Better Place

Very interesting video. I watched it all the way through. He is a very good talker. Please note in what follows that I agree 100% with his arguments for converting from gas to electric, and I agree 100% with wind and PV power and other clean renewables.

But I assert that it's voodoo economics to assert that he's going to reduce the cost to the consumer by "separating car ownership from battery ownership," and I think it's preposterous to assert that he is going to supply, and get consumers to buy, ten times as many EVs as the number of hybrids that presently exist.

One problem with separating battery ownership from car ownership is that the owner of the battery can take it back, and your car is worthless, especially if the car is designed so it can only work with a battery type that is patented and nobody is allowed to sell you one. Far fetched? Remember NiMH and Cobasys. If GM had been a bit more bold, they could have taken the EV1 off the roads by SELLING the car but not the battery, and just taking the batteries back. Shai Agassi will not take his batteries back, but if the business becomes successful it will become a stock corporation, and when some MBA grabs it in a hostile take-over, screw the customer will be the goal, as in all other big business.

He (correctly) shows that electric is cheaper than gas. But he never explains the economics of why he thinks it would be more economical to "separate car ownership from battery ownership," other than to assert that $40,000 is too much to pay for a car. Yet Tesla has shown that even the $50,000 Model S is cheaper over the life of the car than a gas car costing half as much, and since most car buyers finance their purchase, that $50,000 car becomes affordable if instead of paying for $3 gas you are paying for 10-cent electricity. The money that used to go to the gas station now goes to the bank, and you still pay less overall.

And finally, at this point it's all just promises. He says there are now one million hybrids on the road, and he's going to put ten million EVs, and then a hundred million EVs on the road; but none of those EVs exists yet. I guess I'll be driving my Zap Xebra for a while yet. It exists, in my garage, and more exist, at dealerships where you can buy one today.

I wish him well. I would be happy with any system that gets us from gas to electric. I just don't think his plan will work. I see more hope of success in Tesla's business model.

 

What you are quoting as benefits is see as drawbacks.

1. You don't have to buy the battery.

I want to buy the car, battery, and charger. Only if I control all of these pieces can I guarantee that in the future I will have a functioning vehicle. Not owning the battery opens up way too many opportunities to get screwed. What if Better Places goes bankrupt like the vast majority of start-ups?

For the record I don't lease anything. I hate the idea of even propane exchange for my grill.

2. You don't have to charge at home.

I want to charge at home. It is by far the most convenient way to charge an electric car. You come home, plug in the car, and walk away. Why would I want to exchange trips to the gas station for trips to a charging or battery exchange station? With Better Place's plan if I do choose to charge at home for my personal convenience they still charge me! Their business plan is $ per mile, not KW. Likewise, I have no incentive to drive efficient. It doesn't matter I baby the car (and battery) to get maximum efficiency or go to the local race track and do hot laps. Per BP's plan, miles per KW don't matter.

3. You can charge anywhere.

No you can't. A subscriber would be able to charge or battery swap any place that BP's network covers. BP's comparison to cell phones shows the folly of this plan. Today we have multiple cell phone networks that are not compatible with one another. Even with multiple networks, large areas of the United States have no coverage decades after cellular companies started building their networks.

 

He doesn't have to do it alone. Governments around the world will help by invoking policies to combat climate change and investments in green jobs and a smart grid, etc. There is a lot of synergy there.

 

Suit yourself - you'll likely have that option from some OEMs. But my hunch is most people who aren't passionate about EVS are NOT going to find that acceptable - not convenient or cheap enough.

I guess you missed the post about charging at home will be the norm for BP customers and swapping batteries will be a rarity.

There will be at least a few and probably many companies all offering the same service and all the infrastructure between companies will be compatible - so from one vendor or another you will have access to charging ports if you need them. Most people won't need them on a daily basis but they have to be there for when they do.

 

battery swapping is the only sullotion for a oil free car transport.

even is fast charging exist you will still need a min or 10 ( using a hell of a lot energy during that 10 min's ) normally you fill your gas tank in maybe 3-5 min.

also people used to only plug something in a car is one's a week when your at the gas station

i like a plugin car to but i am being realitic speaking what i think a lot of people thing about it.

 

They will? Wow! How do you know this? Up until now, they mostly do what the big oil companies want them to do. Israel and Australia and (I think he said?) Denmark have all told him, "You want to invest billions in our country? Welcome! We will be happy to see you invest billions in our country." That's not exactly "help." If they really wanted to help, they'd put a $12/gallon tax on gas and use the money to install wind farms and PV on roofs.

No, he didn't miss that point. What he said was that he'd be paying BP for miles driven in addition to the price he pays at home for electricity.

Wow! It will all be compatible? Sort of like automobile parts are all interchangeable now? Errmmm, well, maybe that was a bad example?

