Navigant Research Blog

Helsinki’s Plan to Make Private Cars Obsolete

— August 12, 2014

Helsinki, Finland, has proposed a strikingly ambitious mobility on demand system that presents the logical extension of current innovations in passenger travel.  The city plans to create a subscriber service that would let users choose from, and pay for, a range of transportation options through their smartphones.  The options will include conventional public transit, carsharing, bikesharing, ferries, and an on-demand minibus service that the city’s transit authority launched in 2013.

The major innovation that makes this work will be an integrated payment system.  This part of the scheme may prove the most complicated to implement, but it is the final piece of the puzzle that makes this scheme truly transformative.  No longer forced to choose between the on-demand capability of private car ownership versus the eco-friendliness of shared transit, Helsinki residents will be able to easily get where they want to go, when they want to get there, without needing a car.

I’ve been using the phrase mobility as a service for this phenomenon, but it looks like the mobile phone companies may have claimed that moniker already.  Whatever the name, the concept is the transportation version of other businesses that are moving from selling a product to selling the service or utility the consumer wants from that product.  Planned obsolescence no longer makes good business sense, and consumers can benefit from constant improvements in technology.  This is most common in information technology (in cloud computing and storage, for instance), but it’s also happening in the energy sector – especially for clean technologies like solar, where leasing programs offer a way to overcome the upfront price premium barrier.

Share, Don’t Buy

Globally, carsharing membership has grown around 28% since 2010, with Europe as the leader in this sector.  Navigant Research’s report, Carsharing Programs, forecasts that global carsharing members will surpass 12 million in 2020.  The rise of on-demand ride services, such as Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar, are also transforming the way city dwellers use taxi services.  Taking on the highly regulated taxi business, these companies face considerable opposition, but at this point, it will be hard to put the genie back into the bottle. Bikesharing and even scooter share services are also spreading.  Today’s young urban dwellers expect to be able to use an array of transportation options to suit an array of needs, at the touch of an app.

Helsinki’s program has the potential to tie into other transportation innovations, such as the rise of electric vehicles (EVs) – more carsharing programs are deploying EVs as a selling point for their service – and autonomous vehicle technology.  Wireless charging would also support schemes like Helsinki’s by ensuring that shared EVs are recharging when parked, rather than relying on the driver to remember to plug in.

Faced with dwindling demand in mature markets like North America and Western Europe, automakers are exploring a range of new services to offset lower demand and to gain a competitive edge.  Farsighted companies will look to begin selling mobility as well as vehicles, changing transportation as much as the IT and energy sectors have changed.

 

In California, High-Speed Rail Takes Its Time Arriving

— August 5, 2014

California’s proposed high-speed rail (HSR) line between Los Angeles and San Francisco is stirring controversy – not surprisingly – for a $68 billion infrastructure project that will take until 2029 to complete.  The concerns over the project’s cost-to-benefit ratio cross party lines.  While California Republicans have lined up against Democratic Governor Jerry Brown’s proposal, so has his own lieutenant governor, Gavin Newsom.  The state successfully beat back a legal challenge to the project’s funding plan, but more legal challenges loom.

The HSR debate also ties into the broader question of whether the United States can accomplish big things anymore. Congress’ inability to find a serious, long-term solution to the dwindling Highway Trust Fund is just one example of this problem – one that also results in less money to support any state’s big idea.

Writing in support of the HSR, James Fallows of The Atlantic makes a key point: “Big infrastructure investments are usually under-valued and over-criticized while in the planning stage.”  One obvious comparison is Boston’s Big Dig. That was also enormously ambitious project with a huge price tag that took more than a decade to complete.  It had massive cost overruns, becoming the subject of constant complaints in Massachusetts.  Today, visiting Boston since the Big Dig’s completion, it’s clear why the expense and hassle was worth it.  The city was knit back together after having been split apart by a major road running through its heart.  In place of the old elevated highway is a greenway that invites pedestrians and connects with bike-sharing stations.

