces. By the time this process spits out hydrogen, about 60% of the original energy has been lost. It can also be made by electrolysis but the economics of getting hydrogen from water are even worse, so this accounts for only small percentage of the hydrogen available commercially.

I recently drove a Toyota powered by a fuel cell that ran on compressed hydrogen during hydrogen day at Exposition Park (Los Angeles) on 8/23/08. Acceleration was a bit sluggish, but the SUV was solid and quiet, had the usual amenities, had enough range to drive from Las Vegas to Los Angeles on a tank of compressed hydrogen, and had enough room for passengers and cargo.

The event was littered with auto company representatives that were pretty vague when it came to costs. I finally found a graduate student involved in hydrogen car research that had access to a hydrogen filling station at his university. According to him, the hydrogen equivalent of a gallon of gasoline costs $5 there and is heavily subsidized. The cost of the fuel cell to turn the hydrogen into electricity to power the car is still in six figures, but is expected to come down if this technology becomes more widely adopted.

To prove the point about this technology still having poor economics, Toyota recently announced plans to begin leasing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Japan that are very similar to the one I drove. The cost is $7,700 per month for a 30 month lease, which doesn’t include the cost of hydrogen.

Between the cost as well as nagging safety issues (hydrogen is 10 times more flammable than gasoline and 20 times more explosive) my guess is a better technology will cause the government grants keeping this technology alive to dry up well before the economics of hydrogen ever allow it to be widely adopted as a vehicle fuel. This is a technology in desperate need of a several major breakthroughs before it’s even close to becoming viable.

The Clean Fossil Fuel

It’s hard to see much sense in wasting 60% of the energy in natural gas to turn it into hydrogen which then requires a fuel cell that costs six figures to turn it into electricity, and then requires an electric drive to power the result. Why not just compress the natural gas (CNG), make a few modifications to the car so the combustion engine can burn it, and then save 40% on the cost of vehicle fuel? As CNG burns much cleaner than gasoline, this will also reduce emissions.

Since natural gas is a hydrocarbon that isn’t renewable, we still have the long term problem of finite supplies. In addition, natural gas produces less energy than a comparable amount of gasoline, so the range of CNG vehicles tends to be less and the storage tank tends to be bigger, which reduces the amount of space available for passengers and cargo. For reference, the only car available designed specifically to run on CNG is the Honda Civic GX. It has a price tag of $24,590 and a range of around 170 miles.

For alternatives to gasoline, building the necessary infrastructure is the biggest challenge and CNG is no exception. There are only about 1100 CNG filling stations in the U.S. and only about half are open to the public. This compares with around 170,000 gasoline stations in the U.S. and leaves us with a familiar Catch 22 when it comes to alternative fuels. The demand for CNG vehicles is limited by the low number of available refueling stations, but these stations may not be built until there are more CNG vehicles on the road.

However, when compared with ethanol and hydrogen, CNG looks like the pick of the litter. Because of this idea is finally starting to get some traction. Finite supplies mean this is more of a stopgap measure than a long term solution to our energy problems. However, the sources of supply are more stable (Canada, U.S. & Mexico) it is less expensive than gasoline, and existing vehicles can be adapted to use it as a fuel. Developing additional supplies will have to overcome the usual opposition from the environmental movement and it remains to be seen if CNG will still be competitive when the cost of building more infrastructure is added in and increasing demand bumps up against finite supplies.

The Combustion Engine Slayer

It has taken a century, but Thomas Edison’s favorite vehicle fuel is finally poised to begin the process of changing what we drive. Vehicles powered by electricity (EVs) are going to make the internal combustion engine look like a noisy, inefficient, heat-blasting, poison-spewing monster with too many moving parts in comparison.

Unlike combustion engines, electric drives are very efficient, have few moving parts, are very quiet, and can go a lot longer with less maintenance. This is not exactly good news for automakers that have built up a very lucrative parts and service business to support the combustion engine. Toyota in particular has been especially egregious in requiring its customers to have their cars serviced by a dealer every 5,000 miles and pay through the nose for the privilege. Their reaction to this revolution has been to drag their feet as long as possible when it comes to introducing a plug-in (PHEV) Prius and ignore EVs completely in the hope they’ll go away. For companies like General Motors that get it, Toyota’s uncharacteristic lack of vision gives GM an opportunity to recapture lost market share. It’s pretty safe to say that driving costs of a few pennies a mile coupled with extended service intervals and substantial savings on maintenance will make EVs and PHEVs a big hit with consumers.

For Thomas Edison’s vision to be fully realized, a nationwide network of charging stations will still have to be built. Electricity is already widely available, so the infrastructure problems for this technology appear to be less daunting. In addition, several companies have already developed lithium batteries that can fully recharge in the time it takes to fill a gas tank, which will minimize the inconvenience factor. The last nail in the coffin for combustion engines is another battery breakthrough that dramatically increases the range of electric vehicles. Recently, there has been a very promising discovery http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html that may solve this problem. Whether this or something else overcomes the final hurdle, the chances are very high that EVs will eliminate the need for the internal combustion engine within a decade.

In the meantime, however, lithium battery technology will allow hybrids to take the next step by turning them into plug-in hybrids. This is now possible because batteries made of lithium are lighter and can store several times more electricity than batteries made of lead or nickel.

(Left) The Fisker Karma plug-in, available in 2009 for about $80k.





These add less weight to a vehicle and dramatically increase its range. If you look through the archives of, you’ll see a flood of recent announcements about lithium batteries for vehicles going into mass production along with almost daily announcements about new hybrid, PHEV, and EV introductions. This time, the genie is out of the bottle for good.

Initial lithium battery plug-ins will have a range of up to 50 miles on the batteries alone. While that may not sound like much, keep in mind that 80% of the people in this country drive 50 miles a day or less so this can eliminate most of the demand for gasoline and CNG could eliminate the rest. If your PHEV is charged at off peak hours when you’re asleep, the fuel cost will be a few pennies per mile.

Rethinking the AutomobiIe

With about three dozen EVs and PHEVs now on the drawing boards, in production, or for sale, a whole new generation of independent automakers is getting involved. Since most of them don’t come from Detroit, they don’t know that a car should be a boxy, rectangular thing with four wheels that’s made out of steel. New materials and new designs are going to create lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles that also help to increase the range of battery power. Electric drives will also allow designers to produce cars that destroy the stereotypes most people have about EV performance.

EVs allow an electric drive to be placed on each wheel, which is a far more efficient way of powering a car. If your stereotype of an EV is a pimped out golf cart for environmentalists, think again. Designers in Japan have already doubled the number of wheels to eight, attached an electric drive to each one, and created the Eliica (pictured above) with a top speed of 230 MPH. Here’s how it stacks up against a Porche.

(Left) The founders of Google have invested in the Aptera, now available in fully electric or plug-in versions for under $30K.

Designers are also going the opposite direction. Currently, there are several three wheel vehicles now in production or on the drawing boards. These have room for two, but qualify as motorcycles in most states including California which means that a lone driver has access to the carpool lane on the freeways. The leading company in this area appears to be Aptera.

For anyone getting a little bored with their automotive choices, the world is about to get a LOT more interesting.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Mixing Moonshine with Politics

Is ethanol the fuel of the future or another giveaway to farmers?

Although our economy has morphed into something that would make Adam Smith turn over in his grave, the U.S. still generally permits more old fashioned capitalism than the rest of the world. However, there is one glaring exception. This industry is protected from free market competition with subsidies and welfare payments that single mothers with too many children can only dream of. The undisputed kings of welfare in this country are big farmers and food processors, and they did it the old fashioned way. In many states, they’re the biggest contributors to politicians.

Food vs Fuel

Ethanol is a perfect example of how, once politicians begin writing checks to powerful constituencies, those checks tend to keep coming even when there’s no longer a need for them. Several years ago, price support programs for corn had encouraged excess production that resulted in a lot of corn sitting around in warehouses. World corn prices were in the toilet which left third world farmers at poverty levels and bitterly complaining about farm subsidies in the developed world that kept them poor.

When oil prices started to go up, it was only a matter of time before politicians noticed all that corn sitting around. Converting this to ethanol would make it look as though they were doing something about the energy problem, would get rid of those embarrassing corn surpluses that annoy the third world, and allow them to throw more taxpayer dollars at folks who already know how to play the game and would gladly return a sizeable portion in the form of bigger campaign contributions. It was a politician’s wet dream, which is why both parties supported it.

It apparently didn’t occur to Congress that people weren’t going to eat less simply because food was being turned into fuel. According to Wikipedia, biofuels consumed one third of America's corn harvest in 2007. Each time a large vehicle is filled with ethanol, enough corn to feed one person for a year goes into the tank. Fast forward to the present. With less food now available while the population increases, food prices have skyrocketed. Now, it isn’t corn filling up the storage facilities, its ethanol. As the poor have trouble feeding their families, riots over rising food prices have broken out in the third world.

