Competing technologies to BEV

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Coming from a country without "Big Oil", I only know our Auto companies. And when I read Julian's analysis or the discussion in this thread in general, there are some points I just have to disagree with - or at least points that I just don't get.

First, this so-called "cannibalization". What's that supposed to be all about?
Imagine the following future scenario: BMW offers a great 3-series EV, they also offer standard 3-series gas and diesel engines at the same time. I would image that pricing would be such that BMW doesn't lose money on any of those offerings.
Why on Earth then would BMW care whether a customer bought an EV 3-series vs. a gas or diesel 3-series? As long as the customer is buying a BMW, and not a C-class, A4 or whatever the competition offers, I am certain BMW would be happy.

Margin. Companies have the best margin in their greatest areas of strength, with existing product lines. When a company is forced to compete either by shifting emphasis or with new technology, sales move from a high margin area to a low margin area. Cannibalization happens where customers migrate from high to low margin products.

Tesla is currently operating at 0 profit margin. Any company that has to adjust prices to compete with Tesla will hurt their profits. Amazon has used this to crush opposition.

Then there is the whole "threat" idea I just don't understand.
Think for a minute. Tesla is selling what, say 50K vehicles a year (at the very best) at the moment, realistically far less?
VW, BMW, Audi, Merc, Toyota etc. are selling hundreds of thousands, no millions of cars a year. So - at least at the moment - Tesla is no "threat" to them in any way - nor will it be even if Gen III sells 200K vehicles a year.
It's the same situation the other way round. Even if VW succeeds in selling 100K e-Golf and e-up! vehicles, that wouldn't be a "threat" to Tesla, as those cars are no competition for Tesla. No one can tell me that someone in the BEV market is deciding between a 100K Euro Model S and a 40K Euro e-Golf for example.

The key potential threat from Tesla is margin.

If Tesla's plan succeeds, by 2019 or 2020 they'll be selling 500k Gen 3s per year. Please also remember that Tesla would also have the Model X, which will introduce 4WD and broaden their market base. Tesla Gen 3 sales will come from the luxury segment but also from "premium mainstream" buyers. Those 500k Tesla sales wouldn't just represent lost sales to other manufacturers, they'd be losses of high margin sales.

Also, success for Tesla would mean that even if they were initially production constrained, consumer interest could shift away from the internal combustion engine. Since manufacturers have a lot of existing IP (and thus profit margin) in engine technology, and outsource most everything else, a shift in consumer interest would represent a huge loss of value. Not to mention that a pure electric drivetrain should increase reliability and has the potential further to extend ownership cycles.

Finally, the nature of BEVs means that in future if there's a leap in battery technology, a manufacturer that doesn't have access to that technology could die very, very quickly.

 

[stevezzzz]

The cover note that went with this letter:


As a follow on to my previous brief description of issues surrounding PON-13-607, kindly see attached document which is vital to be read and understood by decision makers dealing with Hydrogen funding in California.

[big snip]

I trust therefore that the Japanese can make do with a respectful apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that the Commission will see fit to send a clear message that revenge will just have to wait.

Julian, I fear that the closing sentence of your cover letter destroys any chance that the rest of your submission will be taken seriously by the Commission.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Tesla is currently operating at 0 profit margin. Any company that has to adjust prices to compete with Tesla will hurt their profits. Amazon has used this to crush opposition.

That's the wrong margin to look at. The gross margin is over 25%, so each additional car generates that much incremental profit. Therefore, the Model S price is quite substantially above production cost. The net income line is close to zero because corporate spends the profit it earns selling cars on R&D, SG&A, and so forth.

 

[Julian Cox]

OK this got picked up by Cleantechnica


http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/20/fuel-cell-vehicle-ghg-emissions/

- - - Updated - - -

That's the wrong margin to look at. The gross margin is over 25%, so each additional car generates that much incremental profit. Therefore, the Model S price is quite substantially above production cost. The net income line is close to zero because corporate spends the profit it earns selling cars on R&D, SG&A, and so forth.

And more importantly paying for growth - which is after all what we are interested in. They can flat line growth and bask profits at any time.

 

[stevezzzz]

Fear is a terrible thing. Action is an advisable cure.

