Slashdot Mirror


Venture Capitalism To the Rescue

theodp writes "Al Gore, Bill Joy, and a Norwegian cutie — a TH!NK open electric car — grace the cover of the latest NYT Magazine, which asks: Can the venture capitalists at Kleiner Perkins reduce our dependence on oil, help stop global warming, and make a lot of money at the same time? While Kleiner Perkins — which funded Genentech, Netscape, Google and others — has a number of other green-tech bets, a partner says its goal is 'to make a lot of money for our investors,' not to save the environment."

23 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Wow. What a coincidence. by shadow349 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its goal is 'to make a lot of money for our investors,' not to save the environment."

    That's the exact same mission statement as Generation Investment Management.

  2. Great timing, actually. by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure, the stock market's bad. Really bad. Oddly, that's what makes for very good timing here - because even though a lot of people have less money to invest, there's a lot of other folks who are looking to take their money from places they used to believe as 'safe', and put it where some of it will make money back to recover from recent failures. That includes mutual fund companies, and several other sources of megabucks.

    There's also a lot of potential researchers who can spend a lot of time on these projects, at relatively competitive rates. And a lot of existing data to pull together from university projects that individually have been starved for resources. That, and there's a slight possibility some politicians may be able to make a sane infrastructure to provide at least some support in upcoming budgets.

    Sounds like excellent timing to get a massively multiple-approach research project like this underway. It might even save a small part of our economy through the continuing troubles.

    Ryan Fenton

  3. Making money from VC is OK by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    provided they take the long term view. It is no coincidence that the UK Green movement has definitely aristocratic supporters, because an aristocracy tends to think about its grandchildren (to the extent of things like planting trees that will not mature in their own lifetimes, for the sake of future generations.) I like to think that really sophisticated venture capitalists will be planning now for a comfortable retirement in 30-40 years time - and will therefore be worrying about what the world will be like then. Hedge funds are full of people with a short term attitude - anybody who shorts stocks has that - who just assume that they can accumulate so much wealth that they can insulate themselves from everything short of global meltdown. Which has just worked out so well...but real venture capitalists are an engine of progress. Without them no USA (who funded Columbus and the first colonies?), no canals, no trains, no telephone, no modern medicine.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  4. EEStor, Another Kleiner Perkins investment by Eukariote · · Score: 3, Informative

    EEStor is another interesting electric-car-related Kleiner Perkins investment http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/dealflow/archives/2005/09/kleiner_perkins_1.html. They have patented technology for super capacitors with over ten times the energy density of lead acid batteries. Being capacitors without electrochemistry, the power density (charge/discharge rates) is also very high.

    The trick is that they use a doped barium titanate dielectric with a very high permittivity structured as a sub-micron grain composite interspersed with thin Aluminum oxide and glass layers to lower the breakdown voltage. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:EEStor. The big gain over normal capacitors happens because the energy content of a capacitor goes as the voltage square, and the overall relative permittivity exceeds 10000.

    The internal combustion engine is obsolete.

    1. Re:EEStor, Another Kleiner Perkins investment by Eukariote · · Score: 2, Informative

      By independent accounts they have been realized. Lockheed Martin for example has taken out a license and confirmed the performance claims that EEStor makes http://gm-volt.com/2008/01/10/lockheed-martin-signs-agreement-with-eestor/. When the technology will make it to the market is still a bit of an open question. In 2009, supposedly. But given the big vested interests in the oil industry, I would not be surprised if it will be delayed.

  5. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because too many folks in the past, wanting to do good, have started investment funds or invested in things to make a change and lost their shirts.

    By stating the obvious (to us anyway), they're letting any potential investors know that they're not going to spend money on losing propositions just to save the planet.

    I would also like to add, if they really want green investments to pay off, they should also lobby Congress to get rid of the many oil industry subsidies and tax breaks. That would make oil more expensive - actually, it should allow oil to be priced so that it reflects its true costs. The oil industry is a prime example of how tax and government subsidies can distort a market to the point that one of the most inefficient and polluting fuels had become predominant and other sources of energy have a hard time competing in the market place because of the false reduced costs imposed by Government. I think adding even more tax breaks and subsidies to an energy solution is not the way to go. We need to eliminate the current ones on oil, gas, and coal. And it will help reduce the amount in the tax code.

    1. Re:Obvious by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, so making the planet inhabitable and inhospitable to human life is going to help the poor?