However, our politicians know that buying the farm vote is what’s REALLY important, so the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 extended the 51 cent per gallon ethanol subsidy and required American fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels (mostly ethanol) by 2022. This will represent roughly a five fold increase from the 7.23 million gallons expected to be produced in 2008.

Infrastructure Issues

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, there are currently 1,587 filling stations distributing ethanol, out of a total of about 170,000 in the U.S. Not surprisingly, most of these are located in the corn growing states in the Midwest. It’s safe to say this number has to expand a bit for ethanol to have any impact on our demand for gasoline.

Even though more ethanol plants are going to be built, getting it to consumers will take time and a big capital investment. One of ethanol’s problems is that it’s very corrosive when it comes into contact with anything containing iron. This is why cars have to be retrofitted before using it. However, the biggest problem comes in transportation. Not only does ethanol evaporate quickly, but its corrosiveness means it can’t be pumped through existing gasoline pipelines. As a result, it has to be shipped on trucks, trains, and barges in relatively small amounts to special storage facilities where it’s blended with gas.

Even if the necessary infrastructure gets built, there’s another small problem. According to Wikipedia, producing enough ethanol to replace current U.S. petroleum use alone would require about 75% of all the cultivated land on the face of the Earth. From this, it should be pretty obvious that ethanol never was, and never will be, a serious solution to our energy problem.

Brazil

Brazil is currently the world’s low cost producer of ethanol. It isn’t rocket science to figure out that, if there’s a correlation between sugar content and the resulting amount ethanol that’s produced, the best stuff to make it from is sugar cane or sugar beets. For comparison purposes, U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because there’s an extra step in the process. Corn must first be converted into starch and then into sugar before being distilled into alcohol. This extra step also means that, at best, the production of corn ethanol produces only slightly more energy than it consumes.

Brazil would happily ship ethanol to the U.S. for less than it costs to make and distribute here, and the savings would give U.S. consumers more money to spend on other items. However, to eliminate this possibility, there’s currently an import duty of 54 cents per gallon on Brazilian ethanol. Apparently, finding another affordable fuel and helping the economy isn’t nearly as important as protecting U.S. farmers from competition.

Pricing & the Inconvenience Factor

The most common ethanol based fuel is known as E85, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Several years ago, prices were all over the map. In states with an established infrastructure, it was generally priced at 40-50 cents per gallon less than gasoline. However, in states that had just begun to offer it, the cost of building the infrastructure resulted in E85 being priced as much as 50 cents per gallon MORE than gasoline.

However, it didn’t long for consumers to do the math, and that’s when things begun to go south. When compared with gasoline, E85 reduces mileage by around 30%, which made it a significantly more expensive fuel to use. If you’re an ethanol producer, you know you have a problem when even the Post Office can figure it out.

The additional problem is the inconvenience factor. A consumer that fills their car with gasoline every 7 days would have to fill up with ethanol every 5 days because of the reduced range from lower mileage. Over a year, that’s an extra 21 days that has to be spent looking for a gas station.

Brazil has recognized this and priced their ethanol for about 1/3 less than gasoline. At that kind of discount, many people there are willing to use it. For comparison purposes, ethanol prices in the U.S. in May 2008 averaged 17.2% less than gasoline , which still isn’t enough of a discount. For U.S. ethanol producers, the Catch 22 is that even with the subsidy, the economics of corn ethanol production may not allow them to make a profit if the discount reaches a level that might make consumers consider using it.

This has been confirmed by a recent article in Reuters . Corn at $8 per bushel has caused about a dozen ethanol plants in the U.S. to recently file for bankruptcy protection because of high feedstock costs and lousy profit margins. The affected plants are mostly small or mid-sized facilities and more are likely to announce bankruptcy soon. In addition, many ethanol plants are only operating at 50 percent capacity and previously-announced plants are being stalled or stopped completely.

Down a Rat Hole

Ethanol has been around a long time, and the powerful corn lobby seems to trot it out and then lobby for handouts every time the price of oil goes up. It was also touted as the fuel of the future and received significant subsidies during the last energy crisis in the 1980’s. At that time, the number of ethanol plants increased from less than 10 in 1980 to 163 in 1984. By the end of 1985, 89 of these plants had closed as the price of oil came back down. As Yogi Berra would say, what’s happening now is déjà vu, all over again.

However, current subsidies make the 1980’s pale in comparison. Federal subsidies for ethanol totaled about $6.8 billion taxpayer dollars in 2006 and will increase to about $8.7 billion a year in 2007. The biggest beneficiary, Archer Daniels Midland, has the capacity to produce 1.7 billion gallons. At 51 cents per gallon, that would amount to $867 million annually while Congress searches in vain for loopholes to plug.

However, it isn’t just the criminal waste of taxpayer dollars that’s infuriating. This is the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. Congress is subsidizing a fuel that can never solve our energy problem while gasoline prices soar. The private sector knows the fuel of the future is electricity, not ethanol, and there will be a flood of plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles introduced in the next few years. Once electricity replaces gasoline as a fuel, the resulting vehicles will go further with less maintenance and cost pennies per mile to drive. To make this a reality, better batteries and a nationwide network of charging stations are needed. Unfortunately, the resources that could make this happen sooner rather than later are being poured down a rat hole.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Shai Agassi's Audacious Plan to Put Electric Cars on the Road

Shai Agassi looks up and down the massive rectangular table in the Ritz-Carlton ballroom and begins to worry. He knows he's out of his league here. For the last day and a half, he's been listening to an elite corps of Israeli and US politicians, businesspeople, and intellectuals debate the state of the world. Agassi is just one of 60 sequestered in a Washington, DC, hotel for a conference run by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Among the participants: Bill Clinton, former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres, Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, and two past directors of the CIA.

It's December 2006. Scheduled to speak in a few minutes, Agassi gets nudged by the Israeli minister of education: "Be optimistic," she tells him. "We've got to close with an upbeat tone." Agassi thanks her. Optimism won't be a problem.

At 38, Agassi is the youngest invitee. Just after the dotcom boom, SAP, the world's largest maker of enterprise software, paid $400 million for a small-business software company he started with his father; now he's SAP's head of products and widely presumed to be the next CEO. But he's not here this morning to talk about business software. Instead, his topic will be the world's addiction to fossil fuels. It's a recent passion and the organizers invited him to counterbalance the man speaking now, Daniel Yergin, the famed energy consultant and oil industry analyst. Yergin gives them his latest thinking: Energy independence is unattainable. Oil consumption will continue to rise. Iran will get richer. It's not exactly what this audience wants to hear.

Now it's Agassi's turn. He starts off uncharacteristically nervous, stammering a bit. He's got something different, he says. A new approach. He believes it just might be possible to get the entire world off oil. For good. Point by point, gaining speed as he goes, he shares for the first time in public the ideas that will change his future—and possibly the world's.

Agassi has dark hair, light brown eyes, and a square jaw. He's a careful speaker, holding back until the right moment before delivering his thoughts. He's partial to dramatic pauses, especially if he's about to explain how the future is going to look—something he does all the time. People often think he's kidding, partly because he always has a slight, wry smile. But when the pause ends, what follows—no matter how far-fetched—is never a joke. At his first executive board meeting at SAP, a company that had grown dominant by moving slowly and conservatively, Agassi suggested nearly a dozen heretical ideas. He said SAP should give away its hardware and software for free—just charge for IT support. He said SAP should make its database business open source to undermine Oracle. The other board members laughed: The new kid was a cutup! But they stopped when SAP cofounder Hasso Plattner looked around the table and said, "He's the only guy making sense here."

Agassi's interest in energy is new. In 2005, he joined Young Global Leaders, an invitation-only group for politicians and businesspeople under 40. The four-day induction seminar was held at the Swiss ski resort of Zermatt. Between lectures, YGLs like Skype cofounder Niklas Zennström and NBA star Dikembe Mutombo pledged to find ways to "make the world a better place" by 2020. Agassi's assignment was the environment, and he quickly focused in on climate change.

Most left the event and just poked around in their own industries, looking for small tweaks and improvements. But Agassi wanted something bigger. Back home in Silicon Valley, his day job involved coaxing SAP into the Web 2.0 era. But after Zermatt, his nights were devoted to dinners with energy experts, books on energy policy, and sessions on Wikipedia, learning everything he could about the carbon economy. Getting off oil was the key, he decided. But how? He started by looking at cutting energy usage in the home, then moved to a more tempting target: transportation. Was hydrogen the answer? What about embedding power in the street—like slot cars? Could more be done with biofuels? Agassi kept a running file on his home PC and began working on a series of white papers.