Hey, Julian: I'm on your side, and I was trying to be nice. Your willingness to dismiss my comment with a facile epigram does you no credit. I'll be blunt: that last sentence in your cover letter has no place in a fact-based discussion about clean tech and policy, and it gives the Commission an easy out to avoid a serious consideration of your argument, an argument that deserves to be heard and understood.

 

[CalDreamin]

Hmm, am I the only one who is not into this type of conspiracy theory stuff?

You're not the only one. I'm open to evidence-based arguments for a Big Auto - Big Oil conspiracy against BEVs. So far, I find the the evidence to be lacking.

Big Oil loses whether FCVs win or BEVs win. Most Big Oil profits come from immensely capital intensive projects to produce petroleum, at a relatively high cost per barrel. If either FCVs or BEVs take enough market share for oil demand to substantially shrink, then only the low-cost producers of oil can survive. Most low-cost oil production is in the Middle East and Africa, and most is owned by national oil companies, NOT Big Oil. Big Oil's massive investments in deep offshore, oil sands, shale oil, and other expensive to produce sources would become money losers. Big Oil's investments in oil refining would also become money losers if this scenario comes to pass.

Big Oil also produces natural gas, and they see an increasing future for natural gas in vehicle transport. Regardless of whether this natural gas is burned in electric power plants to charge BEVs and PHEVs and for other uses, or the natural gas is used in SMRs to make hydrogen for FCVs, either way they see a growing long-term market for natural gas.

Big Oil owns and operates (mostly older) SMR hydrogen plants, integrated into their oil refineries. However, over the last 10-20 years, when one of their oil refineries has been expanded, they have mostly turned to Air Products, Linde, Praxair, or one of the other specialty gas manufacturers to build new SMR hydrogen plants near their refineries. They purchase the hydrogen under contract. Big Oil has increasingly out sourced hydrogen production to these specialty gas manufacturers. The specialty gas manufacturers own and operate the most modern and efficient hydrogen plants.

As for the network of branded gasoline stations, these are almost all independently-owned franchises. For the most part, Big Oil has been getting out of the direct retail gasoline business (at least in the US, not sure about elsewhere). If these became hydrogen filling stations and transitioned out of the gasoline business, it might make more sense for these independently-owned stations to rebrand as Air Products, Linde, Praxair, or one of the other specialty gas manufacturers. That's who these stations would most likely be buying their hydrogen from.

If either FCVs or BEVs become dominant factors in vehicle transport, Big Oil would lose most of their profit streams and massive capital investments. It not in the best interests of Big Oil for either of these ICE alternatives to become big.

As a result, some oil companies (e.g. Koch) have funded organized FUD campaigns against alternative energy and climate change science.

Other oil companies know that AGW is real, and know there will be a transition to alternative energy. There has already been some of that, in the form of gradually stricter MPG requirements. Some oil companies (e.g. Shell) have lobbied for increased government regulation of GHG emissions, so that the transition to a lower-carbon future can be more orderly than the alternative, an increasingly likely and damaging panic transition. They view natural gas replacing coal as a significant part of the transition.

Some oil companies have invested in low carbon energy, such as Total's ownership interest in SunPower. But more broadly, Big Oil's track record in solar and wind power has been to invest, but later get out.

 

[Julian Cox]

There is no need for a conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy fact is laid out in the central policy document of the US Government on the subject:

Energy Department Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen Infrastructure | Department of Energy

The only other thing worth knowing is that the average FCV (a low power HEV) pollutes at a rate of 42mpg according to the most definitive DOE NREL study on the subject. Other low power HEVs pollute at a rate of 50mpg (Prius). This is the same study that has been twisted to tell the world that FCVs pollute half as much as Gasoline - how - because by the numbers the comparison vehicle in the NREL study was a 21 mpg car!

There is a lot of natural gas, Chinese are happy enough to pay twice the amount at the pump as the US so "unfriendly and unstable" foreign nations prefer to sell their oil there instead.

US has fracked natural gas in abundance but it is not compatible with road vehicles and consumers are demanding green emissions free cars and affirmative action on climate change.

What to do?

