Slashdot Mirror
Khosla, Romm Fire Back At '60 Minutes' Cleantech Exposé
An anonymous reader writes "CBS recently aired a segment on its 60 Minutes TV newsmagazine critical of what it referred to as the 'Cleantech' industry, i.e. clean energy startups, often founded by Silicon Valley/IT businessmen and engineers. Correspondent Lesley Stahl adapted the familiar confrontational 60 Minutes style when interviewing venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, an investor in biofuel startup KiOR and dozens of other clean energy businesses, then following up with other industry experts who appear to refute Khosla's assertions. Stahl ran down a list of high profile taxpayer-subsidized industry failures and suggests that private investors such as Khosla seem to be losing money as well. Khosla has just responded in the form of an open letter to CBS News which lists allegedly false and inaccurate statements in the 60 Minutes program, while pointing out that the fossil fuels industry is also heavily subsidized by government. Khosla, a longtime general partner at Kleiner Perkins before starting his own firm, was one of four Stanford graduate students who co-founded Sun Microsystems in the early 1980s. Physicist and climate blogger Joseph Romm posted a response to what he referred to as the '60 Minutes hit job on clean energy' last week; other environmentalists have also weighed in."
What are you talking about? Didn't you see the 60 Minutes/NSA love fest?
Like most press, 60 minutes engages in the run of the mill "assault journalism" thats heavy on accusations, and light on the facts. Anyone who takes ANY journalist at face value needs to be hit with a clue by 4.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Those Mormons sure know how to milk the government socialist-style!
It doesn't matter what is true, only what people believe is true.
There is a lot of money at stake if anyone pokes holes in the narrative that 'green energy is a job killing boondoggle.'
Even more important than money, there are ideological principles at risk if Big Government is shown to succeed at [anything].
The real tragedy of it all is that the USA needs a comprehensive and coherent energy policy.
When the government tells everyone what it is focusing on and where it will be spending money,
big business can follow because they know that their expenditures will not be a solo risk.
Instead we've ended up with unconnected subsidies that still get treated with aggressive hostility by conservative voices.
Their solution? More fracking and more coal. Not exactly a progressive or forward looking vision of our future.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Who cares. The only people that watch this show are people that fell asleep in front of their tv 20 years ago.
Irrelevant show is irrelevant.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
From the letter:
Fact: The U.S. spent $502 billion subsidizing fossil fuels in 2011. This is the result of directly lowered prices, tax breaks and failing to properly price carbon’s negative externalities.
What pricetag is he attaching to carbon's negative externalities? This article, cited in a comment on an earlier Slashdot story on solar energy, pegs it at $1 trillion, and it seems like they asked Austin Powers what he thought it should be. What is Khosla's pricetag for carbon externalities, and where did he get it?
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Receives-1.3-Trillion-in-Subsidies-Each-Year.html
What's disturbing is when they not only got it wrong, but get an Emmy and other journalism awards for an erroneous story. When it comes to tech, they are really out of their element. MIT Study disproves the allegation? Original source admits to fabricating statistics they report? The journalist community never gives themselves an asterisk for gotcha-news-on-steroids. Do a little background on the biggest award winner in 60 Minutes stable, Wasteland. Huge accolades. But source admitted fabricating data, MIT studies prove it wrong. Journalists just cannot cover tech.
The closest thing to ombudsman or peer review is John Stewart or Colbert Report, and they are not exactly techies. Seems impossible to get misreported tech stories corrected. It's like asking an English major to take a Calculus class over again. if it was too complicated for the reporter to get right the first time, they don't want to go back again.
They should give a Polk or Pelley award to Ira Glass, NPR's "This American Life", for going back on his story about Apple and Foxconn in 2012. That was really classy, and it also told an important lesson on how easy it is for a reporter to swallow passionately delivered bullshit about the "juju" of high technology.http://www.thisamericanlife.org/blog/2012/03/retracting-mr-daisey-and-the-apple-factory
Gently reply
That is the "familiar confrontational 60 Minutes style"
I escaped from communist China in the early 1970's, and when I landed on the United States of America, I was totally awed by many things that I could never ever dream of when I was in China.
One of those was the integrity of the journalists of the United States of America.
The Vietnam War was on at that time, and there was plenty of "Patriotism" in America in such that "if you don't agree with us you get outta here" attitude, but yet, there were journalists who braved the societal norm in reporting (and printing the news in the newspapers) what actually took place in Vietnam.