The problem, he decided, was oil-consuming, CO2-spewing cars. The solution was to get rid of them. Not just some, and not just by substituting hybrids or flex fuels. No half measures. The internal combustion engine had to be retired. The future was in electric cars.

This was hardly an original insight; electric cars had been the future for over 100 years. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Electric Vehicle Company was the largest automaker in the US, with dealers from Paris to Mexico City. But oil, in the end, supplanted volts on American highways because of one perennial problem: batteries. Car batteries, then and now, are heavy and expensive, don't last long, and take forever to recharge. In five minutes you can fill a car with enough gas to go 300 miles, but five minutes of charging at home gets you only about 8 miles in an electric car. Clever tricks, like adding "range extenders"—gas engines that kick in when a battery dies—end up making the cars too expensive.

Agassi dealt with the battery issue by simply swatting it away. Previous approaches relied on a traditional manufacturing formula: We make the cars, you buy them. Agassi reimagined the entire automotive ecosystem by proposing a new concept he called the Electric Recharge Grid Operator. It was an unorthodox mashup of the automotive and mobile phone industries. Instead of gas stations on every corner, the ERGO would blanket a country with a network of "smart" charge spots. Drivers could plug in anywhere, anytime, and would subscribe to a specific plan—unlimited miles, a maximum number of miles each month, or pay as you go—all for less than the equivalent cost for gas. They'd buy their car from the operator, who would offer steep discounts, perhaps even give the cars away. The profit would come from selling electricity—the minutes.

There would be plugs in homes, offices, shopping malls. And when customers couldn't wait to "fill up," they'd go to battery exchange stations where they would pull into car-wash-like sheds, and in a few minutes, a hydraulic lift would swap the depleted battery with a fresh one. Drivers wouldn't pay a penny extra: The ERGO would own the battery.

Agassi unveiled the outline of his vision for the crowd at the Saban event: a new kind of infrastructure, with ubiquitous charge stations, that was not only simple and logical but potentially profitable, too. As he talked, he read the body language of the audience—they were leaning forward, they were nodding—and he fed off it, layering on details. A country like Israel, he told them, could get off oil by simply adopting his new business model. No technological breakthroughs were necessary. No new inventions. It was as if he'd discovered a trapdoor beneath both the gasoline industry and the auto industry, a combined $3 trillion market. It sounded easy and unavoidable. Even Daniel Yergin was amazed. Shai Agassi had stolen the show.

A week later, Agassi was in bed when his phone rang. He was asked to hold for Shimon Peres. At first he thought it was a joke.

"Now what?" said the familiar rumbling voice on the other end of the line. Peres said he had been thinking about Agassi's speech since returning to Israel. He wanted to know what Agassi was going to do about it.

"What do you mean?" Agassi asked.

"You spoke so beautifully, you have to make this a reality. Otherwise, it will remain a speech."

After that conversation, Agassi couldn't get Peres' voice out of his head. A few months later, when his boss broke the news that he wouldn't be getting the top job at SAP anytime soon, Agassi shocked just about everyone in the tech world by quitting. And not long after that, in May 2007, he launched Project Better Place, the world's first global electric-car grid operator (he later dropped "Project"). He had no cars, no test site, and no electrical engineering or auto experience. It wasn't even clear that consumers wanted change. They were paying $3 a gallon, painful but bearable.

Nevertheless, many of Agassi's colleagues from SAP joined him. They realized that what Shai was building was still essentially a software company. He needed a network that allowed cars to tell the grid how much charge they were carrying and how much more they required. The system had to know where the car was so it could tell the driver where to go to "fill up." And it had to electronically negotiate with the local energy utility over when it could and couldn't take power and how much to pay. Few of his colleagues asked to read the business plan before signing on. They were joining the cause, not just the company. "Once you have a mission," Agassi told me over dinner one night last winter, "you can't go back to having a job."

By early summer 2008, Agassi had two countries ready to roll out the plan, a major automaker producing the cars, and $200 million in committed capital. He had launched the fifth-largest startup of all time in less than a year.

After a career spent thinking exclusively about business software, Agassi now thrills to the idea that he's changing the world. "I get to shift multiple markets," he says. "I get to shift economies. It's extremely liberating. I breathe differently."

Israelis like to call Peres, now their president, a visionary, and they mean it as both a compliment and a dig. He sees where things can go but not necessarily how to get there. When I spoke with him, he recognized that Agassi has to deal with the same challenge: "When you translate a dream into reality," he said, "it's never a full implementation. It is easier to dream than to do."

It is mid-May, and Agassi is sitting at the head of a conference table in the Kiryat Atidim high tech office park in northern Tel Aviv. Two dozen Better Place engineers and executives are grabbing platefuls of fresh watermelon and finding seats. About a third have flown in from the company's Palo Alto headquarters; the rest are based here. Agassi knows the Israeli tech community intimately. He was born here to immigrant parents—his dad's family fled from Iraq, his mom's from Morocco—and at 15 he was accepted into the Technion, Israel's MIT. After graduating, he and his father, also a Technion alum, started a series of software companies. They had their pick of talent: The country's density of scientists and engineers is among the highest in the world.

This is the first time that most of these Better Placers have been together in one room. Agassi slumps low in his chair, staring at this morning's first speaker, his little brother, Tal. Better Place is a family affair. Agassi's younger sister, Dafna Barazovsky, also works there, and their father, Reuven, frequently sits in on meetings.

Tal wears a tight-fitting button-down, and as usual his hair is heavily gelled in spikes. At 33, he is Better Place's head of network deployment, overseeing every aspect of the all-important electric grid. Behind him are three gray-and-blue mock-ups of the charging stations. These will be much more than dumb sockets; they have to carry the charge, sure, but they also must withstand being dinged by cars, vandalized by thieves, and subjected to the heat and cold. And they have to communicate with Better Place headquarters to verify that, yes, this is a subscriber and here's how to bill them. The first order of business is to choose a design.

"Put them on the table," Agassi tells his brother, who gently positions the foam models so everyone can vote. The first looks like a giant Pez dispenser, with a skinny trunk leading up to a cantilevered box that houses the charging equipment. The second has a fat base and a skinny body that zigs in the middle, like a svelte E.T. The last one is waist-high, smaller than the others, and resembles a stunted drive-through squawk box. It's the most practical: It can be freestanding or mounted, and it would be the least objectionable to retail centers. It wins unanimous approval. Then, from all around the table, come the real questions. How does the box signal that it's out of service? Where will the 32-amp charging cable go—in the charging spot or in the vehicle? "In America and Australia, it has to be outside the car," declares Ziva Patir, a former vice president of the International Organization for Standardization. Agassi hired her in April, because he not only wants Better Place to adhere to every country's existing regulations, he wants to define the new standards for the coming global electric recharge grid. So the power cords will have to be coiled inside the device and pulled out like a garden hose. But how many hoses? Enough for two cars? Four cars? And if four, won't the box be too small to hold them all? Plus, what if the power outlet on the car is in the back and the driver pulls in facing forward?

Agassi has been listening, saying nothing. But now he reacts. "Our customer goes to park her car," he says. "She pulls in, then she's squeezing between two cars to drag out this big cable and walk it back to her car. She'll be wearing her nice work clothes and getting them dirty." His eyes are closed, his hands resting on his head. "Guys," he says, using a term that always signals his disappointment with the group, "we've just lost half the market. You need to make life simple for people."

Tal stands in the front of the room, slightly stunned. A small-scale Agassi family feud breaks out. Dafna, 37, head of marketing for Better Place's Israel operations, says it's not asking a lot for people to pull into a parking spot a certain way. Their father is sitting up front, but he remains quiet. Tal finally comes up with a response: "We can have a hydraulic arm holding the cable," he says.

That enrages the rest of the room. An arm! The cost of adding an arm to the hundreds of thousands of charge spots they envision will crater the business model, argues someone from the Israeli office. Forget money, someone else says: Redesigning these things will push us way behind on our deadlines. Agassi dismisses the whole idea of an arm. "It'll break in three months," he mutters to himself.

He tries to move the meeting along, but the cable and the connector keep coming up. Each proposed solution creates a new set of problems. ("It's like a fractal," Agassi tells me later of the process, with a hint of pleasure. "But at the end, what you want is a snowflake.") He asks occasional questions, but usually just about how the speaker came to a certain conclusion—it's the thought process more than the answer that seems to intrigue him.