Convert the frack-gas to hydrogen and tell consumers it's good for the environment, focus all attention on the water vapour exhaust and do that until they think they can remember knowing it all along as though it were true.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, Julian: I'm on your side, and I was trying to be nice. Your willingness to dismiss my comment with a facile epigram does you no credit. I'll be blunt: that last sentence in your cover letter has no place in a fact-based discussion about clean tech and policy, and it gives the Commission an easy out to avoid a serious consideration of your argument, an argument that deserves to be heard and understood.

Julian,

Thank you for your email. I will forward this on to program management.

Rachel L. Grant Kiley, Manager
Contracts, Grants and Loans Office
California Energy Commission

 

[Julian Cox]

BTW the politics of this basically go like this:

The "US Economy" needs to be based on Natural Gas, domestic oil in short supply, domestic NG in large supply.

What cold harm the rate of adoption of natural gas?

Environmentally concerned consumers and by far the worst threat: Compelling EVs due to be unveiled in 2015 by Tesla Motors Inc exacerbating consumer resistance.

Basically consumers that are so out of touch with reality that don't seem to understand that they won't give a damn about the Polar bears when "The Economy" tanks.

Define "US Economy".

A hand full of 100 year businesses that are losing economic relevance at a small but rapidly accelerating rate to solar and EVs (Big Auto + Fossil Fuel industry).

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

That's the wrong margin to look at. The gross margin is over 25%, so each additional car generates that much incremental profit. Therefore, the Model S price is quite substantially above production cost. The net income line is close to zero because corporate spends the profit it earns selling cars on R&D, SG&A, and so forth.

But that's my point: Tesla has 0 profit margin because it reinvests everything and the investors don't care right now because they're looking post Gen 3 and 4. An incumbent competing against that has to upset somebody.

 

[Newb]

Big Oil supporting Tesla competition

Big Oil loses whether FCVs win or BEVs win.

True, but they would lose much less in a scenario in which methane/hydrogen engine technology is predominant whereas in a pure-BEV future, ideally powered by wind and solar, Big Oil as well as “Big Coal” loses.
But of course, Big Oil will do everything they can to promote a looooooong transition to any alternative to ICEs, simply to continue to make the huge money they make for as long as possible.

It not in the best interests of Big Oil for either of these ICE alternatives to become big.

I agree. That is why they strongly support, and admittedly are strongly in favour of FCVs over BEVs, since they know that hydrogen/H2/fuel cell cars is an idea deemed to fail, which will never succeed, as some people experienced with this technology already stated here in this thread.

And by the way, talking about Big Oil interests has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. It’s just rational for business managers to do everything in their power to let their business to be successful as long as possible. And to counter-attack BEV technology in its infancy phase (now) is simply part of their long-term strategy to prevent the pure-BEV future. You would try the same if you were boss of one of the Big Oil companies, I am pretty sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone interested to learn about Big Oil's picture of a bright engine technology future, just don't take my words for granted, but read through their own official statements in their "new lens scenario" for example...and make up your own mind about their interests:
(will post link in separate reply to prevent quarantine)

Quote from page 7, in which they paint a "best-case-scenario" ("The hydrogen phoenix") :

"…Electricity companies find it increasingly difficult to balance base load and intermittent sources of generation, and hopes fade that smart grids will be ablte to meet the sheer scale of the challange to balance the system on their own. Scares over brownouts start ot increase, and attention to hydrogen-based energy storage redoubles as building power stations that are idle most of the time proves expensive and difficult to sustain. Independently, public interest in next-generation fuel-cells verhicles grows. Top Gear decided for its 40[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary edition in 2017 to celebrate a widening range of ‘reassuringly expensive’ high-performance hydrogen fuel cell vehicles now in reach for wealthier consumers in both the West and the rapidly rising economies of Asia.

Building on earlier small-scale collaborative programmes, an alliance of car companies, energy companies, and hydrogen industry suppliers formed in 2020 secures support and incentives in several countries for substanatial progeramms to build hydrogen infrastructure. Policymakers recognise the pressing need to secure stable and affordable electricity supplies and to reduce emissions from urban transport. The prospect of a more flexible, efficient, and clean energy system from integrating fossiul fuel use with carbion dioxide capture is also attractive."

...they wish...