You make an awful lot of predictions about what will be. Astronomers can predict when an eclipse will happen and the times for sunrise and sunset. Other than that, I've yet to see a prediction for the future come true.

I remember in the 1960's they predicted that by the 1980's we'd all have flying cars and electricity from nuclear power would be too cheap to meter. I remember predictions that automation of industry would result in people working 4-hour days, 4 days a week, and having massive amounts of free time. What happened? Automation caused productivity to skyrocket, but hourly wages remained the same, or decreased, adjusted for inflation, and instead of free time, households need two working salary-earners. Because the corporations pocketed the profits of increased productivity.

What does this have to do with Better Place? Simple: Sahi Agassi is promising that consumers will have cheaper transportation because his system will be more efficient. I dispute his claim that his system is more efficient than more conventional electric models; and I also do not believe that any efficiency savings would be passed to consumers. It has never been in the past, and I don't believe it will now.

When the potato was introduced to Ireland, it was hailed as a great boon, because food would be cheaper and people would have more to eat. The potato did make food cheaper, but wages went down in response, and people had no more food than before, but they became dependent on the potato, so when that one crop failed, people starved.

What does this have to do with Better Place? Shai Agassi is promising that a technological advance will benefit the people. But by introducing a model of corporate ownership of the critical component of the car, he gives the corporation all the control and all the power. And therefore the power to charge what it likes. He's promising two cents per mile, but he won't be legally bound to keep that promise. He'll have a really good excuse for failing to meet that goal, and he'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Either that, or his business will fail (as most new businesses fail) the creditors will re-possess the batteries (which they, not you, will own) and you'll have to buy a new battery and due to the proprietary and patented nature of the battery, you'll have to pay whatever they demand or junk your car.

 

Government are starting to price carbon, increase investment in renewables, raise taxes on gas cars, fund research, preparing for cap and trade, and are talking about doing a lot more. All of this helps BP.

I read his paragraph carefully and I knew exactly what he meant.

It's not clear that when charging at home you will pay for miles AND also have to supply the electricity at your cost. That would be stupid.

My belief, which I hope to confirm soon, is that charging at home won't cost any more than charging at a BP charging station downtown.

Yes, that is a condition BP puts to the governments they sign with. Any other company that comes along has to use the same connectors (international standards) and whatnot, so that there are no barriers to roaming, switching networks, etc.

Jaded and pessimistic. Too bad... I think we need a more optimistic outlook to improve things. Complaining about the past and fretting over potential predatory business practices and worst case scenarios aren't going to help us beat climate change.

Adoption of EVs/smart grids is important and it can't be done fast enough. But EVs adoption faces significant challenges. Upfront costs, inconvenience, range anxiety... to name a few. You or I aren't afraid of these challenges but the majority of people are/would be. BP takes away all those concerns and that has to happen if EVs are going to take over, which they must if we are going to increase our use of renewables and decarbonize the economy.

 

I'm only going by what Agassi has said:

From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/t...gue-email.html?pagewanted=2&8cir&_r=2&emc=cir :
DP: How will it work for a subscriber? Specifically?

SA: Most of what we've done is try to make it convenient. We don't want you to pass a credit card when you charge the car. We don't want you to pay every time you switch the battery. We looked at it from the angle of convenience.

And so we're probably gonna see three different pricing models. In some places, you'll see it sort of as pay-as-you-go, very much like a gas tank. I mean, if you think about it, a gas tank is sort of the prepaid phone-card model of cars. You come, you buy 400 miles, you drive 'em. You buy another 400 miles.

So they'll be something like that in the base package. There'll be a fixed number of miles, plus a surcharge if you go more than that--1,500 miles a month or something in that range. And then there'll be the all-you-can-drive model. You pay one-time fee, you and your family can drive as much as you want on that car.



He is very clear, it is the same price no matter how you charge the car.

• Pay as you go flat $/mile rate: No doubt this will be the most expensive way to buy miles
• x mile per month plan: I suspect these will be offered in multiple bundles of miles per month with progressively lower $/mile cost
• Unlimited miles per month: Of course this will be the most expensive monthly plan.

 

What a minute. That's what I'm saying. Same cost whether you charge downtown, or at home.

 

Another crucial benefit of BP:

If you don't have a intelligent network managing the charging of EVs it could be pretty nasty on the grid when everyone gets to work at 8:30 and plugs in or gets home at 5:00 and plugs in. Something smart, large and ubiquitous like BP will be needed to make sure the cars take turns and/or only charge as much as necessary to meet specific individual needs of their drivers.

Remember the goal is to completely replace oil, not provide EVs for 2% of the population that are enthusiasts.

