Entrepreneurship, Science and Tech

Concerned Citizen’s Take on "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Last night I joined some friends to watch Sony Pictures’ “Who Killed the Electric Car?“  The documentary tracks General Motors’ EV1, an electricity-powered vehicle (hence EV, which has stuck as a general term), from birth in the hands of creative tinkerers in the mid-90’s ’til “death” at the hands of… well, nearly everyone involved according to the filmmakers.  One is left with the strong taste of punctuative tech advancement, and environmental aid, squelched.  

But why?  Unfortunately, the film presents a muddied message.  GM, and other car companies who joined the electric bandwagon, claim lack of demand; enthusiasts cry cover-up, pointing to EV-1 waiting lists out-jockeyed by oil company ties, bad PR for the core car business, and federal regulation aimed at subsidizing the gas guzzlers.  There’s even blame placed on the California Air Resources Board, who undermined the pivotal 1990 Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandate, an initial catalyst for the electric car movement, in favor of alternatives.

None of these answers are fully satisfactory root cause explanations.  Irrespective of demand, there is something telling about the automakers’ electric car disposal tactics, which included pulling every last vehicle off the road and destroying them.  An unusual market move for sure, and indicative of a “problem product.”  In this case, I suspect, it was a product that spelled (someday) core business cannibalization and a new, less rosy, business model moving forward.  Auto manufacturers rely, after all, on a recurring revenue stream of buyers, folks who wear out or trade in their cars and buy anew.  Electric cars, which require as a result of fewer wearable parts much less maintenance than your standard combustion engine powered vehicle, likely bring with them a longer ownership period and perhaps a circumvention altogether of the auto manufacturer in replacements - plug in the latest battery, the single biggest cost of an EV, and you’ve got a near-new machine. 

Interestingly, perhaps in recognition of the above, upstart Think, out of Norway, aims to manufacture electric cars with a sales model geared to sell the car itself, but lease the battery, and sell services (such as WiFi) that utilize the car as platform.  A definitively new model.  And other startups, notably Tesla Motors which has graced major news publications of late, are planning their own EV launches.  Even GM has re-entered the fray with its Chevy Volt, purportedly set for production in 2010.  Thus, the phoenix rises. 

I can’t help but think automakers did a fine job of delaying business model upheaval.  In the process, though, they’ve risked losing a jump on competitors, startup and otherwise.  Still, I’d expect a second wave of entrants.  Is it unrealistic to believe an innovator such as Bug Labs might enable open source, modular EV production?  I don’t think so.  In fact, it turns out that filmmaker Chris Paine is planning his documentary’s sequel, titled, “Who Saved the Electric Car?”  I hope the answer is scrappy entrepreneurs and forward-thinking investors.  I’d bet on it.

__________

Photo credit: GM Killed The Electric Car, originally uploaded by vaXzine

***New to punctuative?  Consider subscribing to my RSS feed (subscribe here), or sign up for email updates in the box to the right.

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I'm skeptical of the notion that car manufacturers would stand to lose anything by building cars that last longer for a few reasons:

    1) Cars have consistently improved in reliability, and manufacturers compete on those reputations. Even cars with a "cheap" reputation like Hyundai do what they can to build reliability into their brand (like by offering a 10 year warranty). With the boom of Japanese cars many years ago, consumers demonstrated that they have no tolerance for it, and car manufacturers have adapted.

    2) If you're making money on leases and trade-ins having more reliable cars that last longer should help your revenue stream via the higher resale value, potentially allowing you to offer better lease deals, lower maintenance costs during the lease, etc.

    3) I have no numbers to support this theory, but I wonder what percentage of car owners actually hold on to one car until the end of it's useful lifetime? Or, more to the point, if a car could last 20 years, how many owners would want to drive the same vehicle for 2 decades? My guess is that we hit a point at which a car's useful lifetime doesn't substantively affect the pace at which new cars are purchased.

    I *love* the idea of a car as a platform for services though. To some extent with OnStar and satellite radio those things are happening, but if someone really wanted to re-invent the model by coming up with more creative services (like wi-fi) things could get really exciting.
    • ^
    • v
    Tom:

    Great points, all. I'll add a couple additional thoughts in waters that, admittedly, I'm new to considering. My initial thoughts, I believe, undervalued the deleterious effect of electric cars on automakers' distribution mechanism, dealerships, which rely upon service revenue as a significant portion of their overall top line (see recent article highlighting service's importance to dealerships here - http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/st...). If electric cars do usher in a lower maintenance era, dealerships are in trouble and automakers will have to rethink their partnerships.

    I agree completely that consumers desire, and purchase, new cars, irrespective of function. The purchase, however, is substantial (a durable good, in economics lingo) and I believe folks would welcome the notion of a "platform" or "shell" for which upgrades were more easily integrated, something I believe the electric car might ultimately accomplish.

    Best,
    Matt
    • ^
    • v
    You know, there's already an electric car battery that's "good enough". It's the Nickel Metal Hydride EV-95, the same battery used in GM's EV-1 and Toyota's RAV4-EV. It gets over 100 miles per charge and after 100,000 miles is still in use by the City of Santa Monica and some of Southern California Edison's RAV4-EV fleet. That's the battery that should be mated with the Prius as the first practical "plug in hybrid". Battery technology will improve, but WHY WAIT?

    Why hasn't more been said about this battery? The media talks about the negatives of the Lithium Ion battery (cost and safety), but totally ignores the proven EV-95! Could it be there are strong incentives (threatened loss of advertising revenue from auto and oil companies) to keep this Chevron (Cobasys) owned solution from being talked about?

    About a month ago a client of mine drove up in her RAV4-EV, one of the few electric cars sold (not leased) in 2002. She says she understands why the auto dealers hate this car... in the five years she's owned it, the only service it has needed is a set of new tires! Just think of all the things you could do with money saved on gas, service and replacing unreliable automobiles!
    • ^
    • v
    Watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" recently, great documentary, yay for progress!

    I noticed some similarities between the oil industry and the tobacco industry: They both exploit people's addictions (nicotine in tobacco, the convenience of gas). Also, both industries have stifled better alternatives (not smoking is healthier than smoking, not using gas pollutes less). People have successfully resisted tobacco companies...

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus