EnerBLOG

Last night Better Place broadcasted a live video feed of their first battery “switch station.” As promised, the station does appear to switch a spent EV battery for a new one in just a couple minutes - it’s quite impressive:

This demonstration should silence some the Better Place skeptics who argued that battery swapping was simply not possible. Yet, there are still automakers that doubt other technical aspects of battery-swapping, even if the stations can be built. Moreover, many of the Better Place critics challenge the fundamental concept of battery-swapping itself.  Some argue that the technological hurdles that the model seeks to address will be overcome in the near future (e.g. quick-charging and high-voltage infrastructure). Others are of the mind that swapping stations may be an expensive band aid for a broken bone, even if the aforementioned advances don’t occur for some time. While Better Place claims that they’ll roll out their entire infrastructure all across Israel for less than it costs the country to import oil for a two months, it is still hundreds of millions of dollars - their plan to wire the Bay Area is set to cost a staggering $1 Billion! If swapping is the interim solution until quick-charge batteries come to the market, does it make sense to invest millions (or billions) in infrastructure rather than battery R&D?

Those are larger questions than this post will tackle. Instead, I’d like to raise an issue that’s top of my mind due to its central place in smart grid discussions - interoperability.

Discussions about standards for plug connectors are well-underway. Charging companies like Coulomb, and vehicle manufacturers like GM, recognize that this is an issue that must be sorted out before the widespread adoption of electric vehicles can take place. Imagine the complexities that would exist if Mobil, Gulf, and Citgo stations all had different shaped nozzles at their fuel pumps.

For the moment, however, Better Place appears to be the only company focused on creating a battery swapping infrastructure, so the same pressure for standards doesn’t seem to exist.  But while external pressure for standards may not be as great, ignoring the issue of interoperability would be a mistake for Better Place. Even if there isn’t a lot of discussion on the topic, it must be on Better Place’s radar - such standards are likely key to the adoption of their model. In fact, Better Place needs their standards to be adopted by a slew of companies to achieve their vision - switching stations won’t be ubiquitous if they only work with a minority of electric vehicles. Even if Better Place was willing to deploy infrastructure for those vehicles alone, a closed system that worked only with the vehicle manufacturers Better Place had partnered with (today only Renault/Nissan) would slow adoption by consumers who may feel too locked-in to one service provider. That consumer sentiment would likely be noticed by other firms in the space who would seek to meet consumer demands for a more flexible system, creating a standards war.  Moreover, I have to imagine the governments they’re working with don’t want to find themselves in a situation where one company owns and is responsible for all the EV-related infrastructure.

Fortunately, Better Place seems to be focused on the issue. While the “Standards” page on the Better Place website deals mostly with charging and battery standards, it ends with the following sentence: “We are also driving performance standards for switch technology to insure [sic] that drivers get the same quality of service regardless of where they go or which service provider they select.” This is certainly good news for consumers, especially if Better Place succeeds. Format wars are painful enough when they involve the living room, but they’re much worse when they involve infrastructure.