A Road to Successful #electricvehicle Future: Things We Often Overlook, but Should Take More Seriously

Today I’d like to discuss with you a report I recently read. A wonderful piece, very professionally and expertly written, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Its encouraging tone of voice got me thinking, and so I’d like to share some ideas with you today. But first things first.

There is this new 波士顿谘询公司 article by Christopher Pohlkamp, Anita Oh, Paul Nguyen and Julien Bert entitled?The Future of Buses and Light Commercial Vehicles Is Electric – With Cost Parity Just Around the Corner.?It looks at the electrification of commercial road transport in Australia, and lists the various ways in which the country is on track to reach net-zero by 2030, 2035, 2047 and so on—the goals set are many, and so are the insights shared. The article has its pros and cons, and the strategy is worth discussing; it is quite comprehensive, well-written, and has some really strong points we cannot overlook. Of course, as someone who has been in the industry for a while and well knows its ins and outs, I have some insights of my own.

I would first like to go over the pros, which are, in my opinion, far outweighed by the cons. For example, I strongly agree with the statement “…authorities need to start preparing the broader #infrastructure ecosystem to enable #transport electrification”.??I would just like to add that such an ecosystem should include energy, finance, technology, legislation and focus on cross-industry standards, availability and TCO/cost-per-mile reduction. The article also rightly mentions a use-based approach to electrification: I believe this is the way to go and, if implemented, it could very well lead to the availability of #zeroemission #transport worldwide.

I would like to offer a different view on some points listed since they tend to get overlooked in this article, as comprehensive as it is; the view that I can’t help but hold due to the experience I have had in the industry.?

One of the key things that I would have loved to see in the article is, to put it simply, whether the #grid is ready. Is the ecosystem, or the grid in general, ready to serve the ambitious number of users that they want to get through #electrification and zero emissions? These buzzwords imply a lot of reform and innovation, not only in legislation and regulation, but also in grid development. Do countries have enough energy production capacity and grid throughput? Because unless these two are stable and show promise, you are not likely to get very far in your electrification endeavors. In my experience, energy task eats up a portion of your time, so a healthy conversation on electrification requires looking into energy and all associated matters. That is why I believe that energy should be discussed along with transport initiatives. These are on no account separate aspects, and they should not be treated as such; creating an open community with transport and energy experts alike seems like an obvious solution here. We can zero in on some issues that tend to get overlooked at summits, panels, webinars, etc. So I invite you to share your insights on the topic.?

The second thing that I would like to analyze is TCO. Everyone in the industry uses TCO as the golden rule for measuring all the direct and indirect costs associated with #ev, and for a good reason: for example, according to?FleetNews, TCO facilitates better financial management of a car scheme. In fact, when it comes to picking a charging strategy and input data assessment, like CAPEX, i.e., performing initial analysis, then be my guest—TCO is the best and obvious choice for planning. But, as it always happens, life gets in the way; things can get crazy in, say, 15 years, once buses and infrastructure have seen their share of usage. This is where we could do with a more dynamic instrument, for example, cost per km/mile for continuous monitoring and factor analysis. Actually, as the calculation base, it can also streamline communication between operators and cities, making profit and cost management transparent. In my opinion, these two tools should go hand in hand, and I encourage the industry to consider this.

Another thing that I believe needs reconsideration is the classification of EV vehicles. If you skim through the article, I’m talking about Exhibit 4. You can see there is a certain division going on with transport: buses and commercial, light and heavy categories. Here, in my personal opinion, it would be more productive to talk about scheduled and non-scheduled vehicles. Think about it: scheduled vehicles could only have juice enough for a trip, maybe a roundabout trip, so they may require a smaller battery, recharging every now and then, as opposed to non-scheduled vehicles, where a lot of energy and associated higher costs are a must and a given, respectively. A small battery will not be enough; the larger the distance their fuel can cover, the better.