Many of those journalists were called "traitors" and they were treated as "Viet Cong Supporters" back then, but yet, their integrity remained intact and report the news as it was (not the propaganda the government wanted them to report).
And the subsequent episode of the dethronement of Richard (I am not a crook) Nixon because of the "deep throat" saga.
I was totally awed by the bravery and the diamond-hardened integrity of those American journalists.
Today ? American journalism ?
Ptuuuuiiii !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"It's that fool on television getting paid to play the fool."
There are plenty of independent journalists doing real reporting: Michael Totten and Michael Yon are two.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
He runs a joke of a shop. His people are arrogant, and exploitive. They think they know what they are doing, and I would say they suffer from institutional Dunning-Kruger if it wasn't for the fact that they seem so self defensive it is clear they are just afraid they are individually poster children for the Peter Principle. Or actually maybe they are just children...
Anyway, we were funded elsewhere and they are in the process of cratering our competition, whom Khosla funded. Go to it, boys ;^)
CBS left out how the Auto Industry and Big oil control and influence any chance alternative fuels have.
Because of this and the entire media's love fest for the NSA, there no better then the government controlled Chinese Media.
They always peddle government propaganda since they were founded, I could give countless examples, IE, the Vietnam War, until Americans get tired of the BS and start to talk amongst themselves then the media changes it tone to what the people already know, and act as if it is "news", and try to jump on the peoples side when they can make an buck off of them, trying to convince them they were on there side the whole time!!!
1) the 60min program was about cleantech. All the comments about oil being worse, carbon emission externalities, global warming, etc. are pointless. Is not that they are not true, is that the money invested in cleantech should maybe have been invested differently: "this people flushed 100 billion down the drain!" (if it were true) is not justified with "but these others burned 500 billion in a bonfire!" (even if it were also true). There are obvious problems with fossil fuels and lots of money where used to try to find a solution, the program's thesis is that that money was not correctly expended. So please avoid going about GW woes time and time again.
2) After reading the script and Khosla's allegations, I am with CBS.
3) I am not from the USA (and so it was not my money what was allegedly wasted), so I think I have a more detached position here. Many of the comments seem to simply attack CBS because the program did not acknowledge their pre existing political ideas. I think that is wrong, unless you can articulate your objections.
4) The idea that the program conveys is that the money spent gave not good results and then much of that invested is sold at great loss to chinese investors that probably will benefit more than the USA taxpayers. I think that the program succeeds in that.
5) Even so, maybe some of the cleantech projects will ultimately succeed and gave back so many benefits that covers all the failures we see now (that is one of the opinions from Khosla), but I find the right now doubtful. Even the company many cite as successful (Tesla), is right now just a company that makes expensive luxury cars to enormously wealthy people (of course that can chang in the future, but it is so right now), if that is the best outcome of so many public money invested, the results are really bad.
But I don't think you know what it means...
Every single, solitary last time I've seen this argument trotted out by environmentalists, leftists, etc. the only thing they can point to is the various governments involved giving them tax credits. In their minds, letting the fossil fuel industry keep more of its revenue is akin to the various loans and other goodies thrown at the clean energy sector.
Who cares. The only people that watch this show are people that fell asleep in front of their tv 20 years ago.
But they have the money to support the campaigns that touch on the issues they care about and wake up each November in time to vote.
60 Minutes quite often uses lies and half-truths to enrage their viewing audience and trick them into feeling like they've had the wool pulled from over their eyes to reveal some secret, evil truth about the world. Then next week or the week after they will have a 15-second "retraction" that nobody even listens to talking about what they knowingly lied about.
Paid "news", funded by the oil+coal guys.
Coal+oil companies are on a disinformation campaign about traffic, pollution, accidents, global warming, economic costs, and a host of crazy, irrational arguments. Their common conclusion "pollution and waste is the better alternative"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_disinformation_and_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Fossil_fuel_and_chemical_industry_lobbying
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
cash giveaways from government to the entire fossil fuel industry
The last I checked, no cash was being given away to oil companies. Some people use the term "subsidies" for political purposes when a more accurate definition would be "doing business with."
The two biggest so-called subsidies are the strategic oil reserve and HEAP heating assistance. Both of which involve the government simply buying fuel, not handing out money.
It would be like saying that Boeing is subsidized because the government bought a bunch of jets from them.
Fact: Contrary to your assertion, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program has created 55,000 new cleantech jobs.
For the first one, this is a notorious gimmick in public works projects these days in the US. Speak of the all the wonderful jobs that have been created while ignoring that jobs have been lost via opportunity cost from tax revenue taken and lost on bankrupt companies and poor use of funds.
