We humans create simplified simulations of reality in our minds, patterns of behaviour. We use them daily so we can reduce the amount of information we have to digest and to predict what is going to happen " if.......".
Magicians and spin doctors can be effective by manipulating our assumptions. They try to trigger us by words en visual clues into assuming that reality fits a pattern we know. They often succeed in locking us into a perception of reality that is more governed by our internal simulation than what is actually happening. So much we actually do not perceive some inputs any more, as shown in a previous post.
So it pays to be very carefull when words are used that trigger emotions and assumptions, like in advertisements. Look in the opposite direction.
I got triggered by Project Better Place .
It is a venture to get all-electric cars powered by renewable sources on the road in many countries, starting in Denmark and Israel and Australia.
The nomer " Project Better Place" (PBP) has strong connotations with an altruistic goal to improve the world. But venture capitalists who invest over 200 mio USD are most likely interested in high returns. So where is the beef?
In the Ecogeek blog questions are raised about the business model of the cars of PBP.
A recent presentation by their European Business Development Executive Hans de Boer gave some indications of a plan how PBP could make a fortune.
For each country a local company is set up with local partners and local financing. The local company sells or leases the cars, leases the batteries to drivers, sets up a network of charge points connected to the grid. PBP manages how and when the cars are charged up, cuts deals with suppliers of (renewable) electric energy.
The key remark for me was that the business case for a user of the electric car was great....because no taxes were levied on electric cars.
This is not sustainable. Most governments raise a lot of income out of taxes on cars and gasoline If electric cars will become mainstream the governments will need to get compensation for this lost income.
So could this be the plan? Local companies bear the financial riscs of both the batteries and a business case that is highly dependent upon a tax advantage which cannot be sustained in the long run. The local company raises the money to build the infrastructure (charging points). PBP only contributes intellectual property (which they continue to own and control) but controls the grid and the charging. They are the exclusive middle man between suppliers of energy and consumers, making money out of every Kwh sold. And cars consume a lot of Kwh's. If the number of charging points is high enough other EV's will have no choice but to use this infrastructure, creating a de-facto monopoly for PBP.
Pretty shrewd. As a working hypothesis on how to assess PBP until more or contradicting facts become public this is my favorite.
Leave a comment