      The cost of oil is going to continue to rise, subsidies or no. At the end of the day, shrinking supply + increasing demand == more $$$$. There's no stopping that force in a free market system. And free market economies are the force driving the global economy, like it or not.

      There's no reason why we shouldn't end government subsidies on big oil.

    2. Re:Obvious by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Making a better than normal return on investments has always been about timing. Many a sound plan has failed because it was too early or too late.

      In the early part of the dot com era, a lot of money was invested on businesses that could not generate cash until man more people had Internet connections at home. Back in the 70's oil crisis lots of creativity was going into alternative energy and conservation technologies -- just before oil prices started to drop. When everyone knows change is coming, most people will lose money getting the timing wrong, and a few will make a lot of money.

      That's just investing.

      Now consider: if you had to have heart surgery, would you go to a doctor whose specialty was "ethically responsible surgery"? No. You'd go to a surgeon and expect him to be socially responsible. Maybe you'd want to know what his standards of ethics are and how those ethics are enforce. But you wouldn't put yourself in the hands of somebody who uses ethics as branding.

      The problem is we don't need SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE investment funds, we need socially responsible INVESTMENT funds. Social responsibility should be something a well run fund has a philosophy and strategy for, like any other aspect of investment. It shouldn't be left to specialists.

      I suspect, also, that "social investment", if I may use that term, is also a matter of timing. No investment is likely to be totally free of ethical issues, but economically driven change always happens at the margins: the next dollar spent or not spent. So if you look at a collection of investments, at any time there will be a small number of them where moving some dollars will have a big effect. Choosing to lose money everywhere means you lose money; choosing to lose money in selected places may actually mean you secure your future, since most socially "irresponsible" business practices are short sighted.

      That's investing too.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Obvious by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I considered a "socially repsonsible" investment fund at one point. Then I realized the thing had pathetic returns

      Considering that every American taxpayer just got raped to the tune of $850 billion just two days ago, I would have to say that irresponsible investments have pretty pathetic returns as well.

      --
      We are all just people.
  6. Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by hattig · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine driving on a warm summer night with the wind blowing through your hair and hearing nothing but the sounds of nature.

    Imagine crossing the road on a warm summer night, a gentle breeze blowing through your hair and hearing nothing but the sounds of nature ... and then: BAM! Hit by an electric car."

    There are some small electric cars in London, they're eerily silent.

    Just to clarify, I do think that this is a good technology and it is the future, but I am sure that there will be accidents because the cars are silent.

    1. Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by Eukariote · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The noise difference is not nearly as large over 50 km/h because then the road/tire noise starts to dominate over engine noise. Electric cars are silent only at low speeds.

    2. Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by dvice_null · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've heard of many cars where dominating noise at low speeds sounds something like this "Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, ...". You can hear it clearly even when the car is stopped at traffic lights.

    3. Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I saw a slot on the BBC regional news for East Anglia about 2 months ago about a project to make electric cars louder, precisely for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. They were going with the obvious solution: fit loudspeakers at the front of the car, and play a recording of an internal combustion engine.

    4. Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OMFG, please MAKE IT STOP.

      Look, if people obeyed the traffic laws, drivers and pedestrians alike, then there's no need for any of this crap. Cross the damn road at the signal and look both ways before crossing the damn street. If you're blind, get a fscking seeing eye dog or have a sighted person with you.

      Why do people have no fscking common sense?!

    5. Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by froon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One solution is to add speakers.

    6. Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't assume a perfect system exists when so many external factors are involved. Driving is bluntly letting everybody throw thousands of pounds of steel around. Everybody... is not a promising thought. I speak to you here as someone who spent a few months in a coma and faces long term damage from being hit as a pedestrian by a woman who was distracted by the kids in her back seats. This happened immediately in front of the school I was attending at the time. Shit happens and technology needs to account for shit happening, especially when it is a known element.

    7. Re:Electric Cars ... the Silent Killer by fugue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This argument has been used by Harley assholes for a long time, and it's simply not valid. It may be that louder vehicles give more clues as to their whereabouts--but if that is the case, we should be duct-taping our horns down, or building in beepers and sirens to continuously wail (or wail at variable pitch depending on speed (and direction??)).

      Don't get me wrong--I think driving should be made as unpleasant as possible in order to encourage people to use more responsible forms of transportation--but the unpleasantness should be limited to the driver, not to the world at large. Inflicting your noise on your neighbours is sociopathic.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  7. Ugly by ildon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why do people insist on making electric cars ugly as hell?

