-This video follows the introduction to the new mobility services
of the first video.
The goal of this video is twofold,
to analyze the compatibility of electric vehicles
with urban car-sharing and carpooling services on one hand,
and to discuss potential success factors
for the deployment of electric vehicles
as part of such services on the other.
The specific characteristics of electric vehicles
make them potential competitors of thermal vehicles,
but not necessarily favorites,
for deployment in the context of new mobility services,
and in particular urban shared modes such as car sharing,
where several people share a car on different journeys
at different times, or carpooling, where several people share a car
on the same journey at the same time.
Here are some of their specific characteristics
mentioned in previous courses: limited battery capacity,
high costs of investment in the vehicle, battery,
and recharging infrastructure, comparatively low operating costs,
a strong constraint of access to the infrastructure
linked to the recurrent need for recharging,
very low levels of local pollutant emissions,
driving simplicity and comfort due to the automatic transmission,
absence of vibration, reduced engine noise,
acceleration performance at low speeds,
and performance of regenerative magnetic braking,
a high level of connectivity notably enabling recharge management,
a relative diversity of plug standards and recharge modes
limiting the technical interoperability of the recharge,
a certain diversity of battery technologies
providing a margin for adaptation to the services,
and a lack of popularity among the general public
constituting a psychological disincentive to their use.
To set the basis for analyzing the compatibility
of electric vehicles with urban car-sharing and carpooling services,
here is a brief reminder of the types of services
commonly encountered, starting with the various car-sharing services.
First, two main families of car-sharing services
are usually distinguished, depending on whether the vehicles
must be returned to the point where they were borrowed,
which is referred to as return car sharing,
or whether the vehicles can be returned at a different point,
which is referred to as one-way car sharing.
In the family of return car-sharing services
two categories are distinguished,
depending on whether the vehicles are owned and provided
by private individuals, referred to as peer-to-peer car sharing,
or whether they are owned by a public or private operator.
In the family of one-way car-sharing services,
two categories are also distinguished,
depending on whether the vehicles are collected and returned
at clearly identified stations, or whether they are collected
and returned anywhere within identified service areas,
which is referred to as free-floating car sharing.
Several families of carpooling services
can also be identified, for long distances or daily commuting,
static or dynamic, with or without meeting infrastructure,
but these characteristics are of secondary importance
when discussing the pros and cons
of electric vehicles for such services.
While long-distance carpooling obviously raises the question
of range and of en-route and destination charging,
there are no specific obstacles to the use of electric vehicles
for local carpooling, unless significant detours are envisaged,
to pick up new carpooling passengers, which carpooling services exclude,
or make it possible to exclude.
Note that, regarding carpooling, the low cost of usage
of electric vehicles could paradoxically reduce
the incentive for electric vehicle drivers
to offer their services to carpooling platforms
basing the remuneration of the journey on the principle of cost sharing.
Unless a single rate of mileage expenses
is introduced for electric and thermal vehicles,
the low cost of usage of electric vehicles
represents a priori an obstacle to their use in carpooling.
The high level of connectivity of electric vehicles
predisposes them favorably for integration
into the most sophisticated carpooling services,
notably dynamic carpooling services, by facilitating the proposition
of carpooling opportunities taking into account the location,
possibly the destination entered in the browser, etc., in real time.
Note however that a growing number of thermal vehicles
have an equivalent level of connectivity.
Finally, for carpool passengers, the experience of the comfort level,
especially in terms of noise, of electric vehicles,
can be an asset for both short- and long-distance journeys.
However, none of the factors listed here
appear to be a decisive advantage or a major disadvantage
for the use of electric vehicles in carpooling services.
Among the characteristics of electric vehicles
proving a disadvantage compared to their thermal competitors
in the context of car sharing services,
the limited range and the recurring constraint
of recharging must be considered in priority.
Since car-sharing cars are shared between several users,
they are used more intensively than private cars.
Intensity of use may thus be an argument
against electric vehicles if there is a risk
that repeated consecutive uses are not compatible
with certain individual one-off uses requiring a long range,
for example for a return trip to remote peri-urban areas.
This risk is all the more real since car-sharing service users
generally do not inform in advance about their intended use
and may therefore end up with vehicles
with a range too short for their desired journey.
In connection with the limited range,
the strong constraint of access to infrastructure
due to the recurrent need for charging
may seem incompatible with stationless car-sharing models
unless are set up processes by which the operator takes charge
of the vehicles to be recharged, or incentives for the user
to charge vehicles reaching their range limit
in suitable infrastructures.
The high investment costs involved in choosing electric vehicles,
which include the cost of the vehicle, of the battery,
and possibly of the recharging infrastructure,
represent another disadvantage for electric vehicles
compared to their thermal competitors, for an equivalent type of vehicle.