 

Mostly, they're just talking, and talk is cheap. But governments have been consistent in kowtowing to big business. This is not hopeful when you are advocating a utopia in which a benevolent corporation makes everything smiley-face.

Let us know when you find out that BP is not going to charge by the mile, as they have said, or when you find out that BP is going to re-imburse you for electricity you use at home. My reading of BP's statements agrees with what JSH has said: You'll pay BP by the mile because they own the battery and have leased it to you by the mile. Yes, it would be stupid to pay twice for your electricity. That's JSH's point. It would be very clever of BP, though, to charge you for miles (after all, they're supplying the battery on contract) even when you pay your utility company for the electricity.

Ah, so now we think fascism is a good idea??? The government dictates how companies will have to operate.

Okay. I am guilty as charged. I am pessimistic. However, optimism can be just as unrealistic. You are claiming that BP will provide us with a utopian transportation system where everything will function smoothly, at a low price, and the company will act in our best interest, without regard to its own bottom line.

You say I am fretting and complaining. I am describing the free-market system as it has operated from Day One. No company has ever operated as you say BP will operate. In this climate, optimism is unrealistic.

I'm not sure, but you seem to be saying that since a lot of planning and coordination of the system will be necessary, we must believe that BP will provide that, putting consumers' wants above its own profits. That's almost a religious argument: Since it would be nice if there's a beautiful after-life, we must believe there is.

No, what JSH said, and what BP seems to be saying, is that BP will charge the same per mile whether you use their chargers, their swap stations, or charge at home. But if you charge at home, you will also pay your utility company.

So you might not get a charge at all if you need to leave work mid-day for an emergency, because BP has decided to postpone your charge until afternoon.

Utopian: BP is not going to completely replace oil. When oil gets too expensive, people will stop using it. Not before.

Shai Agassi is a very good talker. Smooth talkers should never be taken at their word. A lot of what he says is true and very good. But then he slips in these subtle utopian promises, and suggests that he's going to save the world. People who promise to save the world usually end up either failing, or trying to install themselves as Grand Poo-Bah of the Galaxy.

Again, I wish him luck. If he can do what he promises, and if I'm alive to see it, I will bow down to him and wait in line to kiss his feet. But for now, with not one car on the road, not one swap station or charge station installed, no actual guaranteed contract to read, nothing but talk, I don't believe it.

 

Now that's just silly. I wouldn't call setting regulations fascism. Having governments regulating stuff is a good thing, or haven't you noticed lately.

Perhaps...

But I would imagine it would work like this: the charging of cars will cycle on/off, on/off so that all cars get some juice in the morning but not all of them are charging at the same time. This software and sensor based flexibility will be crucial to maintaining maximum convenience while still managing the needs of the grid.

Again, there are already hundreds of charging points installed in Israel and Denmark which is just a start. 100,000s will be installed before any customers sign up.

 

Kicking the oil addiction NOW Dregs of the Future

 

Selling the Green Economy

 

And that's the problem. You are imagining how it would work, and your image is a utopian one in which a benevolent trans-national corporation operates in the best interests of the public.

I observe that trans-national corporations (as well as businesses in general) operate for the benefit of their executives, with more or fewer concessions to their stockholders, and lip service to their customers. At worst, the executives rob the stockholders and bankrupt the company, as is happening with the Big 3 automakers. At best, the company sells a quality product and produces healthy profits for the stockholders. At no time does the company give away anything for free to consumers.

Japan is a small country extremely dependent on exports, so its companies at present generally maintain a high level of quality to hold and gain market share. Japan still has a culture where honor and reputation are highly valued, and so executives give more to the company and take less.

The U.S. is more self-centered, and so service to the customer and quality products are uncommon. Ever since Reagan overthrew the JFK paradigm "Ask not what your country can do for you..." and replaced it with "It's okay to want to be rich," business executives put their own aspirations first, and regard both the customer and the stockholders as unavoidable nuisances who are fare game for fleecing.

Therefore, I react with skepticism to your utopian vision of a huge, trans-national corporation that is going to save the world and make everything good. And therefore I believe that allowing a trans-national corporation to own the battery in my car is a reckless and foolish idea.

You "imagine" what it will be like and how it will work. I look at how business operates and I don't see anything like your image in the past or present of business. I see many examples of companies and entrepreneurs and scam artists promising the world. But no examples of them fulfilling such promises.

 

whoa!

 

Just saying I don't trust a big company to own my battery, no matter how smooth a talker its founder is. There are no precedents in the history of capitalism to justify such trust.

 

Daniel, I suppose you think that Obama is just another politician who won't change a thing.

 

I supported Obama. I donated money to his campaign (which I almost never do). I canvassed for him. But discussions of politics do not belong here. I am sending you a PM with a more complete answer to your question.