The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Apple has committed to trying to produce an electric car by 2019. Some see it as assuring the transformation of the auto industry, while others see it as Apple’s Waterloo.
Earlier this month the nation celebrated National Drive Electric Week, with events in 195 cities. Read more →
Americans love their freedom to choose. Someone invents something, and competitors rush in with their own similar products to fight for a market that didn’t exist before.
This is what Tesla has done with the electric vehicle: The Model S is making cold-eyed journalists swoon, and the next few months are huge: The company will soon release its eagerly awaited crossover SUV, the Model X, followed by its more-eagerly awaited “affordable” sedan, the Model 3.
But Tesla shouldn’t get too comfortable, because the established auto-makers want to steal some of its quiet, zero-emission thunder with EVs of their own: In the past week, Toyota unveiled the new Prius, trying to assure everyone it can be cool as well as get 10 percent more miles out of a battery charge; Edmunds gave its blessing for the 2016 Chevy Volt; there was a possible sighting of the 2016 Nissan Leaf, the best-selling EV in the U.S.; and there were rumors that Mercedes-Benz is working on an electric car than has a range of 311 miles.
It’s a basic rule of economics: Competitive markets are good for consumers. Which is why drivers should be demanding fuel choice as well.
Gasoline is cheap now, but it doesn’t take much to cause a price spike: The threat of a supply constriction overseas; a refinery going down (and staying down, in California’s case); output quotas in OPEC nations. Anything can cause volatility in the global market. Businesses don’t like uncertainty, and it’s bad for consumers as well.
The only way to reduce the cost structure of fuels over the long term is to create fuel choice, something the United States has never known. To quote former Shell Oil president John Hofmeister: “We will never get past the volatility of oil until we get to alternatives to oil.”
We’re not advocating an end to fossil fuels. We just want fuel choice: Ethanol, methanol, CNG, LNG, biodiesel, hydrogen and, yes, electric batteries. Anything that reduces our dependence on oil is good for America.
If gasoline, the same fuel we’ve been stuck with for more than a century, is the superior fuel for vehicles, let it compete with other choices at the pump. If oil companies don’t want competition, what are they afraid of?
Related posts:
People tend to think that Teslas and the Nissan Leaf are new developments, but in fact the electric car has a history stretching back to the 19th century.
The first electric car was built in 1884 by Thomas Parker, the man responsible for designing the London Underground, plus various overhead tramways in Liverpool and Birmingham, all running on electricity. Parker powered his independent vehicle with rechargeable batteries of his own design.
Soon variations on the EV began to appear across Europe and America. Gasoline engines were still loud and dirty and required a hand crank to get started. Steam cars were regarded as much cleaner and easier to use. Although they took a little while to get warmed up, they did not require long recharging periods, as did the electrics.
As a result, in the year 1900, 40 percent of American cars on the road were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity and the remaining 22 percent by the infant gasoline engine. Henry Ford, then an employee at Detroit Edison, was as interested in electric cars as the internal combustion engine. In 1896 he was driving an electric “quadricycle” around Detroit. He met Edison, who was his employer, and showed him his plans for an internal combustion engine. Edison encouraged him to go ahead, even though he had his own plans for an electric vehicle.
Ford founded his own company in 1903 and introduced two revolutionary changes: the electric starter motor and the assembly line. Soon the Ford Model T, known as the Tin Lizzy, was going through the production process in 90 minutes. With the arm-twisting crank no longer necessary, the internal combustion engine took off, quickly replacing both the steamer and the electric.
Meanwhile, Edison had not lost interest in the electric car. He replaced the lead-acid battery with a more efficient nickel-iron version and announced the conversion of four touring cars from gasoline to electricity. He also wrote in favor of the technology:
Electricity is the thing. There are no whirring and grinding gears with their numerous levers to confuse. There is not that almost terrifying uncertain throb and whirr of the powerful combustion engine. There is no water-circulating system to get out of order — no dangerous and evil-smelling gasoline and no noise.
To this he could have added “no polluting exhaust and no carbon emissions,” but the advantages he mentions still remain today.