Finally, as Hebrew and English blur into a confusing Esperanto roar, Agassi raises both arms over his head: "One conversation!" he shouts. And then, the pause. He suddenly sees how it's going to work. Maybe the arm isn't so wrong. "This is 'think different,'" he says, invoking Apple, a company that features prominently in the detailed business metaphors he always seems to have at hand. "What do we need to make this happen? Two servos, two degrees of movement for the arm." Pause. "This is the driver experience: He goes into a spot and the spot connects itself. In 2008, we put the cable in the unit, in 2010 we use an arm, in 2012, there's a smart arm that connects automatically. For the home unit, the users get a pull cable for free, or they pay $500 and they get autoconnect. It'll cost $250 to build, and we'll sell it for $500." Agassi has not only come around on the arm, he now thinks it is essential. End of discussion. He even names a company that can build the arm and suggests how to structure the deal.

"Shai's got two big traits," says Aliza Peleg, Better Place's VP of operations. "By the time he's thought of something, to him it's been completed, it's been achieved," she says. "The other trait is that by the time you've understood what he's thinking, he's already somewhere else. You're in catch-up mode 24/7."

For months, Tal and his team have been working with vendors to design and price the charging spots. Now he has to go back and tell them that they need to add arms—and eventually smart arms—and that the redesign has to be ready by their next all-company meeting, in 90 days.

Crazy. That's what people say when they first realize the scope of Agassi's project. He's tilting at electric windmills, fighting a fight that has undone countless well-funded, well-intentioned entrepreneurs before him. In a time when Silicon Valley is all about small—scalable startups like Flickr, Tumblr, and hundreds of other vowel-deprived minicompanies—Agassi is thinking big. Google, Ford, and Exxon Mobil big. His brother tells me that Better Place is going to become one of the biggest companies in the world. When I ask Shai if he's worried about a competitor stealing his idea, he stares at me like I'm an idiot. "The mission is to end oil," he says, "not create a company."

Most startups try out their product on beta testers. Agassi wanted a beta country. A cooperative national government would be willing to modify the tax code or offer other incentives—essential to getting consumers on board quickly. He wasn't selling cars, but really building a network; the bigger the initial base, the stronger the network effect. A small island nation would be ideal, since the range of his car is limited by the range of his charging grid. Fortunately, he already had deep family and business ties to a virtual island—Israel is surrounded by water on one side and by enemies on all others. The farthest a driver can safely go in a straight shot is about 250 miles. Plus, Israel is increasingly queasy about its role as an oil importer. Anything that threatens the livelihoods of hostile Arab oil sheikhs and Iranian mullahs has a special appeal in Agassi's native land.

Agassi got to work convincing the Israeli government in 2007. First he, Peres, and Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert pressed legislators to change the tax code to make electric vehicles more attractive to consumers. Under the proposed tax scheme, Israel's 78 percent tax on cars would be replaced by a 10 percent tax on zero-emission vehicles and a 72 percent tax on traditional gas-guzzlers. (After four years, the sales tax on electric vehicles will rise sharply.) Agassi argued that the revenue losses—calculated at $700 million over five years—would be insignificant compared to what foreign oil costs the economy. At a Jerusalem press conference in late January, Olmert beamed down at Agassi, who was sitting in the front row: "In order to bring about this dramatic change, sometimes we need a boy like in the fairy tales to say, 'Look, the emperor has no clothes.' We can all see that for ourselves, so how come we haven't said so? And this boy comes along and puts things in motion to bring about change. And the boy in this story—and he really is a boy, practically, but he has achieved more than many adults have—is, of course, Shai Agassi."

He had a country, but he also needed someone to build the cars. At the 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, when Agassi was still representing SAP, he met Carlos Ghosn, CEO of both Nissan and Renault—related companies that together form the fourth-largest automaker in the world. The two talked in Peres' hotel room. Agassi's timing couldn't have been better. Ghosn was looking for a way to leapfrog his competitors in the clean-vehicle arena. GM was chasing the hydrogen fuel cell, Ford liked biofuels, Toyota had the Prius. Ghosn was especially dismissive of the hybrid approach: "They're like mermaids," he told the Israelis. "When you want a fish you get a woman, and when you want a woman you get a fish." Ghosn's companies didn't have much except a tiny electric Nissan car and plans for a high-powered lithium-ion battery to be developed by Nissan and NEC. At best, he figured, he might be able to sell the vehicles to post offices or other companies that would buy a few dozen and never drive them more than 60 miles. Agassi's plan could open much bigger doors. Still, who was this guy? Ghosn was interested, but it was too early to make any commitment.

Two months later, Agassi quit his job at SAP. Soon he was looking for money and, in early June, he found himself sitting in an office in Tel Aviv's gleaming Millennium Tower, pitching to one of Israel's richest men, Idan Ofer.

Ofer is short and powerfully built; he carries himself like a wrestler ready for his next takedown. Ofer and his family have investments around the world, and much of their money is tied up in shipping. But he'd recently bought the largest oil refinery in Israel and was finalizing a joint venture with Chery Automobile, the massive Chinese auto company. Ofer liked what Better Place could do for Israel, and he thought it could work around the world. Plus, he really liked how it might make his China investment more valuable. Chery could build cars to work on the Better Place infrastructure. China itself could be a market. (Agassi has no deal yet with Chery, but one is being discussed.)

Most Israeli entrepreneurs who tried to get into Ofer's wallet were interested only in becoming big in Israel, then selling out. Ofer was impressed that Agassi's global ambitions surpassed even his own.

"He had the self-image of being an equal to Steve Jobs or Michael Dell or Bill Gates," Ofer says. "Even if this ends up destroying—for lack of a better word—my refinery business, that will be small money compared to what this will be. When you play chess, you give up something to get something else."

After the meeting, Ofer joined Agassi in the elevator. By the time they got to the street, he had committed $100 million. The total would eventually grow to $130 million. Agassi raised another $70 million more from Morgan Stanley and two venture firms, VantagePoint Venture Partners and Maniv Energy Capital.

Once Agassi had $200 million to fund the grid and a government serious about tax breaks, Renault began developing an electric car that would be ready for the market by 2011. Agassi promises that 50 Renault prototypes will be on Israeli roads this winter—and 1,000 stations will be there to recharge them. He's not talking about some three-wheeled, pimped-out golf carts, either, but blend-in-at-the-school-parking-lot cars and SUVs. The sedan will be mid-size, similar to Renault's popular Laguna and Mégane models and able to go from 0 to 60 in a respectable 7.5 seconds. Better Place expects to have close to 100,000 vehicles by the end of 2011. And while these might show up in Israel first, Renault plans for them eventually to be on roads worldwide. "We wouldn't have invested if we thought this was a onetime, one-place story," says Patrick Pélata, Renault's product manager and Ghosn's number two.

4x4 Projects in Kfar Saba, a suburb of Tel Aviv, is the auto equivalent of an Olympic training center. The building, however, doesn't look like much, just a mustard-yellow warehouse on a cluttered industrial side street. And inside, it's just a warren of cars, trucks, and auto parts. But on a lift sits a white Jeep Wrangler that's been outfitted with supersize off-road wheels, like a monster dune buggy. A green Hummer is parked in back, its diesel engine replaced with a high-powered Chevy small-block. And a silver BMW 318i has a shiny new Corvette V-8; touch the gas and the tail whips out, perfect for drifting. The only vehicle that doesn't really fit in is a completely ordinary family sedan, a silver 2005 Renault Mégane—Better Place's first prototype.

Agassi needed some way to test Better Place's all-important software, called AutOS (pronounced "autos"). The system serves as energy monitor, GPS unit, help center, and personal assistant, packed into an onboard PC that will also hold cellular and Wi-Fi chips. As part of the debugging process, Agassi bought the used Mégane and sent it to 4x4 with his car guy, Quin Garcia. The assignment was to convert it into an electric car.

Garcia was just finishing his master's in automotive engineering at Stanford University last year when he heard Agassi give a speech on campus. A few months later, he had a job at Better Place. Garcia's manner is laid-back Northern California until anything related to cars comes up, at which point he turns as intense as everyone else at Better Place.

Garcia reaches into the Mè9gane and pushes a button. Nothing happens. "It needs to be rebooted," he shouts to the owner of the shop. Garcia opens a silver box under the hood and fiddles with some buttons. "Control-Alt-Delete," jokes Better Place executive Barak Hershkovitz.

Hershkovitz oversees AutOS. He is the hard-nosed realist to Agassi's dreamer, the Scotty to his Kirk. That means Hershkovitz, even when he's joking, comes off hangdog—he knows that deadlines are looming.

Hershkovitz was about to start a residency in ophthalmology when he teamed up with Agassi in 1998. He was a brilliant, self-taught programmer, and what started as a bit of moonlighting quickly turned into a full-time job, first at one of the Agassi family companies, then at SAP. He quit soon after Agassi left, and now, with a staff of six, he's building AutOS.