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the link to the hydrogen fuel-cell cars scenario for Big Oil:
http://s01.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell-new/local/corporate/Scenarios/Downloads/Scenarios_newdoc.pdf

 

[William13]

I believe that Julian's letter is very important. The facts about FCV versus BEV and ICE and diesel are very important to lay out to CARB. I expect the Hiroshima and conspiracy comments may lessen his impact. True or False, I would have left them out of the letter or made it a codicil/addendum.

 

[Auzie]

True, but they would lose much less in a scenario in which methane/hydrogen engine technology is predominant whereas in a pure-BEV future, ideally powered by wind and solar, Big Oil as well as “Big Coal” loses.
But of course, Big Oil will do everything they can to promote a looooooong transition to any alternative to ICEs, simply to continue to make the huge money they make for as long as possible.

I agree. That is why they strongly support, and admittedly are strongly in favour of FCVs over BEVs, since they know that hydrogen/H2/fuel cell cars is an idea deemed to fail, which will never succeed, as some people experienced with this technology already stated here in this thread.

And by the way, talking about Big Oil interests has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. It’s just rational for business managers to do everything in their power to let their business to be successful as long as possible. And to counter-attack BEV technology in its infancy phase (now) is simply part of their long-term strategy to prevent the pure-BEV future. You would try the same if you were boss of one of the Big Oil companies, I am pretty sure.

-

I might be a bit off topic here, but this is like a deja vu. History repeating itself, reminds me of 'War of the currents"

 

[AustinPowers]

Margin. Companies have the best margin in their greatest areas of strength, with existing product lines. When a company is forced to compete either by shifting emphasis or with new technology, sales move from a high margin area to a low margin area. Cannibalization happens where customers migrate from high to low margin products.

The key potential threat from Tesla is margin.

(...)

Finally, the nature of BEVs means that in future if there's a leap in battery technology, a manufacturer that doesn't have access to that technology could die very, very quickly.

Perhaps I just vastly underestimate the margin effect, but I thought that companies were smart enough to see beyond current high-margin products to what future high-margin products will be. As battery tech gets better while at the same time cheaper, margins will increase. Any sane car company will have realized this, which I am sure is why so many manufacturers are starting to promote the shift towards alternative energy vehicles.

Why do I arrive at this conclusion?
Take VW/Audi/BMW for example (and I am talking about the situation in Europe of course).
They started their car business with gasoline cars, diesel was of hardly any interest in the first few decades.

Then TDI technology arrives, along with a growing public interest in more efficient vehicles. The first shift occurs, diesel engines are introduced widely in the lineup, from citycars to luxury limousines to even convertibles (which always seemed to stay a diesel-free zone forever).

Some years later, public awareness for environmental concerns has increased even more, the first hybrids like the Prius appear. At first seen like a novelty item, hybrids (and plug-in hybrids) are now becoming standard offerings in many models, soon surely in the entire lineup.

BEVs now are what hybrids where when the Prius was introduced. Again, seen as novelty items by many now, in a few years time they will become what hybrids are now.

Change always takes a while and happens gradually, but I am certain that this is the road that carmakers (at least those that want to stay in business) are bound to take.
Whether hydrogen vehicles will ever enter into this equation I don't know. But somehow I doubt it.

And oil companies will learn to adjust as well, as examples like Shell show. Perhaps it will take the US "Big Oil" lot a bit longer to realize that, but their way of reacting to "threats" from companies like Tesla (or better technology in general) just won't work anymore in this century. The general public isn't as stupid or indifferent or powerless as it (probably) used to be any longer.

 

[Dan5]

I might be a bit off topic here, but this is like a deja vu. History repeating itself, reminds me of 'War of the currents"

More like the light wars between Edison and Rockefeller. Actually same things were said 100 years ago against electricity too (fires, hazardous, etc).

 

[CalDreamin]

For many years, there has been a widespread belief among many government energy and environmental agencies, university and national laboratory experts, as well as many within the auto and energy industries that the future of sustainable transport involves hydrogen FCVs. This belief predates the existence of Tesla. It's based on a view that the convenience of fast refueling is essential for widespread consumer acceptance, and that FCVs will be the only affordable vehicles that can achieve long range using sustainable energy and zero tailpipe emissions.