Easier Than Flying

It’s worth noting that the Big Dig was a huge infrastructure project designed to undo the effects of another ambitious infrastructure project, one that had unforeseen, and disastrous, consequences.  Moreover, the Big Dig plan was based on known demand, since it essentially took traffic from above ground and moved it into tunnels.  This central purpose removed much of the uncertainty about new infrastructure projects that can keep politicians and planners up at night.

That uncertainty lies at the heart of the debate over high-speed rail. A major new passenger rail project, in a country that has largely abandoned rail travel for cars and planes, is a leap of faith.  The most apt comparison for the California HSR is Amtrak’s Boston-New York-Washington corridor.  In 2012, Amtrak reported that it had captured 75% of commercial passenger travel between New York and Washington, D.C.  The success of the train is not due to its being cheaper – tickets can be as much as $145 one way – but more to the convenience and ease of trains compared to air travel.

HSR Plus Autonomous Vehicles

A key factor in that convenience is that, unlike airlines, the trains deposit passengers into the downtown of each city and connect to local transit services. This multimodal connectivity will be key to the success of the California HSR, whether it means connecting to public transit or to nearby carsharing services like City CarShare and DriveNow in downtown San Francisco.

The rise of autonomous vehicles is frequently cited by key opponents as evidence that the HSR is a 20th century idea whose time has passed.  While Navigant Research’s 2014 Autonomous Vehicles report suggests that long-distance, inter-city travel is a possible model for self-driving cars, it projects they’re most likely to be used for passenger travel in carsharing services as well as in fleets as an alternative to taxis for local travel within the city.  In this scenario, autonomous vehicles will actually support the high-speed rail line by making carsharing easier and ubiquitous in urban centers while the HSR meets city-to-city travel needs.

 

Japan Doubles Down on Fuel Cell Vehicles

— July 13, 2014

Two recent announcements out of Japan have dramatically cut the price that Japanese drivers will pay for a fuel cell car.  Toyota unveiled its completed design for the fuel cell vehicle (FCV) it will put on the market in 2015.  More importantly, the company revealed the price would be around ¥7 million, or $70,000.  This is a big drop from the $100,000 price tag floated, alarmingly, a few years ago.

A day earlier, Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe called for subsidies of FCVs beginning next year.  A part of the government’s economic growth strategy, these incentives reflect the hydrogen energy roadmap adopted by Japan’s trade ministry.

As described in my Fuel Cell Vehicles report, I’ve long said that the two impediments to fuel cell cars taking hold in the market are cost and infrastructure.  Automakers like Honda and Daimler have already shown that the technology works, resolving early issues such as cold-start capability.  FCVs will also deliver on the key performance characteristics that make them intriguing, as compared to battery electric vehicles: range and refueling.  The Toyota FCV will have a 420-mile range and refuel in 3 minutes.

The Post-Fukushima Strategy

For longtime fuel cell technology followers, I am stating the obvious.  The potential benefits of fuel cells in transportation have been well-understood for years.  Honda, General Motors (GM), Daimler, Hyundai, and Toyota have all shown they can make cars that meet those performance targets.  Nevertheless, in the U.S. media, the perception persists that fuel cells were made obsolete by the successful introduction of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs).  In Navigant Research’s recent white paper, The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Industries: 10 Trends to Watch, I noted that the U.S. media would continue to tie these two technologies together – and would misunderstand the rationale for pursuing them both.  Sure enough, this article asserts that the Japanese government’s goal is to crush Tesla.

Not quite.  The Japanese government’s plan is to promote technologies and fuels that will help ensure the country never has another experience like the Fukushima disaster in 2011.  The Japanese government also wants to grow the economy by supporting domestic industries.

The Market Will Decide

To take a phrase from President Obama, Japan has taken an “all of the above” approach in pursuing these two goals.  Nissan and Toyota have done well in the PEV market.  But fuel cells offer an alternative for consumers who may find that a plug-in car doesn’t meet their driving needs.