Fact: The DOE loan program, despite your implications, has a 97% success rate. The former program head, Jonathan Silver, expects it to make money, not be a subsidy.
And the "97% success rate" is for companies that haven't yet gone bankrupt in the few years since the category of loans were given (2009 and after). There's been no evaluation of the value of DoE loan projects that were undertaken or whether these will be able to pay off the loans in the long run.
For example, I've seen debt issued of $4 per watt of solar generation. That's rather high especially given that the companies in question could have done a PV installation for up to half that cost.
Fact: There is $51 billion remaining in DOE loan money. The amounts in the CBS report are far from âoespentâ or allocated. You seem to want to cite big numbers, whether they are true or not!
In any private business with proper accounting procedures, they would have to put something like the DOE loan guarantees on its balance sheet as a liability. Those funds might not be spent, but they would be allocated. The US government can just pretend it doesn't exist legally.
> That's it for the main problems. That's half his claims made. I also am dubious of the claim that the US subsidizes fossil fuels to the tune of half a trillion a year, especially the "failing to properly price carbonâ(TM)s negative externalities" which probably makes up a lion's share of that alleged subsidy.
Don Hewitt, who I believe created 60 Minutes, died in 2009. Since then, it seems that the shift has been largely to interesting puff pieces with little of the old confrontational stuff they built their reputation on. My wife and I continue to watch but it's at least partly out of habit. They also pad their shows a lot with older material, and the digital TV guide calls it a "new show" even when it's mostly reruns. Smells like old fashioned corporate backsliding.
5) Even so, maybe some of the cleantech projects will ultimately succeed and gave back so many benefits that covers all the failures we see now (that is one of the opinions from Khosla), but I find the right now doubtful. Even the company many cite as successful (Tesla), is right now just a company that makes expensive luxury cars to enormously wealthy people (of course that can chang in the future, but it is so right now), if that is the best outcome of so many public money invested, the results are really bad.
I don't have time right now to address the other issues you've pointed out, but I feel the need to point out that you're wrong about Tesla. As a 2010 post on non-other than slashdot references, Tesla makes the drivetrain for the RAV4EV, which ends up being about a $20k premium over the equivalent, gasoline based RAV4. Additionally, Tesla has paid off their subsidized loans early. In even more recent news, Musk was on CNN's New Day in a a prerecorded interview this morning commenting on how they're working on a new car that's going to be more reasonably priced (about 1/2 the price of the Model S) to be released in about 3 years.
Frankly, if it takes a company 13 years to go from no product, to 5 years later an extremely high end, only the super rich can afford situation to a situation, that's fine, then 8 years later they're at hey, an upper middle class, or even middle class individual can afford their vehicle, I'd consider that reasonable. Especially if they decided that it was more important to pay off their debts first.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
The last I checked, no cash was being given away to oil companies.
Not sure what direct subsidies they're talking about, but depreciation is going to be one--I bet tax depreciation on oil company infrastructure is well above economic depreciation. That means FEDGOV is giving them a subsidy.
For example, if they can depreciate a piece of infrastructure over 20 years and it lasts 40, they get to write off (i.e. not pay taxes) on more than their actual loss as a business expense, in effect getting a tax subsidy from the government. (Lowering taxes is the same as giving a subsidy--the only difference is flipping a sign to confuse laypeople; tax subsidies are just a way of giving Congress political cover when they give money to special interest). The effect is increased the fact that after 20 years, they probably sell individual pieces of infrastructure between subs or otherwise adjust ownership so that they can take the depreciation again.
Most slasdot posters are liberal wack nuts as are 60 minutes of our Dear Leader show. ptuuuiii in China and see how far you get. Start your own propaganda show.
Funny thing. Khosla didn't have any problem with 60 Minutes' puff piece, a few years ago, when they gave him all that free advertising with his Bloombox investment. Bloom was sure to change everything. Micro generators in every home. Energy independence. Clean energy. Blah blah blah.
Where's the FANTASTIC Bloombox benefits? Sure the company is still chugging along, sucking down subsidies as it hangs off the VC tit, but what have they done for energy? A bunch of experiments and VC opportunities do NOT translate into any real energy benefit.
Khosla's real issue with the 60 Minutes story is that waning interest in the clean energy industry or distrust in the startups directly threaten his opportunity to make millions/billions by selling these startups. He cares about clean energy only slightly more than you care about starving children in Africa. Sure, you're sorry for them, but if they aren't going to make you money, you're not going to do anything about it.
