<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Andy Grove: PEV Retrofit of Cars Winning Strategy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/</link>
	<description>Trendspotting innovations and disruptions from an outsider&#039;s perspective</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:11:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: FN</title>
		<link>http://outsidetheherd.com/2008/12/21/andy-grove-pev-retrofit-of-cars-winning-strategy/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FN]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:32:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://outsidetheherd.com/?p=115#comment-38</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Boy, picking a fight with Andy Grove is tricky business, but here goes.  Andy Grove is wrong.  Here&#039;s why:

1) Comparing fleet replacement rates to Prius is the wrong benchmark.  A better benchmark would be the catalytic converter, airbag or unleaded fuel.  All of these were required by mandates that were enforced (and would have taken much, much longer if penetration were by market forces alone).  The problem is externalities are not solvable by the market, i.e. I want everyone to have a catalytic converter, it&#039;s just the *I* don&#039;t want to pay to have one on my car.  The introduction of these technologies by mandate resulted in 100% penetration within 10 years.  A similar penetration rate of new PEV could be achieved.

2) Retrofitting vehicles is a tough business and I&#039;d be surprised if the numbers add up (the article by Grove doesn&#039;t include any numbers that are helpful to the retrofit case).    Retrofits are artwork, not science.  Each car (even of the same model) will have issues to deal with.  A retrofit invalidates the warranty.  It&#039;s like buying a computer from Dell and then installing a new OS you bought used on eBay...who do you call for service?  If there ever were a case of voodoo economics it&#039;s this.

3) Grove&#039;s data are misleading.  He starts by citing the fact that 80% of *all* cars drive less than 40 miles per day.  Later he says that retrofitting *all* cars is a bad idea and instead wants to focus on 6 types of large trucks used in fleets.  Any data on what *their* average miles per trip are?  I bet it&#039;s more than 40...

4) For the government to invest money in retrofitting a durable good with a useful remaining life of 5-7 years makes no sense.  Better to spend those &quot;retrofit dollars&quot; on building efficiency which can have a useful remaining life of 40+ years.  Instead, money should be invested in developing technology for building new plug-in EVs.  Hybrids are a joke and are at best a bridge technology.  Let the market pursue hybrids if they&#039;re deemed necessary.  Any government money should be invested in the final solution and accelerating it&#039;s delivery to market as soon as possible.

5) The argument that &quot;it takes to long&quot; so we can&#039;t get started now is specious.  Governor Schwartzenegger was  on 60 minutes telling a story about how he met with the auto industry executives in 2000 and asked about electric vehicle technology and was told that the return on investment wasn&#039;t there and that it would take 5-10 years to see the cars hit the road.  Woops.

Ok, that&#039;s it.  I&#039;m stepping down from my soap box!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Boy, picking a fight with Andy Grove is tricky business, but here goes.  Andy Grove is wrong.  Here&#8217;s why:</p>
<p>1) Comparing fleet replacement rates to Prius is the wrong benchmark.  A better benchmark would be the catalytic converter, airbag or unleaded fuel.  All of these were required by mandates that were enforced (and would have taken much, much longer if penetration were by market forces alone).  The problem is externalities are not solvable by the market, i.e. I want everyone to have a catalytic converter, it&#8217;s just the *I* don&#8217;t want to pay to have one on my car.  The introduction of these technologies by mandate resulted in 100% penetration within 10 years.  A similar penetration rate of new PEV could be achieved.</p>
<p>2) Retrofitting vehicles is a tough business and I&#8217;d be surprised if the numbers add up (the article by Grove doesn&#8217;t include any numbers that are helpful to the retrofit case).    Retrofits are artwork, not science.  Each car (even of the same model) will have issues to deal with.  A retrofit invalidates the warranty.  It&#8217;s like buying a computer from Dell and then installing a new OS you bought used on eBay&#8230;who do you call for service?  If there ever were a case of voodoo economics it&#8217;s this.</p>
<p>3) Grove&#8217;s data are misleading.  He starts by citing the fact that 80% of *all* cars drive less than 40 miles per day.  Later he says that retrofitting *all* cars is a bad idea and instead wants to focus on 6 types of large trucks used in fleets.  Any data on what *their* average miles per trip are?  I bet it&#8217;s more than 40&#8230;</p>
<p>4) For the government to invest money in retrofitting a durable good with a useful remaining life of 5-7 years makes no sense.  Better to spend those &#8220;retrofit dollars&#8221; on building efficiency which can have a useful remaining life of 40+ years.  Instead, money should be invested in developing technology for building new plug-in EVs.  Hybrids are a joke and are at best a bridge technology.  Let the market pursue hybrids if they&#8217;re deemed necessary.  Any government money should be invested in the final solution and accelerating it&#8217;s delivery to market as soon as possible.</p>
<p>5) The argument that &#8220;it takes to long&#8221; so we can&#8217;t get started now is specious.  Governor Schwartzenegger was  on 60 minutes telling a story about how he met with the auto industry executives in 2000 and asked about electric vehicle technology and was told that the return on investment wasn&#8217;t there and that it would take 5-10 years to see the cars hit the road.  Woops.</p>
<p>Ok, that&#8217;s it.  I&#8217;m stepping down from my soap box!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