Nevertheless, Americans learned to live with the roar of the ICE and the smell of gasoline. Ford’s interest in electricity did not die, however, and as late as 1914 he and Edison were rumored to be working together on an electric car. It was reported that the car would sell for somewhere between $500 and $750 and have a range of 100 miles. Edison wrote:
Mr. Henry Ford is making plans for the tools, special machinery, factory buildings and equipment for the production of this new electric. There is so much special work to be done that no date can be fixed now as to when the new electric can be put on the market. But Mr. Ford is working steadily on the details, and he knows his business so it will not be long.
I believe that ultimately the electric motor will be universally used for trucking in all large cities, and that the electric automobile will be the family carriage of the future. All trucking must come to electricity. I am convinced that it will not be long before all the trucking in New York City will be electric.
Ford even bought interest in a power plant at Niagara Falls to provide some of the electricity. But Edison’s nickel-iron battery proved to have internal resistance and was not powerful enough to propel the vehicle. So the lead-iron battery was re-substituted without Ford’s knowledge. When it proved to be too heavy to be carried by the vehicle, Ford was furious, and the project was abandoned.
So the electric car gradually faded from view. By the 1950s, the only person in America still driving an electric was Walt Disney’s Grandma Duck, who as the grandmother of Donald was a symbol of octogenarian irrelevancy. But the oil crisis of the 1970s changed all that. Once again there was widespread interest in finding a substitute for gasoline and foreign oil.
California got the ball rolling with a mandate that the car companies produce a zero-emissions vehicle or be banned from selling in the state. One result was GM’s EV1, an electric vehicle made in the late 1990s that won praise in the industry but was probably ahead of its time. Vijay Vaitheeswaran, energy writer for The Economist, described his experience when he rented an EV1 during a visit to California:
The vehicle proved to have a much shorter range than I thought it would – closer to 50 miles than a 100. The fact that I sped along at 80 mph in those empty HOV lanes might have drained the battery faster, but only certain highways had that lane; more often, I was crawling along in traffic like everyone else. And most of the time, I was going nowhere at all, since my vehicle kept running out of power. Charging proved the biggest nightmare. There were plenty of chargers around, but some were of the wrong sort; others were locked or nonfunctional. And rather than the “pretty quick” recharge, my useless battery took more than five hours for a full charge. As a result, my entire visit turned into a fiasco of delayed or missed appointments, apologetic cell-phone calls, and panicky exits from the highway to obscure malls and commuter-rail stations in search of a charger.
Most EV1’s ended up in the shredding machines. The story was then told in a bizarre documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?”, which found four people who said they would have liked to buy one and attributed the whole failure to a conspiracy by the oil companies.
But the ice was broken, and in 2006 PayPal founder Elon Musk introduced the Tesla, a high-end vehicle that he said would redefine the automobile industry. The $103,000 Tesla Model S P85D was named the “best car ever” by Consumer Reports last week (“on a scale of zero to 100, a 103”). Musk is currently planning to reach the average car buyer with the Model 3 that will sell for $35,000. Nissan’s Leaf, an urban run-around, has racked up 170,000 in sales worldwide.
The obstacles remain the same as those Thomas Edison and Henry Ford faced: limited driving range, long charging time, the weight of the battery and a scarcity of recharging stations. But Tesla and Nissan are working hard to overcome them.
So will the electric vehicle once again be consigned to the ranks of those novelties that never quite worked out? Or will it fulfill the long-lost dreams of Thomas Edison and Henry Ford as a legitimate alternative to the internal combustion engine? We’ll know in about two years when the Model 3 hits the market.
The month of September will mark a turning point as to whether Tesla Motors will be just another overhyped technology stock or whether it is truly about to lead a revolution in the auto industry.
The month will mark the introduction of Tesla’s Model X, a $90,000 crossover SUV that will test the company’s ability to compete against the other automobile giants. If it passes this test, Tesla will be in a great position to mass-market the $35,000 Model 3 sedan when it goes on sale in late 2017. If the Model X turns out to be a dud, however, Tesla will face a much tougher climb in trying to break into the mainstream with the Model 3 two years from now. At stake will be Tesla’s market capitalization of $31 billion – higher than Chrysler’s – plus that $1 billion “gigafactory” the company is building in the Nevada desert to supply batteries for the anticipated sales of the mid-range Model 3. Plus the home -energy storage market.
The possible success of Models X and 3 is so unprecedented that it has caused economists to revise one of the most cherished theories of economic change, the idea of “disruptive technology.”