Anyone with half a brain in their head can compare the energy density of oil (41.9MJ/Kg) versus Uranium (570,000MJ/Kg) versus any and every other energy source available and conclude pretty easily that atomic energy is where we should be focusing our efforts. Given the fact that we already have the technology working, why would we be wasting so much time, effort, and money for alternative sources?
Thats what I mean with "right now"; maybe in a few years there would be a tesla that is both useful and affordable, but I'm afraid that it does not seem currently possible: either it is very expensive (like 20%+ more expensive in buying + 3 years use compared to a popular gas model) or is not practical (more than 5 minutes for full recharge, less than 300Km without charging). I think all current electrical vehicles fail on both by a large margin. I do not think Tesla can make a car passes both in the next 5 - 10 years. Making a really expensive car competitive is one thing, but making one that is useful and affordable for the average person is very different.
There are always tradeoffs - sure the fuel quantity is small, but that is offset by the relative cost of building the power plant and the size area to serve - putting a nuclear power plant in rural Montana is probably not effective because the power must be transmitted far away. Better to have the power come from several smaller, local power plants or even generators on each ranch. Even if nuclear is the source of choice for electricity, there is still an argument for whether batteries, fuel cells, or biodiesel/synthetic gasoline makes the best means of storing that energy for transportation.
"Khosla, Romm Fire Back At '60 Minutes' Cleantech Exposé" You people have no idea how much gibberish this looks to a non-native speaker....
$20K is a huge premium.
My car consumes around than 10L/100Km, around 23.5MPG (that is not the "official" efficiency, but the real one I get). Let's say you do 30000Km/year (18600miles/year), in three years that is 90000Km or 9000L of gas (a bit less than 2400gallons). Yesterday I paid 1.4€/L (that is, $7.21/gallon), so the 3 years gas costs 12,600€ or $17K. Even if the recharging and range problems were solved, even if the electricity were free, and even at european gas prices, an electric car for $20K extra is totally not worth it, and that would be much, much better than any current offer. Tesla is good for the wealthy, but a model useful for the average person I'm afraid is still decades away unless some revolutionary technical advance is made (maybe a "shipstone" battery like the one in the Heinlein novel?)
I used to have a lot of respect for 60. Since Rather was let go, Wallace, Bradley and Rooney passed away, the show just doesn't feel the same. There was definitely more integrity to the show 5 to 10 years ago. I'm not just talking about recent pieces that have taken criticism. The show has access to people and places few other shows have because of the history and reputation. I'm not sure how much longer that will hold up either.
I'm sorry 60 Minutes. You should really be more careful before releasing future pieces. Go back to the standards you had before or you will definitely lose a long time viewer.
"Hit by a clue by 4" -- that's good! I think I will appropriate that for use one day.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/06/60-minutes-read-write-hit-piece-solar-industry/
The Cleantech industry, as described, has a HUGE amount of money being funneled into it from taxpayers through the government - true across the world. There's just as much money at play on that side as oil+gas, why do you think the side with just as much money at stake, and MORE if it coming from subsidies rather than actual profits, is innocent of wrong-doing?
Don't like government subsidies of oil? Neither do I but that subsidy PALES in comparison to the kickbacks and graft going on every day in the supposedly Green world. But I have news for you, it's not the environment being helped - it's campaign contributors pockets that are seeing explosive growth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
``Follow the money.''
CBS seems to run more energy industry ads than any other network so it doesn't really surprise me to hear that they're running 60 Minutes segments that are hostile to something that threatens the incumbent energy companies. Tune in on Sunday morning and each and every commercial break has at least one ad from an energy-related (usually oil) company or from a group that lobbies for the energy industry. I stopped watching the talking heads on Sunday mornings because of the incessant energy sector ads that play over and over (and over and over) in an attempt to convince me that I should be thankful that energy companies are destroying the damned planet and are the greatest thing to happen to the American economy since the invention of money.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Journalism != let's make a story about _______, go find evidence to support it. Journalism = let's find out what's actually going on with _____ and report about it.
