In the epicentre of a massive crisis in the automotive industry, carmakers are confronted with two major challenges: 1) Adapting to reduced sales volumes during the aftermath of the financial crisis in an economically viable way 2) Developing an ecologically sound mobility (less Co2 and dependent on fossil fuels).
It becomes more and more obvious that the solution will not come from automakers alone, mobility solutions of the 21st century will be derived from a joint solution network where infrastructure becomes the biggest obstacle. Reason is that electric vehicles alone may not produce less Co2 if the energy to run them is produced in coal powerplants (question two the energy producers). Same applies for hydrogen cars as there is also a dramatic change in the energy sector necessary (mainly to those big corporations exploiting oil reserves). It raises questions if such a investment could pay off in a reasonable amount of time (say 20 years), proplematic since the amount of consumers using hydrogen can only climb if there is a sufficient supply available and that implies it will climb rather slowly (if not govermentally enforced).
Another approach is presented by the ambitious Shai Agassi (formally would-be SAP), who runs the corporation “Project Better Place”, to form an infrastructure that is amortized by consumers who will pay for mobility by mileage and not have to invest into the vehicle directly (similar to the mobile phone). A similar approach should once be taken by the Smart city coupe when Hayek was involved and was pioneered by Johann Tomforde. But the right partners where never found, nobody invested into this project heavily, unfortunatly since the vehicle did not reach its targeted market -> young urban hipsters and postmaterialisc people that understood ecological challenges before Al Gore made movies. Is the time mature now for gathering enough supporters? One can assume that the financial crisis can put further delay on such ambitious projects: Shy and fearful organisations and leader may rather do little or use the old recipes during the recession phase. Read their business case and make your judgment: Is it a viable business case?
Think of it like this: we pay mobile providers for minute-by-minute access to cell towers connected together in cellular networks. Truth is, we pay comparatively little—or next to nothing—for the phones themselves. After all, what you’re really buying is air time, not a box with buttons.
The same model works for transportation. Just replace the phone with an electric car, replace the cell towers with battery recharge stations, and replace the cellular networks with an electric recharge grid. Now you’re buying miles, not minutes.
When you think of it in those terms, suddenly a seemingly revolutionary business model becomes something a lot more proven—and more than a little appealing.
Why pay for an addictive, expensive and harmful substance like oil when you can simply pay for transportation as a sustainable service? Why produce pollution when you can bring your emissions to zero and produce economic advantage as the only by-product? The proposition sells itself.
• Drivers pay to access a network of charging spots and conveniently located battery exchange stations powered by renewable energy.
• Drivers pay for the miles they drive.
• Cars are made much more affordable—even free in some markets—by the business model’s financial and environmental incentives to add drivers into the network.
• Better Place operates the electric recharge grid that brings it all together.
This is transportation as a sustainable service, with drivers as subscribers, and Better Place as a true “mobility operator.”