The system reboots, and Garcia taps a blank spot on the dashboard to show where the car's AutOS-powered LCD will go. The garage's owner gets behind the wheel. I take the passenger seat, Garcia and Hershkovitz climb in back, and we head toward the highway. As we accelerate, I'm pinned uncomfortably to my seat. Unlike a traditional engine, an electric motor produces all of its power right away. (Recently, Ofer, whose $130 million investment made him chair of the board, took the prototype for a spin. Garcia and others watched in horror as Ofer's sharp steering, combined with the instant torque, caused an axle to snap.)

I keep waiting for the shift to another gear—the jerk that signals it's time to breathe again. "A normal gas engine spins at 6,000 rpm," Garcia says, noticing my surprise. "This motor can spin up to 12,000 rpm," which means there's no need to change gears. "You don't have the normal car problem where you need first gear to get off the line. We just took the original transmission and stuck it permanently in second."

As we approach a stop sign, the car feels like it's being held back by a rubber band. The tug, Hershkovitz explains, comes from what's called regeneration. "When you take your foot off the pedal, the car has kinetic energy," he says. "The motor starts charging the battery, turning the kinetic energy back to electric energy." He starts running through possible ways to turn the physics into a game: He wants Better Place users to be able to go to a Web site and see which drivers have racked up the most "regen." Maybe they'll win prizes.

Garcia decides to argue the point. "If you're regening, it means you used too much energy in the first place!" Meaning drivers should just take their foot off the accelerator sooner.

"Ah, you are not a computer. It's not like you can calculate how much energy you need to get to that red light," Hershkovitz says.

"Every time you do regen, there's a loss—it's not like you get it all back," protests Garcia. "The perfect driver would cruise around without ever using regen or the brakes. When they came to their destination, they would coast to a stop."

Hershkovitz ignores him. "Come on, let's go," he says as we pull back into the 4x4 shop. He has an appointment with a Japanese team from NEC to talk batteries. I follow him into his rented Mazda5 and find my body relaxing to the familiar shifts and jerks of the internal combustion engine.

The initial deal with Israel was, thanks to Agassi's connections, practically foreordained. The real test would be signing up a second country—a "validator," to use Agassi's term. In March, he got one. Denmark is everything Israel is not: a cold climate (which is hard on batteries), a net exporter of oil, a nation friendly with its neighbors. Agassi had no ties to the government. But he had a business model that proved irresistible to a Danish company called DONG Energy.

For DONG, Denmark's largest utility, Better Place offers an opportunity to solve one of its biggest problems: the economies of wind power. DONG makes a higher portion of energy from wind—18 percent—than any other power company in the world. Danish politicians want to see that figure doubled, which is good and green but completely impractical: Some days the wind blows, and some days it doesn't. Banking wind energy is expensive and inefficient—DONG would have to buy fields of batteries. Rather than lose it, the company ends up giving away excess power to Germany and Sweden. So when DONG CEO Anders Eldrup met with Agassi, he immediately saw that Better Place would not only appeal to his countrymen's environmental leanings, but the cars would also be a cheap, distributed way to store excess wind power. After the partnership was announced, Eldrup went for a haircut and found himself bombarded with questions about Better Place. His longtime barber had never once asked about Eldrup's business. Before the Better Place announcement, the man explained, he'd never really cared.

Better Place did seem to sell itself. That's what Agassi was discovering. The day of the Denmark announcement, he received a text message from an executive at a carmaker outside of the US. (He declines to name the company.)

"What's going on in Denmark?" it read.

Agassi, a bit confused, wrote back that he had just announced country two.

"What's the announcement?"

Agassi typed: "Zero percent tax on our cars, DONG as a partner."

The next day he got another text message: "But there was already 0 percent tax on alternative energy cars in Denmark."

Agassi sent back a long missive explaining that because of Better Place, Denmark was talking about expanding its tax break beyond the current 2012 cutoff date; that DONG was promising that it could supply 100 percent clean energy for all Better Place cars; that he's raising an additional$160 million for Denmark alone; and that Renault intended to supply all the cars Denmark could buy. He finished the message with some barbed advice: "I'll be offering $20,000 cars in a market where you're selling $60,000 cars. How many have you planned to sell in 2011 in Denmark? Because I recommend you take them off your plan."

The next day, Agassi was invited to a meeting with the automaker's CEO.

"I have a strong feeling this is where the industry is going to go," says Rod Lache, an auto analyst at Deutsche Bank. In March, Lache crunched the numbers for his clients on what Better Place might do to their portfolio of auto holdings. He figured a typical driver in the US gets 20 mpg. With gas at $4 per gallon, a driver who clocked 15,000 miles per year would have an annual gas bill of $3,000. The equivalent cost of electricity and battery depreciation—Better Place's cost to fill up its customers' cars, in other words—would be about $1,050. If Agassi had cheaper cars (thanks to tax breaks or incentives) and offered monthly plans that were lower than or equal to what consumers were paying at the pump, this would be phenomenally attractive. "Frankly," Lache wrote, "we are not aware of any reason why [automakers] would not sign up for this."

Early this summer, Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche told a German newspaper that his company would have an electric Mercedes and an electric Smart car on the market by 2010. When asked about the cost, he said it really depended on whether the batteries came with the car or were leased. No one had thought about separating the battery from the car before Agassi; now CEOs like Zetsche were treating it as standard electric-car business practice. And yes, Zetche confirmed, Daimler is talking to Better Place.

It's a warm mid-March morning in Washington, DC. Agassi has just flown in from San Francisco on the red-eye. He was booked in business class but ended up in coach, sleeping across three seats. His ever-present uniform—dark suit, white shirt—looks slightly rumpled. For years, Agassi has traveled almost constantly, and the irony of fighting planetary destruction while clocking countless hours of carbon-spewing jet travel isn't lost on him. "I have so many sins to pay on my climate bill right now that we hope this works really fast," he says.

If Better Place is to live up to Agassi's revolutionary goal, it will eventually have to win over Americans, the world's largest per-capita polluters. But that won't be easy.

He starts the day off with a speech at a conference organized by a left-leaning think tank. Speaking without notes, Agassi roams the stage, preaching the inevitability of his plan. He has a way of describing things that is never zero-sum; everybody wins in his version of the future, even when he's selling massive disruption.

"For the car companies, we made it simple," he says. "We separated the ownership of the car and the ownership of the battery. See, car companies don't know how to assess the life of the battery. So they go through these complicated programs of testing them for a long period of time. And we told the car company, you know what? Just like you don't sell a car with a card that says 'Here is oil for the life of the car,' you don't sell cars with the batteries for the life of the car, because the battery is crude oil." He explains that his plan alone, once scaled up, could produce a 20 percent drop in the world's CO2 emissions. And he wasn't stopping there. "If we also buy clean generation, we reduce the price of clean electrons so that at the end of 10 years, clean electrons are cheaper than coal-based electrons, and nobody builds another coal plant at that point. That's another 40 percent of CO2 emissions; that's the treaty Tony Blair is now working to get for the world by 2050. I'm telling you, we can get there a decade after we finish the car side. We can get there in 2030—60 percent reduction in our CO2 emissions."

After every speech—or just in the course of everyday business—one or two people ask Agassi for jobs. Michael Granoff, the venture capitalist who was Better Place's earliest investor, now works for Agassi as head of oil independence policies. ("I joke that 29 days a month Shai's my boss, and one day a month"—when Agassi briefs investors—"I'm his," Granoff says.) Today in DC, a young man from the Boston Consulting Group corners Agassi on his way out of the Hilton conference room and hands over his résumé. Granoff, who has organized Agassi's day, waits until the man is out of earshot and reminds Agassi that the same guy made the same request after a speech in Boston. Agassi has a groupie.

Outside the hotel, Granoff and Agassi jump into a hybrid Lexus SUV and head to Capitol Hill for a series of meetings. In the office of a New York House Democrat named Steve Israel, Agassi settles into a leather couch and makes a direct pitch. "Whoever is number 44," meaning the next president, "will transfer $2 trillion to $3 trillion out of the economy"—the amount America will spend on foreign oil in his first term. This is a line Agassi has been testing lately, and Israel seems to bite. "So what do we do?" asks the legislator. Agassi lays it out: He wants tax hikes on gas-powered cars. Israel tells him that will never fly. As Agassi discusses other possible incentives, Israel interrupts him: "We don't make batteries, so aren't we going to swap out foreign-oil dependence for foreign-battery reliance?" It's a strange theory, but Agassi doesn't blink. The conversation suddenly shifts to the best way to set up a battery-manufacturing center in the congressman's Long Island district.