Japan has also made a huge commitment to fuel cells that provide residential power.  The country’s residential fuel cell program has supported the deployment of over 42,000 combined heat and power (CHP) fuel cells in Japan.  Manufactured by Toshiba, Panasonic, and Eneos Celltech, these residential units are sold through gas companies like Tokyo Gas.  After Fukushima, when the plant’s backup diesel generators were rendered useless and employees scavenged car batteries to power monitoring equipment, the Japanese government set a requirement that the fuel cells be capable of starting up when the power is off.  While these fuel cells employ a different technology from automotive fuel cells, the CHP program demonstrates both Japan’s commitment to pursuing whatever technology the country believes will support its energy resiliency (utilizing domestic expertise) and its willingness to support that technology in its early market introduction.

Japan has already committed to building 100 hydrogen fueling stations in key metro areas.  The country’s energy companies are partnering in that effort.  Note that the Japanese government is also supporting the automaker deployment of 12,000 charging stations in Japan.  Again, it’s not an either/or prospect for Japan.  The announcement on the FCV subsidies will put the cars at a price point where they might have a chance in the market.  If the infrastructure is in place to make fueling reasonably convenient, then it will be up to consumers to decide whether FCVs will succeed in the market or not.  Success will be measured over many years, not in 18 months.

 

DC Fast Charging Gains Momentum

— June 17, 2014

While still in some ways the forgotten child of the charging family, direct current (DC) fast charging is starting to take on some momentum.  At the Electric Drive Transportation Association Annual Meeting in May, BMW and Nissan joined ABB and Fuji Electric on a panel to discuss their experiences in the United States with fast charging and what they see as the main barrier to further development of the market.

The panel addressed three technical questions that continue to hang over the DC charging market.  The first question was whether the industry would ever resolve the dueling standards issue and officially adopt either the CHAdeMO standard prevalent in Japan or the SAE’s combo standard being adopted by European automakers and deployed in the United States.  The clear answer from the panel was that both are here to stay.  As a proponent of the CHAdeMO standard, Nissan has a head start over the combo charger supporters, having deployed over 100 CHAdeMO stations in the United States at Nissan dealerships in addition to its widespread deployments in Japan.  Navigant Research’s view is that, over time, the combo charger will start to edge out CHAdeMO – simply because more automakers will adopt it.  But a few markets, most notably Japan, will stick with the CHAdeMO standard, having made significant investments in deploying it.

Fast Is Better

The second question was on whether battery degradation is a concern.  The consensus was that it is not.  Cliff Fietzek, manager of Connected E-Mobility at BMW and David Peterson, EV Regional Manager at Nissan North America, asserted that no one is more concerned about protecting the battery than they are, and they are comfortable with the use of DC charging for their electric vehicles (EVs).

The final technical question is still open for debate: whether fast charging is more optimal at 50 kW or 20 kW to 25 kW.  ABB is offering both 20 kW and 50 kW units, while Fuji has focused exclusively on the 25 kW size.  Larry Butkovich, general manager of EV Systems at Fuji Electric Corporation of America, made the case for the 25 kW charger, available on the ChargePoint network in California for over a year.  According to Butkovich, the average driver stops for 20 to 30 minutes and gets around a half a charge, with an average output of 18 kW.  The typical fee paid is $6 to $8.  Butkovich noted that usage dropped once the fees were instituted but quickly bounced back, and the company thinks a business case can be made for fast charging.

Distance versus Speed

The case for lower-power fast charging centers on the time it takes to bring a battery to 80% state of charge (SOC).  BMW’s Fietzek noted that a 50 kW unit will get a 20 kWh battery to 80% SOC in 20 minutes, while a 25 kW charger takes 35 minutes.  Fuji’s experience suggests that a driver will be satisfied with a 20- to 30-minute charge that doesn’t quite reach 80% SOC.

Given that the panelists cited cost as one of the biggest barriers to this market, downsizing to a less expensive 20 kW or 25 kW fast charger will make sense in applications where the charger is not expected to enable long-distance trips.  The lower-power units are also less likely to trigger costly demand charges, which are another major barrier to securing more fast charging locations.  These units are poised to capture more market share in the United States ‑ especially for operators not involved in deployments supported by the Department of Energy or the big automakers.

 

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Energy Storage, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Smart Grid Practice, Smart Transportation Practice, Utility Innovations

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"Lisa Jerram","path":"\/author\/lisajerram","date":"9\/3\/2014"}