While we are on the subject of exhibits, I would also like to go over some issues with Exhibit 6. It is about key players: the article leaves out some crucial players, and you cannot clearly see the impact that each of them has on the issue raised. The problem here is that they do not include energy operators, NGOs, or financial institutions, both national and international. The latter do have a key role to play in the electrification of a commercial transport ecosystem because upfront costs are high, and smart economic planning is exactly the lifeline the industry needs. NGOs are supportive of zero-emission transport adoption, and they develop and introduce technical and managerial standards. But they are absent here, and I wonder why. Their key role has been mentioned a lot before, and by reliable sources, too: in their report?Road Freight Zero: Pathways to faster adoption of zero-emission trucks,?RFZ, MPP ( World Economic Forum )?say exactly that: “This [industry leaders across the value chain] includes demand- and supply-side actors, such as leading manufacturers, consumer goods giants, logistics majors, fleet operators, energy, tech and infrastructure firms, innovators, finance companies, academia and civil society.” The roles seem to have shifted, though: within the same report, they do not mention charging point operators, which is an oversight, in my opinion. They do mention fleet operators, who, based on my experience, have to spend a lot of time untangling the intricate web that is a charging point instead of doing their actual job. Something is not right there. The development and handling of infrastructure should be on grid operators, not #fleet operators; you can even go as far as to say that it is literally none of their business. There is a lot to think about.

The article also talks about a depot-based model, where governments and regulatory authorities should support building more new depots that feature a charging option. There might be a slight hitch, though: depot-based charging infrastructure has a low utility rate, not more than 18% (according to MPDI.com;?Towards Zero CO2 Emission from Public Transport: The Pathway to the Decarbonization of the Portuguese Urban Bus Fleet), which directly means that it cannot be considered the best approach to the development. We have actually had some experience in that department: we developed some projects, and the city picked a short-range battery and spread charging hubs. For a good reason—the short-range strategy is actually realistic, and it also has a lower cost per 1km of #transportation , which is always a plus.?It is all very individual, though, and has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. So as a healthy alternative, I would like to propose the standardization of charging points and urban planning for cross transport #charginginfrastructure , namely, when it comes to commercial transport, i.e., city machinery and equipment, medium-duty trucks, light vehicles, etc.?

All talk no action approach would never stimulate #netzero , which is why I have a few ideas of my own to add to this article. But before I do that, let me ask you a question. What is the most pressing issue when it comes to transport electrification? That’s right: steep costs and few vehicles, the latter being a direct consequence of the former (apart from battery availability). So how can we accelerate the reduction of technology costs and get the fleet growing now? First, we can incentivize grid operators with special tariffs to encourage them to develop charging infrastructure. Secondly (and I already talked about this in my cons section), we can popularize a pay-per-mile model, with three factors coming together here: boosting the switch to net-zero transport, recognizing real city budgets and reducing the cost of technology by increasing demand. Plus, this will prompt #batterymanufacturer to focus on lithium-free technology and higher energy density per one kg of battery weight.

I also mentioned in passing some issues with #batteries . The thing about batteries is that their useful life is twice as short as that of a vehicle. My idea is to standardize the connections between an #electricbus (electric vehicles) and a battery so that batteries can be installed as a service or purchased and used to upgrade an #evehicles with minimal effort. Imagine a TV remote: long gone are the days when you held your remote as something sacred, and breaking/losing it was akin to a disaster come alive. Now you can get a universal remote and watch TV to your heart’s content. We should revolutionize batteries in the same fashion; after all, the e-bus industry will only benefit from it in terms of price, competition and technology. Remember S?o Paulo? As part of the ZEBRA initiative, they acquired 18 battery-powered buses through a pilot project with the batteries as a service. The problem is that there is no standardization in terms of battery connectors and contacts, so what you get is an operator depending on the e-bus manufacturer when it comes to all things technology. For all their innovative approaches—the battery is, indeed, a service bought separately—they have to go to the same manufacturer over and over again if they want to replace it. So standardize the battery and enjoy more competitors!

The article actually mentions some issues with technical availability since few original equipment manufacturers (OEM) are willing to export to Australia rather than Europe, for example, because it is not financially viable. Here is, however, some food for thought: local OEMs. Sure, they are not likely to offer competitive prices for their goods and services; they, however, can customize vehicles because they know the environment well, and they can make the most of the use-case approach because they know the inner workings like the back of their hand. Improving the utilization rate is the obvious answer here.

In conclusion, I would like to say this. Net-zero #sustainabletransport is vital for the #future of our planet, and I am beyond happy to see that many electrification initiatives have gone international. Despite all our differences in economies and geography, we have one home, and we must do everything to protect it, making sure that every single one of these projects sees the light. I do not claim to know the one and only way—the path to a #betterfuture is only possible if we work together as an open community, focusing on the industry’s best practices and communicating freely.