Israel is late for a vote, so everyone hustles off toward the Capitol. As Israel veers away toward the House floor, Agassi enters an elevator followed by Kansas senator Sam Brownback. Granoff, who seems to know everyone in DC, introduces the two and quickly explains Better Place. Brownback asks if he can buy one of Agassi's cars. "One problem: We need the infrastructure first," Agassi says. "That's what we're building."

"All you need is a plug, right? Why would you need an infrastructure?" asks Brownback, who towers over Agassi.

Agassi pulls out his BlackBerry: "We're like AT&T, not Nokia," he says. But the cell phone analogy doesn't click here.

"So you're like a long extension cord?" asks Brownback, and everyone laughs politely. Agassi starts to explain, but the senator steps out. Granoff promises that he'll bring the two men together soon for a more substantial discussion.

The rest of the day proves equally unsatisfying. One senator cancels at the last minute; another offers little but good wishes. In nearly every meeting, insiders ruefully give the same advice. Getting anything like the deal he has in Israel is going to be impossible.

Washington was a bust, but there are other ways to conquer America. Agassi has already been contacted by the mayor of Los Angeles and politicians in Michigan and New York City. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was in Agassi's Young Global Leaders class. "My proposal was about health care or something in San Francisco," Newsom says sheepishly. He traveled to Israel to meet with Better Place in May. But Agassi is wary. For one thing, San Francisco is hardly an island, and as leader of a municipality, Newsom has few tax levers he can pull to make the electric car affordable. That hasn't kept the mayor from combing through statutes for fees the city might lift. "This is the irony: The city is working harder to get their business than the business itself. Shouldn't he be sucking up to San Francisco?" Newsom asks, only half joking.

But there is a natural place to start in the US. The island state, Hawaii, depends on shipped-in oil; a full 14 percent of the state's annual $62 billion gross domestic product goes to oil producers, more than any state in the nation. After Israel announced its Better Place plans in January, Hawaii governor Linda Lingle asked for a meeting.

This spring, Agassi went to Honolulu. The governor ushered him into her grand koa-wood-paneled conference room. She sat at the head of the table, flanked by cabinet members. Agassi showed them how the model worked, how it would roll out, how unstoppable it would be. The governor's people wanted to know why this wasn't just shifting the environmental burden to the electric utility. Agassi said he'd pay a premium to buy energy made only from renewable sources, making it cost-effective for the utility to put in wind farms or solar-powered plants—something Lingle has been pushing for. The tourism and economic development director was impressed, but one thing bothered him: Consumers want choices. "This is Hawaii," he said. "Where are the convertibles?"

At a larger meeting a few weeks later, one of Agassi's lieutenants made the case to dozens of Hawaii's business and political leaders. Like others, Dave Rolf was intrigued. He represents the state's auto dealers, a powerful lobby in the state capitol that's against anything that cuts into car dealer profits. The meeting lasted eight hours, and Rolf left stunned. Not only was this going to happen, he decided, it needed to happen, and Hawaii was the perfect place. He fired off a letter to GM's regional head in California urging the carmaker to pay attention. The auto industry needed to be part of this from the get-go. They needed to be making electric cars. "This is kind of a world-changer," Rolf says.

A few months ago, I stopped by Agassi's Palo Alto headquarters to sit in on a three-day strategy meeting. The company has just moved in, and the walls are still decorated with motivational posters put up by the previous tenant. Empty cubicles are waiting to be filled.

The entire staff is trying to write a mission statement with help from a moderator. He flips through slides on a screen: "Our mission is to transform personal mobility." "Our mission is to break the world's oil addiction (before it breaks us)."

Agassi, in a black leather jacket, a stiff blue-and-white button-down, and faded jeans, stops the moderator. "We still think we're selling to them," he says, after one of his long, drawn-out pauses. "We're not. It's not us to them. It's them to us. You see, people want this to happen; we just happen to be in the way of their getting what they want. We can't give them the car fast enough. That's something we need to capture: 'We're here to serve you,' not 'We're here to sell to you.' We're a facilitator, not the creator. This is going to be a community. We just need to get out of their way. They're going to push for policy, they're going to sell the cars, they're going to be zealots."

I start thinking about the people he has already hooked: mayors, CEOs, investors, statesmen, even car dealers. At one point, Tal had marveled to me about Shai's ability to convince you that the answers to the most challenging problems are easy and obvious. "He tells you the story, and it sounds so simple. Why don't we have it today? Why isn't it here already?"

It's true. Shai Agassi has only one car, no charging stations, and not a single customer—yet everyone who meets him already believes he can see the future.

By Senior writer Daniel Roth for WIRED Magazine

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Paul A. Woods Named Top Gun Money Manager by Informa Investment Solutions Database

LOS ANGELES, CA - August 13, 2008 - Paul A. Woods, manager of the Odyssey Clean Energy Porfolio, named the Top Gun money manager in the Informa Investment Solutions database (formerly Mobius) for the two years ending 3/31/08. In the second quarter of 2008, a merger will make this the largest database in the U.S. covering over 2,000 professional money managers and over 10,000 investment portfolios.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Clean Energy Portfolio Q2 Results Beat SP 500

Selectivity Pays Off for the Odyssey Clean Energy Portfolio in Q2 2008

In the second quarter of 2008, broad stock market averages were down as investors struggled with high energy and food prices, a meltdown in real estate, and declining corporate profits. As a result, most broad measures of the stock market showed a decline during the quarter. However, higher oil prices also focused attention on the need for alternatives and investors targeted the segments of alternative energy most likely to play a major role in solving this problem.

While the shotgun approach to alternative energy investing produced a flat quarter, a more selective approach was again rewarded. Investors know that some segments of alternative energy will never become economically viable while others will change how we live by offering a cheaper and cleaner solution than fossil fuels. These technologies are the focus of the Odyssey Clean Energy Portfolio.

The Track Record


Investors know that quarterly returns can fluctuate and a longer performance record is more important. From this perspective, the Odyssey Clean Energy Portfolio is establishing a track record that has few rivals. It was one of the first portfolios to be invested entirely in clean energy stocks traded on the major exchanges and was opened to investors on 12/31/05.

From inception, early investors in this portfolio have more than doubled their money while a broad stock market index such as the S&P 500 produced a compound return of just under 3% during the same period. As you can see from the above, the Odyssey Clean Energy Portfolio has also dramatically outperformed its benchmark. It was the top performing equity portfolio in 2007 in the eVestment Alliance database, which was the largest database of investment advisors in the U.S at the time.

Why Solar is the Hottest Technology in Clean Energy

Going Through The Roof

When is comes to clean energy, the most rapidly growing segment by a wide margin is solar. World solar cell production grew by almost 40% in 2006, while U.S. shipments increased by over 50%. For many of these companies, their biggest problem is meeting demand and some have several years’ worth of orders.



Even politicians on the far left who rarely have anything good to say about corporations or capitalists have blessed these companies, and most are calling for greater “investment” here. Many states will pay part of the cost of purchasing one of these systems and the Federal government will also chip in some incentives. Meanwhile, these companies have a miniscule share of what is a huge potential market.

Why Solar?

The major alternative energy technologies include biofuels, hydrogen & fuel cells, wind turbines, and solar. Of these, solar panels are by far the cleanest and safest method of power generation. In addition, they don’t require new infrastructure, generate power at the intended site, can be connected to the existing electricity grid, produce maximum power during periods of peak demand, require little maintenance, and can last up to 45 years.

The biggest issue for this industry is that solar is still a very expensive way to produce electricity. Without government subsidies, demand would be a small fraction of what it is now. However, manufacturing economies of scale are steadily reducing the cost. The rule of thumb, based upon decades of history in Japan, is that costs decline by around 20% every time production doubles. As a result, the most rapidly growing solar technologies have the best chance of producing electricity for a competitive price in the shortest period.

The Market

Although solar cells were developed about 50 years ago, high costs limited their use for many decades. As costs gradually came down, solar became cost effective for some remote locations not covered by the electricity grid. As costs came down further, solar began to make sense in countries with high electricity generation costs and in growing third world countries that had a constant problem with power reliability and availability. Add expanding subsidies because of concerns over climate change in some parts of the world, and demand increased further. Because of historically high power costs and the willingness to provide generous incentives, Japan and Germany are currently the largest global producers of solar power.

The United States is currently the world’s third largest producer even though it has more sunshine and real estate than Germany and Japan. A leftward shift in state and national politics in the last few years has produced more solar incentives, and this technology is currently gaining momentum. In 2006, shipments in the U.S. increased by over 50% while world production rose by about 40%. Although this growth is from a very small base, the current rate is still significantly higher than other clean energy technologies.

According to industry sources, revenues are expected to increase to by 23% annually to 2010. Given current order rates, this expected growth rate of 23% may turn out to be conservative. Even if these forecasts pan out, solar will still account for less than 1% of overall electricity production in the U.S in 2010. However, once it becomes competitive without subsidies, solar will be poised to take a much larger share of the market for electricity. This is now around $275 billion in the U.S. and several times that on a global basis www.eia.doe.gov.

Subsidies

Solar panels are still too expensive and most still have relatively poor efficiency (the amount of sunlight converted to electricity). As a result, subsidies are required to make the economics work for most potential buyers. Leaving aside the ethical issue of requiring taxpayers that decide not to install solar panels to subsidize those that do, the most important consideration when it comes to subsidies is politics, not sunshine. At the state level, an abundance of liberal politicians is more important than an abundance of sunshine, which is why you’ll find more solar panels on roofs in New Jersey than Arizona.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

U.S., China Lead Way In Tapping Wind Power

From Dallas, Texas to Dabancheng, China, energy companies are staking fortunes on harnessing wind power.

Several Texan transmission companies announced Monday they were forming a consortium to invest in the $5 billion cost of building new power lines to take advantage of the state's vast wind power.

The consortium, comprised of existing transmission operators, includes Dallas-based Oncor, the state's largest power delivery company, Electric Transmission Texas (ETT) and units of American Electric Power Co. among others.

Those new lines, dubbed by Oncor as a "renewable energy superhighway," will accommodate about 18,500 megawatts of wind generation by 2012-- enough energy to power 4 million homes.

Texas currently leads the nation in wind capacity at about 5,500 MW.

The companies are hoping to take advantage of a landmark ruling on Friday that gave Texas preliminary approval for a $4.9 billion plan to build transmission lines to carry wind power from West Texas to urban areas.

It is said to be the largest investment in clean, renewable energy in U.S. history. Texas citizens will have to assist with the plan's construction; paying an extra $3 to $4 per month on their bills for the next few years.

However, they stand to recoup these costs in what they will save in energy bills later.

Not surprisingly, energy companies are eager to jump on the bandwagon to build a large part of the superhighway.

Oncor Senior Vice President of Transmission Charles Jenkins said in a news release: "At Oncor we want to be an important part of the solution. Texas is already a leader in wind energy and this is the next step in maintaining that leadership position.

The wind energy industry has benefited from the support of billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens, who is planning to build the world's largest wind farm on about 200,000 acres in the Texas Panhandle.

When completed, his 2,700 turbines will be capable of producing enough electricity to power 1.3 million homes.

Pickens spoke to CNN about his plans to increase reliance on natural resources like wind and solar.

He said: "What I want to do is to fold in the great resource we have in the central part of this country, which is wind. And then you have resource from Texas west to California.

"You've got solar. Those two resources have to be developed. So when you develop the wind, you can then remove natural gas from power generation and put it into a transportation fuel market.

"Wind power is ... clean, it's renewable. It's everything you want. And it's a stable supply of energy. It's unbelievable that we have not done more with wind."

Meanwhile, China could well be on its way to blowing the U.S. out of the water when it comes to harnessing wind energy.

This is a rare energy success story for a country whose carbon emissions were recorded as the highest in the world last year, according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

But the Chinese energy revolution has been quietly gaining strength, observers say.

Like their American counterparts, Chinese tycoons are increasingly directing their investment into renewable power.

Zhu Yuguo, ranks at 102 on the Forbes China Rich List, with a personal fortune of 5.71 billion Yuan and has invested heavily in the wind power industry.

Steve Sawyer of the Global Wind Energy Council said: "China's wind energy market is unrecognizable from two years ago."

"It is huge, huge, huge. But it is not realized yet in the outside world," Sawyer said in an interview with London's Guardian newspaper.

China's wind generation has increased by more than 100 percent per year since 2005 and 20 per cent of the power supply to the venues of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games will come from wind generators, according to the official state agency, Xinhua.

It was initially hoped the country would generate 5 gigawatts of wind by 2010, but that goal was met three years early in 2007. The 2010 goal has now been revised to 10 gigawatts but experts say this could well hit 20 gigawatts.

The Guanting Wind Farm in Beijing has installed capacity of 64.5 megawatts and has supplied 35 million kilowatts of electricity to Beijing so far.

The wind farm is estimated to supply 100 million KWH per year to Beijing, or 300,000 KWH per day, enough to satisfy the consumption of 100,000 households.

However, China still relies heavily on using coal, which supplies 70 per cent of China's energy needs.

But Junfeng Li of the China Renewable Energy Industries Association has a more optimistic outlook.

In a paper last month, he wrote: "China is witnessing the start of a golden age of wind power development and the magnitude of the growth has caught policymakers off guard.

"It is widely believed that wind power will be able to compete with coal generation by as early as 2015."

By Stephanie Busari
CNN

Monday, July 28, 2008

Google invests $2.75 million in Aptera, ActaCell

Way back in September of 2006, Google.org, the philanthropic part of the Internet giant, announced that it would be investing in PHEVs. The following year, Google followed that bit of news up by launching its RechargeIT initiative which would begin investing in some for-profit manufacturers in an effort to see these fuel-saving products make it to market as quickly as possible.

The first two investments from RechargeIT have now officially been announced, and at least one of the companies benefiting from the $2.75 million investment should be well known to our readers: Aptera.

We've been covering the futuristic new vehicle since it was first introduced, and its exciting to see the project mature to the point where people, in California at least, are anxiously awaiting the first electric Apteras to be delivered. This financing should only help matters as the company works to get its electric and hybrid vehicles to customers as quickly as possible.

The other company receiving some funding is known as ActaCell and is based in Austin, Texas. Based at the University of Texas, Actacel is hard at work refining its lithium ion battery technology with the goal of producing low cost, high output cells while retaining a high degree of safety. A tall order for sure, though one that could be made easier with its newfound cash outlay.

Posted Jul 24th 2008 at 3:55PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski
Green Auto Blog

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Green Cars Available Now

Green vehicles are not just in the future and in labs. They are right now and on a street near you with these cars and trucks.

There are lots of reasons to go green: Fuel is expensive, Pope Benedict XVI decreed environmental pollution is a mortal sin, and, surprise of all surprises, depending on how globally you consider the costs, it's cheaper in the long run. Since definitions of "doing the right thing" number like oxygen molecules in lungs full of fiery rhetoric, that concept won't even enter into the discussion.

You'll find no ethanol-burning vehicles on this list. Issues include the facts that fuel consumption increases by 25 percent when you burn E85 and that ethanol continues to be produced mostly from corn. The quantity of corn required to fill an SUV with ethanol could feed a person for a year, a point made all the more pertinent by the riots sparked by food shortages currently peppering the globe.

Before the letters roll in, let us say public transportation rocks, bicycles are great, green is good, and we take showers more frigid than Cruella de Vil's heart in order to reduce our carbon footprint.

If you're in the market for new wheels but have taken to knitting sweaters out of your cat's hair and have replaced all cleaning products in your house with Dr. Bronner's soap, consider the following choices that employ extremely different tactics in pursuit of a green agenda. A couple of these are only available for lease; the most environmentally friendly option here we'll give you if come get it the hell out of our parking lot. Of course, you could always buy a used 50-mpg 1994 Honda Civic VX, but if you need something new, here are nine green solutions.

2009 Honda FCX Clarity
With its understated shape, comfortable interior, and Accord-like ride, the only hint that the FCX Clarity is any sort of science experiment is the absence of virtually all sound while under way. The first company to bring a mass-market hybrid to U.S. streets, Honda is also one of the first to put hydrogen fuel cells in American driveways.

The FCX Clarity is indeed available but, in all likelihood, not to you. First, you must live close to Torrance, Irvine, or Santa Monica, California, where hydrogen is stored for your subsidized pumping pleasure. It also helps if you are likely to drive your Clarity to red-carpet events or if "of" precedes your last name.

The three-year, $600-a-month lease includes maintenance and insurance but no option to buy. The fuel-cell technology on board this spaceship is worth somewhere around the seven-figure asking price of the Bugatti Veyron, give or take a couple Ferrari F430s, and Honda wants it back.

Hydrogen costs five bucks a kilo, and the car holds 5.3 kilos. A $25 fill should give you 270 miles of real-world driving, making it a relative bargain. Once on the road, all you drop is a trickle of water from the tailpipe and a sizable chunk of dough for your monthly lease.