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and others have made long-term big investments in FCVs, and relatively less in BEVs, because they believe FCVs are future of sustainable transport. They would be knowingly setting their companies up for serious harm if they actually believed FCVs were doomed to fail and that BEVs are the future.

We may disagree with those who believe that hydrogen FCVs are the future of sustainable transport. A difference of opinion does not support a claimed conspiracy to undermine BEV adoption by promoting FCV technology that proponents allegedly know is doomed to fail. I've seen no evidence presented here that any serious supporter in government, academia, or industry supports FCVs in an attempt to undermine BEVs, while believing that FCVs are doomed to fail. The arguments against FCVs are much stronger without resorting to irrational conspiracy theories.

Since I work with high pressure hydrogen in my professional life, I personally can't get past the safety risks of having 10,000 psig of hydrogen in large tanks riding around in my car with me. It's like driving around with bombs on board.

I agree that the most likely fuel source for significant near and medium term adoption of FCVs -- hydrogen produced from natural gas SMR without CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) -- does not have sufficient environmental benefits to be worth the immense costs to build the fueling infrastructure. Well-to-wheels GHG emissions from FCVs using NG SMR w/o CCS are not significantly lower than a conventional gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle like a Prius or Accord hybrid. A hydrogen FCV fueling station costs 10 times more to build than a Tesla Supercharger station, and many more of them would be needed because an owner would not be able to fuel a FCV at home overnight, unlike a Tesla or any other BEV.

There are lower GHG pathways to hydrogen, such as natural gas SMR combined with CCS. But this will never be cost competitive with natural gas SMR without CCS, so if it's not mandated or strongly incentivized in some way it will not happen, ever.

Electrolysis from renewable energy is another potential pathway for low GHG hydrogen. But it's not cost competitive with NG SMR hydrogen, so it won't happen on a large scale in the foreseeable future unless mandated or strongly incentivized.

Another low GHG pathway to hydrogen involves biogas/biomass SMR, these are renewable sources. However, there is a limited amount of biogas/biomass and it's valuable for renewable electricity generation. Yesterday, California's electrical grid included 11,600 MWh from burning biomass and biogas, a small but important part of California's RPS power mix. If this biomass/biogas was diverted to making hydrogen for FCVs, it would increase GHG emissions of the electrical grid. I see no net win for the environment using biogas/biomass to make hydrogen for FCVs.

I don't believe that FCVs should be eligible for any ZEV credits or other environmental credits unless automakers and other industry supporters fund the construction and operation of a fueling network that uses sufficiently low GHG hydrogen sources. WTW GHG emissions should be mandated to decrease over time from this hydrogen fueling network, just as RPS mandates are forcing reductions in GHG emissions from the electrical grid over time. Tesla is funding the construction and operation of a fueling network for buyers of their cars. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Air Products, Linde, Praxair, etc. can fund the construction and operation of a fueling network for buyers of FCVs, with no more government subsidies than Tesla gets for building Supercharger stations.

As we know, BEV well-to-wheels emissions depend a great deal on the power source. Cleaning up the grid makes BEVs cleaner. But much more importantly, cleaning up the grid reduces emissions for ALL electricity consumers, the rest of which will dwarf BEV energy consumption for many years to come. Cleaning up the grid must be done whether or not there are BEVs on the road.

 

[Johan]

I don't believe that FCVs should be eligible for any ZEV credits or other environmental credits unless automakers and other industry supporters fund the construction and operation of a fueling network that uses sufficiently low GHG hydrogen sources. WTW GHG emissions should be mandated to decrease over time from this hydrogen fueling network, just as RPS mandates are forcing reductions in GHG emissions from the electrical grid over time. Tesla is funding the construction and operation of a fueling network for buyers of their cars. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Air Products, Linde, Praxair, etc. can fund the construction and operation of a fueling network for buyers of FCVs, with no more government subsidies than Tesla gets for building Supercharger stations.

Excellent post! And a very, very good point you are raising. Just let this thing work it self out through economics and consumer preference. This is why Julian's attempt to put the searchlight on erraneous claims when the FCV consortiums apply for government grants (grants which Tesla have never gotten for building Superchargers).