  8. New Yorker cartoon, 9/9/2002 by vrmlguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The CEO is giving a speech at a board meeting: "And so, while the end-of-the-world scenario will be rife with unimaginable horrors, we believe that the pre-end period will be filled with unprecedented opportunities for profit."
    http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?mscssid=G41AMWKD2J779JFDMBDRM9CAKAKJ63T5&sitetype=1&did=4&sid=52630&pid=&keyword=end+of+the+world&section=cartoons&title=undefined&whichpage=1&sortBy=popular

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  9. They're coming from everywhere by rcastro0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Electric Cars are coming from everywhere, in different sizes and shapes, with different concepts. Some will append the electric motor to a a ignition engine generator (making it a hybrid). Some are tricycles using solar back-up power. Others are super-sport cars. It is all very interesting.

    Back in February I was so amazed with the variety that I posted in my blog thirty different electric and hybrid cars from all over the world. From the established auto industry of Japan and the US down to individual projects, this is a really special moment for entrepreneurs, inventors and creative people. The blog post is in portuguese, but there are pictures and reference links for all 30 electric car models.

    Sorry for the plug. Cheers.

    --
    Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
    1. Re:They're coming from everywhere by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Electric Cars are coming from everywhere, in different sizes and shapes, with different concepts. Some will append the electric motor to a a ignition engine generator (making it a hybrid). Some are tricycles using solar back-up power. Others are super-sport cars. It is all very interesting.

      And they will all go straight to Europe, Asia, and even South America. But I tell you not a bloody one of them will ever see large deployments here in the US. The market has been brainwashed against them, the laws and regulations are stacked against them, and the US has a failing Ford, GM, and Chrystler. The best the US will get is a 10-20% fuel economy increase on its passenger vehicles. In fact the US has already received an installment on that very thing with the 2008/09 model years.

      Even in the high efficiency gas/diesel market I do not believe the US won't see anything in the near term. For example Ford came up with a really nice 65 MPG Fiesta for the 2009 model year. Trouble is, it burns diesel. In the US diesel is taxed heavily under the assumption that the primary market for diesel is the trucking industry, the major contributors to wear and tear on the highways. Recognizing this Ford didn't even plan for a US deployment and set up shop in Great Britain. Factoring the higher labor costs as well as importation expeses and you have a sure guarentee that this car will never see the US shores.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  10. stealth tax sibsidy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's some huge number of dollars involved-well over a trillion by now just in this decade- in keeping the military in the mideast, and I think there might be..one or two..people left who don't think it has anything to do with oil. Same with nuclear power, all the big fuss over iran is over nuclear technology once you get down to it, because the tech itself is inherently unsafe/dangerous-the potential anyway. Put those ongoing costs directly on the electricity bill from nuclear and directly on the prices people pay at the fuel pump for oil products, and that would help get a fairer real life price. Stop funding it from the general tax fund, that's a clear big business subsidy.

      Now, conversely, who is going to war or worried about war over access to sunshine or wind or wave power? It doesn't exist, but access to crude oil and natural gas and uranium is a huge problem and it leads to war and threats of war. That's a real cost-in money and blood- that the proponents of those energy forms fail to admit to.

    1. Re:stealth tax sibsidy by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I just don't think big oil is the major recipient.

      Perhaps you are un aware of the windfall profits of the major oil companies since the start of the Iraq War.

      "By just about any measure, the past three years have produced one of the biggest cash gushers in the oil industry's history. Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion.

      "Exxon beat its own one-year-old record for the biggest corporate profits ever by 3 percent. Put together with the announcement by the No. 2 U.S. oil company, Chevron, of an $18.7 billion year, up 9 percent over 2006, plus the earlier results of Shell and ConocoPhillips, and that's more than $100 billion in profits from four companies. It's all thanks to the historic 35 percent climb in worldwide crude oil prices in the second half of 2007, ending the first week of this year when oil briefly touched $100 per barrel...Exxon Mobil's profits are 80 percent higher than those of General Electric, which used to be the largest U.S. company by market capitalization before Exxon left it in the dust in 2005. The new economy? Microsoft earns about a third as much money. And next to Exxon, the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, looks like a quaint boutique, with annual profits of about $11 billion."

      Just because they aren't getting money straight from Uncle Sam like the military industrial contractors are, don't think that this war hasn't served to make oil far more profitable than ever, and don't think that is any surprise to the oil man in the Whitehouse.

      --
      We are all just people.