Only the ability of the operator to reason in TCO,
i.e. total cost of ownership, over the entire useful life,
possibly through long-term lease service contracts,
will overcome the obstacle of fixed capital cost overruns.
In addition, the range of technical standards
around the electric vehicle has now stabilized
around a portfolio, although limited in number,
of plug standards and charging modes, slow, fast, and accelerated.
From a technical and economic point of view,
this multiplicity of standards generates additional investment costs
to ensure technical interoperability of recharging,
and the choice of certain electric vehicle technologies
may exclude the use of accelerated or fast charging
as a complement charge for car sharing.
On the cognitive and behavioral level, the multiplicity of standards
maintains a lack of knowledge of the electric vehicle ecosystem
and a probably exaggerated perception of its complexity.
More generally, the general public's lack of knowledge and familiarity
with electric vehicles is likely to hinder the use
of car-sharing services based on this type of vehicle.
While certain specific characteristics of electric vehicles
do not seem to predispose it specifically to use in shared mode,
it would appear that improving the information
available to operators and potential users of car-sharing services
would be likely to help the integration
of electric vehicles into car-sharing services.
Among the characteristics of electric vehicles
giving them an advantage in shared use over thermal vehicles,
the combination of low costs of usage and high investment costs
provides a strong incentive to make the investment profitable
through intensive use, which can be envisaged in shared modes.
This combination is therefore more favorable to car sharing,
notably but not only in peer-to-peer,
than the combination of low investment cost
and high cost of usage that characterizes thermal vehicles.
In addition, although lithium-ion battery technology
currently dominates the electric vehicle market,
at least one alternative technology is making its way
into the car-sharing market, lithium-metal-polymer technology, LMP,
which requires the battery temperature to be maintained
and therefore the vehicle to be kept in charge
when not in use, provides car-sharing services
with a potential alternative to lithium-ion technology,
provided that the service can rely on a network
of charging points in the stations.
In terms of technical design, the high level of connectivity
of electric vehicles, notably in relation
with their charge management needs, predisposes them to be monitored
using digital tools, implemented in the context
of car-sharing services, with geolocation, information
on the operation and charge status of the vehicle, and so on.
In terms of use, electric vehicles present the advantages
of driving comfort and simplicity due to the automatic transmission,
absence of vibration, low engine noise,
acceleration performance at low speeds
and performance of regenerative magnetic braking.
All these features may act as positive elements
in the user experience.
Finally, in terms of externalities, the reduced levels
of local pollutants emitted by electric vehicles
compared to thermal vehicles position electric vehicles strongly
for intensive use in car-sharing services in urban areas,
although the question naturally arises of the promotion by the operator
of environmental gains to public authorities
and their possible remuneration.
If we look at the actual penetration of electric vehicles
into car-sharing services currently in operation,
we see that more than 7 000 electric vehicles
have already been deployed
by the three leading one-way car-sharing operators.
The operator Bluecarsharing, a subsidiary of the Bolloré group,
operates a fleet of 3 900 Bluecar electric vehicles,
from the manufacturer Bolloré, under the Autolib brand in Paris,
and continues its development worldwide
in six cities so far with 4 700 Bluecars in total.
The use of lithium-polymer-metal technology,
which requires the vehicle to be kept in charge when not in use,
and therefore requires a charging infrastructure with many stations,
confers a high range of around 250 km to the vehicles of these services.
The operator DriveNow, a subsidiary of the BMW group,
has integrated more than 800 electric i3 vehicles, from BMW,
into 8 of its 10 car-sharing fleets in Europe,
including 400 in a 100% electric service in Copenhagen.
Finally, the operator Car2Go, a subsidiary of the Daimler group
with nearly 14 000 car-sharing vehicles worldwide,
has integrated nearly 1 400 Smart ForTwo Electric Drive vehicles
from Daimler into 3 of its 26 car-sharing fleets worldwide,
including 500 and 500 in 100% electric services
in Stuttgart and Madrid, and 350 in a 100% electric service in Amsterdam.
In summary, one of the key success factors
for car-sharing electric vehicles
is the ability of the operator
to capitalize on the vehicle's connectivity
in order to optimize the management of its service
as well as the ability to align its technical choices,
vehicle, battery, and operational choices, return or one-way,
deploying a dedicated recharging infrastructure or not, and so on.
In addition, electric vehicles offering the prospect
of positive externalities, particularly in terms
of local air quality, the valorization of these positive externalities
and their appropriate consideration in sustainable business models
is a key success factor in the medium term
of car-sharing electric vehicles.
Finally, to improve the prospects
for adoption of car-sharing electric vehicles,
improving the quality and dissemination of information
on the technical, economic, and comfort characteristics
and performances of electric vehicles can play a crucial role.
Organizing feedback on existing uses of car-sharing electric vehicles
can be a way of improving this information.
Thank you.