2008 Honda Civic GX
Buying the slowest available Civic with the least amount of cargo room and the steepest price might not initially smack of genius, but the $25,000 Civic GX has its upsides. First, according to the EPA, it is the greenest car for purchase in showrooms today (as long as those showrooms are in New York or California, the only states where the GX is sold). Second, it burns compressed natural gas, which is about two-thirds the cost of gasoline if you buy it at a pump (if you can find one -- do you know where your nearest CNG pump is?). Buy the in-home refueling device, the price of which is mostly offset through federal tax credit, and the cost drops further. Even using pump pricing, the EPA estimates it will cost you $1.47 to drive 25 miles in a Civic GX versus $1.91 in the gold-standard Prius.

Natural gas has lower energy density per unit than gasoline, but the Civic GX still manages an admirable 36 mpg on the highway, although acceleration suffers. Horsepower for the 1.8-liter engine falls from 140 to 113, and torque barely breaks into three digits with 109 pound-feet. The natural gas sits in a trunk-mounted tank that cuts available space in half; it and the associated hardware add more than 200 pounds to the Civic's curb weight.

Yes, the Civic GX gives up some functionality and grunt, but for about the same price as a Prius, you can buy something that pollutes less, will get you in the carpool lane in California -- an honor no longer conferred on newly purchased hybrids -- and doesn't come with the stigma of the Prius. Yes, Prius drivers, we appreciate that you're hoping to get your city mileage into the 60s by scarcely grazing the accelerator and keeping it under 40 mph; appreciate that your green fun makes people hate you.

2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI
The day the latest TDIs hit the showroom floor, VW dealerships will feature a longer line of eager customers than would a water vendor at a cracker-eating contest. The Jetta TDI is due to arrive in showrooms in all 50 states this summer and, judging from the very similar European model, should get something around 40 mpg on the highway. Welcome to the new face of diesel: stink-, soot-, and (mostly) rattle-free.

Volkswagen emphasizes this point by marketing the TDI Sportwagen that, in addition to being sporty-looking, will scoot to 60 mph in about eight seconds. Diesel prices are currently outpacing gasoline prices by about 20 percent, but this still doesn't negate the diesel's overall fuel saving. How quickly you negate the $2000 or so premium for the Jetta TDI's diesel engine depends on how many miles you drive.

2008 Tesla Roadster
Burnouts will never sound the same. The moment the first customer took delivery of a Tesla roadster, it became the only all-electric, highway-legal passenger vehicle available in this country in years. Given the several hundred people who've plunked down deposits of varying magnitudes for the six-figure roadster over the past couple of years, you might be waiting quite a while for your example, assuming speculators weren't early investors.

The Tesla is great to look at and, with 6831 lithium-ion cells serving up electric whoop-ass, fun to drive. It offers the possibility of the greenest driving experience around, depending on what generates the electricity feeding your outlets. What separates the Tesla roadster from other EVs, other than remarkable performance, is its range -- over 200 miles, more than enough to make it a "real" car. Still need more range? If you can afford a Tesla roadster, you can afford something else with a highly efficient internal-combustion powertrain to take you farther over hill and dale to Grandmother's house.

2008 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell
GM sells fewer SUVs than it used to, but profitable hopes spring eternal, especially if it can spin its behemoths as efficient crossover behemoths. SUVs are also good for packaging bulky stuff such as fuel cells and hydrogen tanks.

The fuel-cell Equinox neither looks nor drives like an exotic beast. An extra 500 pounds on top of the standard 3800-pound curb weight could be responsible for a suspension that's a bit crashy over rough pavement. The 236 pound-feet of torque move the Equinox FC from stoplights with confidence, and it takes a couple of "whoa" moments before you adjust to the nonlinear brake feel endemic to many regenerative braking systems. GM claims a range of about 200 miles using the EPA test cycle, making it realistic transportation for the 100 lucky customers who, like Honda's FCX Clarity customers, will not get to keep their fuel-cell vehicle when the lease is up. Unlike Honda's extreme locale restrictions, GM is making leases available on the Equinox FC to folks in Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C.

Should the government decide it wants to invest its many spare billions in a hydrogen infrastructure, GM is confident that, in volume production, the price of proton-exchange membranes -- the reason for a hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicle's horrific build costs -- would sink to a customer-friendly price point.

2008 Roush F-150 LPI
The name Roush is commonly associated with tire-frying Mustangs and NASCAR wrastlin', but the Roush umbrella also includes engineering services and alternative-fuel vehicles. The Roush F-150 LPI burns the same stuff that torches wienies on your bottle-fed Weber. If you don't drive forklifts, city buses, or fleet vehicles for a living, you might be surprised to learn that propane is the third most commonly used vehicle fuel in the United States after gasoline and diesel, filling stations are not rare, and you can pick up accessories from Hank Hill.

You order your propane pickup from the same network of Ford dealerships that carry Roush's high-performance offerings. The base LPI package, soon to be released, will include a unique 20-gallon fuel tank mounted in place of the underbed spare tire. An extended-range version with a 50-gallon, bed-mounted tank is available now for $10,500 (plus the cost of an F-150, of course). To those who argue they can do it themselves for less, remember the F-150 LPI comes with the same three-year/36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty as its gasoline-burning equivalent, involves no bloody knuckles, and is eligible for large federal and state tax credits.

The price of propane at the pump varies much more than that of gasoline or natural gas, but it tends to be about 60 to 70 cents a gallon cheaper than gasoline. If you buy in bulk, it gets much cheaper. Come tax time, the feds will give you a tax credit of 50 cents per gallon; if you travel 12,000 miles a year, that's about $500. You get a $2500 federal credit simply for buying an LPI F-150, and other credits vary by state; Utah, for example, gives $3000. Yep, you read that right: The average Utah buyer would get back $6000 in the first year.

2008 Toyota/Lexus Hybrids E-Mode
Toyota has plans to put plug-in Priuses on the road at some point with an extended range that can actually take you somewhere. In the meantime, the Toyota Highlander and the Lexus LS600hL get a button that allows you to lock the car into electric mode. Up to 25 mph, and until the nickel-metal hydride battery pack is depleted (about one mile), you are greener than a frat boy after six shots of Jäger. For up to 5280 feet, these cars are squeaky clean, no combustion products coating the tailpipe or rumbling exhaust note to startle dozing herons.

Once those batteries are depleted (or you give the accelerator anything more than the most modest poke), however, the gas engine purrs to life, and the situation gets a bit more carbon-black. In the case of the LS600hL, the accusation of "greenwashing" is well documented by a combined fuel mileage of 21 mpg and the fact that it produces more than twice the C02 emissions of the Prius. If Toyota allowed you to lock the Prius into electric-only drive, it would be on this list as a viable green option.

If your commute is less than one mile and requires nothing beyond first gear, you could indeed be greenish in a Highlander hybrid or LS600hL. You could also walk.

The C/D Solution: 1972 Honda N600
Santa Fe-based artist Pippa Garner, whose scribblings have adorned the pages of C/D for more than a decade, set about making the Honda N600, the first Honda imported into this country and still one of the more-fuel-efficient cars ever sold here, into the "World's Most Fuel-Efficient Car!" That's what the block letters artlessly paraded down the side of the car say, anyway.

Pippa removed the little air-cooled two-cylinder engine, the chain drive, the fire wall, and the floor and, in doing so, a full 500 pounds from the 1100-pound N600. In went two mountain-bike drivetrains flipped upside down, spinning a jackshaft connected to the car's left-front CV joint. Who says it's not a car? Strap Lance Armstrong and Mario Cipollini to the pedals, and we wager it'll beat a Smart Fortwo up an onramp.

The C/D Solution: 2000 Toyota Celica GT-S
After extensive analysis of carbon footprints and the environmental costs of manufacturing, operating, and maintaining vehicles, Car and Driver has made a startling, perhaps paradigm-shifting discovery. In our own parking lot. Before snipers from Big Oil arrive to take us out, let us assure you our example is in-house and staying here. Until we move our Ann Arbor offices the first week in May, anyway. We will, however, assist others in possessing the technology at little or no cost. Unlike every other vehicle on this list, this car's daily existence requires exactly zero petroleum products or electricity.

Old boy racer Tony Swan's 2000 Toyota Celica GT-S is an oasis of green. The 1.8-liter engine blew five years ago, and the car has been sitting in the Hogback Road parking lot ever since. Once proud Hoosier racing slicks are dry-rotting and slowly leaking air, but these emissions are forecast to taper off in the next year.

The GT-S, moreover, is now the happy home of multiplying mud wasps that are deftly sealing all available crevices with local soil and their young. As soon as the neoprene plugs sealing the fire wall fail, the interior will quickly transform into a wind-and-predator-proof habitat for chipmunks, field mice, and adventuresome swallows. Soon, like a ship sunk at the Great Barrier Reef, the Celica will be teeming with wildlife, awash in the green to which Toyota so desperately aspires.

Article By Holstein of Car & Driver Magazine