 

[CalDreamin]

But of course, Big Oil will do everything they can to promote a looooooong transition to any alternative to ICEs, simply to continue to make the huge money they make for as long as possible.

Not true, the different oil companies are not aligned on these issues. I realize it's popular to premise a sort of Big Oil Hive Mind or Big Oil Borg, but their track records don't support these simple assumptions. Show us where the CEO of ExxonMobil or Koch Industries stated anything like remotely like the following, let alone published an article:

Systemic changes are needed in order to promote effective action to tackle carbon dioxide emissions. Society needs more energy as much as it needs better ways to reduce the negative environmental effects of its production and use. Governments have a crucial role in ensuring that consumers and industry respond effectively.

In order for market forces to work we (paradoxically) need more regulations. Governments must urgently provide the rules that can foster lower carbon dioxide emissions. These regulations must encourage both investment in new technologies and energy *conservation.

- Jeroen van der Veer, CEO Shell

One can certainly find quotes where the CEOs of some other oil companies stated essentially the opposite, as well as sharp disagreements among the different oil companies regarding efforts to stop climate change regulations.

That is why they strongly support, and admittedly are strongly in favour of FCVs over BEVs, since they know that hydrogen/H2/fuel cell cars is an idea deemed to fail, which will never succeed, as some people experienced with this technology already stated here in this thread.

The oil companies don't strongly support FCVs over BEVs. Some are against both technologies. Others have deferred to the many automotive and fuel cell experts within government research labs, environmental and regulatory agencies, academia, and the auto industry, who have been asserting for many years that hydrogen FCVs are the inevitable future.

It’s just rational for business managers to do everything in their power to let their business to be successful as long as possible. And to counter-attack BEV technology in its infancy phase (now) is simply part of their long-term strategy to prevent the pure-BEV future. You would try the same if you were boss of one of the Big Oil companies, I am pretty sure.

I'm infinitely more qualified to comment on what I would do, and I know you're wrong on that point. I'm also pretty sure that the technical case against FCVs is undermined when one resorts to conspiracy theories.

Anyone interested to learn about Big Oil's picture of a bright engine technology future, just don't take my words for granted, but read through their own official statements in their "new lens scenario" for example...and make up your own mind about their interests:
(will post link in separate reply to prevent quarantine)

I've read it. You appear to be mistaking discussion about a number of possible future scenarios with an agenda.

 

[Auzie]

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and others have made long-term big investments in FCVs, and relatively less in BEVs, because they believe FCVs are future of sustainable transport. They would be knowingly setting their companies up for serious harm if they actually believed FCVs were doomed to fail and that BEVs are the future.

Since I work with high pressure hydrogen in my professional life, I personally can't get past the safety risks of having 10,000 psig of hydrogen in large tanks riding around in my car with me. It's like driving around with bombs on board.

I agree that the most likely fuel source for significant near and medium term adoption of FCVs -- hydrogen produced from natural gas SMR without CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) -- does not have sufficient environmental benefits to be worth the immense costs to build the fueling infrastructure. Well-to-wheels GHG emissions from FCVs using NG SMR w/o CCS are not significantly lower than a conventional gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle like a Prius or Accord hybrid. A hydrogen FCV fueling station costs 10 times more to build than a Tesla Supercharger station, and many more of them would be needed because an owner would not be able to fuel a FCV at home overnight, unlike a Tesla or any other BEV.
.

The hazards of hydrogen are almost common knowledge, or to put it differently, anyone with some interest in the topic can easily gain understanding in the risks of having hydrogen on board cars. Therefore I find it difficult to believe that the executives of auto companies are unaware of these risks. If they truly believe that the future of the industry is in hfcv, what does that make them? Uninformed, irresponsible, ignorant? I doubt that they are either of these.

Agency problem is quite pervasive and more likely explanation.

 

[Robert.Boston]

There is on-going researcher about ways of storing hydrogen more safely than as a high-pressure gas: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review13/st103_long_2013_o.pdf
Project objective: "Research and development of on-board systems that allow for a driving range greater than 300 miles. "

 

[Tedkidd]

More like the light wars between Edison and Rockefeller. Actually same things were said 100 years ago against electricity too (fires, hazardous, etc).

So well put!!!