Nice post. I would even say it is not the "high end" of well off people that can afford a Tesla. I see people drive vanity Trucks that cost a lot of dollars, by high middle class earners, and some by blue collar union labor. High end BMW, Mercedes, Rover, etc, are expensive, yet more prevalent than yet pricier flash Porches and Royce's and Ferraris. These autos would be better for us all if electric, Tesla gave this option to the well heeled for the past years. This is much earlier than other cars in it's class and for less than some other brands fossil fuel offerings. Tesla's accomplishments are probably pressing those brands to get their game on for electric options. I think that Tesla has done something great, and is evidence that something has been amiss "globally" in investment of new technologies to improve on our energy consumption. Detroit had to learn of it's lack of breadth by Japanese imports. This time It is the world auto industry being schooled and we in the US are lucky it is an American company doing it.
Agreed. A lot of people aren't aware of the financing model that Tesla came up with, either. It's a steep monthly note, but your recharges are free, and even if they weren't, the cost would be noise. It would be illuminating to see a true use case comparison between owning a Tesla and a gasoline car given the high price of fuel today.
"Correspondent Lesley Stahl adapted the familiar"
I think you mean ADOPTED, not "adapted". Why are Americans so incredibly stupid nowadays?
Always writing "better that" instead of "better THAN", or "I would rather have my legs blown off, THEN go to a Cubs game", etc.etc.
Always writing "an" instead of "a" - how is that even possible?
You do realize that's an argument for Socialism, right?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Socialism has many good arguments, but also a number of fatal flaws which no-one has yet managed to solve on a large scale. It breaks down rapidly once you get beyond a small closed community.
If someone could harness the angular momentum produced by the 60 Minutes spin department, we could do away with fossil fuels tomorrow.
"In response to the letter, a 60 Minutes spokesman said in an email: “While we respect Mr. Khosla’s view, we are not in agreement with the points he makes about our story, which we began and ended with him and devoted much of to his ideas and to one of the companies he backs.”"
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Tesla makes the drivetrain for the RAV4EV, which ends up being about a $20k premium over the equivalent, gasoline based RAV4....Frankly, if it takes a company 13 years to go from no product, to 5 years later an extremely high end, only the super rich can afford situation to a situation, that's fine, then 8 years later they're at hey, an upper middle class, or even middle class individual can afford their vehicle, I'd consider that reasonable.
I wouldn't consider a car with a $20k premium above a price that is already over $20k upper-middle class. Upper-middle class is being able to afford a RAV4 with a conventional drive train in the first place.
US median household income is about $50k/yr.
That aside, I'm not really opposed to R&D benefiting the rich before it benefits the poor, or the fact that sometimes it takes 10 years to really pay off. That's the kind of research the government really should be funding in the first place. It really should be looked at in terms of how it has the potential to improve quality of life for everybody in the long-term, and not how many jobs it creates. If I invented a robot that would replace every job that exists so that we could all watch TV and be chauffeured around all day, that would be a huge improvement in quality of life even though it would destroy every job in the country.
You obviously missed my point by removing details from the quote. The upper middle class car that I'm talking about is the vehicle that Tesla is claiming will be to market in approximately 3 years and will be in the $35k range. Tesla was founded in 2003, 5 years later, the Roadster came out, 8 years after that, they're aiming to have an upper middle class price point.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
You obviously missed my point by removing details from the quote. The upper middle class car that I'm talking about is the vehicle that Tesla is claiming will be to market in approximately 3 years and will be in the $35k range. Tesla was founded in 2003, 5 years later, the Roadster came out, 8 years after that, they're aiming to have an upper middle class price point.
I did miss that, but doesn't really change my point. $35k cars are owned by the wealthy, not the upper-middle-class. How is somebody making somewhat over $50k/yr household income going to buy a $35k car?
I do get that over time their products will become more affordable.
My friend (a 24 year old mechanic at the time working one job and having one heck of an alcohol habit) bought a car that originally retailed for nearly $40k without putting too much thought into it.
The upper-middle class can afford a $35k car if they want it enough or if they buy used. The middle class individual hits 50k according to your information, figure a 5 year loan, 10% down, 4.9% interest (which is a high rate for the current market) the monthly payment is approximately $600/mon ($7200/yr) buying new. That comes to 14.4% of gross income which is a little high for the debt-to-income ratio if the household bought an expensive house, but not impossible by any stretch.
Long story short, this is not a loan that a bank would necessarily turn down on the numbers that you have provided. And if you're a good negotiator, you can probably make it lower, or you can wait and buy used like many people do. $35k for a car is not unheard of in upper-middle class. Upper class, well that's a drop in the bucket when you look at Porche and Ferrari, and don't even get me started on the real high end ones.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Fair enough. Maybe I've just never seen a car as something I'd want to sink 15% of my income into, but then I wasn't into the fashion of getting my ARM adjusted by the government either...