The idea of disruptive technology comes from the 1997 book by Harvard Business School economist Clayton Christensen and has made the phrase one of the most popular buzzwords in the field of economic progress. The title of Christensen’s book, “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” described how well-established companies often miss important transitions when newcomers break into the market with simplified products targeted at the bottom end. Christensen used the success of personal computers and steel mini-mills to illustrate how newcomers entered the field with cheaper and more convenient products targeted well below those segments claimed by leaders such as IBM or U.S. Steel. Eventually the upstarts toppled the giant.
There’s just one problem in positing Tesla as a disruptive technology: It has been overwhelmingly aimed at the richest auto customers, rather than the poorest. This prompted another Harvard B-School professor, Thomas Bartman, to write an article in the May issue of the Harvard Business Review arguing that Tesla is not disruptive but just another high-priced item aimed at biting off a luxury end of the market. Bartman argued that Tesla is too expensive to be disruptive, but that golf carts and those minimalist electric vehicles being produced in China were the true disrupters of automobile technology. They would catch on as courtesy vehicles for motoring around senior citizens’ centers and eventually upgrade to an urban vehicle convenient for making short shopping trips and finding a place to park.
This challenge has prompted other economists to revise the theory of disruptive technology and to create a new category into which Tesla easily fits. This is known as “high-end disruptors.” Jeff Dyer and Hal Gregersen make the elaborate case, in Forbes, that Tesla is only one of many new high-end disruptors whose chances for success are just as likely as those disruptors coming in from the low end of the market:
Unlike classic disruptive innovations such as steel mini-mills, personal computers and, in the car business, cheap Japanese imports, Tesla never pursued the classic route of going after low-end, price-sensitive customers first with cheaper, inferior technology. It doesn’t pursue nonconsumption, or customers who don’t currently drive cars. Tesla automobiles look and drive much like other cars, use established infrastructure like roads and confine much of their product innovation to only one aspect: the power system.
… Tesla has instead proved to be a different kind of disruptor, a high-end version that can be just as troublesome for the incumbents …
High-end disruptors produce innovations that are leapfrog in nature, making them difficult to imitate rapidly. They outperform existing products on critical attributes on their debut; they sell for a premium price rather than a discount; and they target incumbents’ most profitable customers, going after the most discriminating and least price-sensitive buyers before spreading to the mainstream. If you look within some large companies, you can flesh out previous examples: Apple’s iPod outplayed the Sony Walkman; Starbucks’ high-end coffee drinks and atmosphere drowned out local coffee shops; Dyson’s vacuum cleaners now have solid market share; Garmin’s GPS golf watches have taken much of the business from range finders. The incumbents didn’t react fast enough, and the high-end disruptors took over their market.
So it may be with Tesla. The company may not just disrupt the auto market but may force a revision of one of the most cherished new economic theories — that disruptions must always come from the bottom. Once again, Elon Musk may have outfoxed the experts. But it will all depend on how automobile consumers start responding to the new models targeting the mainstream.
By next month we should start to find out.
Related posts:
As oil prices have tumbled, one thing has become clear: Electric vehicles are making much greater headway in the rest of the world than they are in the United States.
U.S. sales have remained flat over the past year after increasing steadily over the last decade. But sales have actually accelerated in some European countries, and several now have a larger percentage of their fleet in EVs than America does.
The website InsideEVs estimated that 160,670 EVs were sold around the world through the month of May, 34 percent ahead of last year during the same period. But U.S. global market share is declining: Domestic sales totaled 43,973 through May, a fraction ahead of last year’s pace. But when the June numbers came out, the U.S. had sold only 10,365, off 16.2 percent from the same month in 2014.
Norway is emerging as the world leader in making the transition from gasoline to electric vehicles. An incredible 33 percent of new-car registrations in the first quarter of 2015 were for EVs. Volkswagen’s e-Golf, the electric model, now sells 71 percent of its cars worldwide in Norway, giving it 40 percent of the Norwegian market. Tesla is not far behind with 16 percent of the market. Oddly, the Toyota Prius, the pioneer in the hybrid field, is seeing almost no sales now. People are beginning to opt for all-electric rather than the halfway point of gas-electric hybrids.
The Norwegian government has given EVs a raft of advantages over traditional gasoline-powered engines. Here’s a brief list:
• EVs get access to bus lanes
• The government has provided free charging stations
• EVs get free access to all toll roads
• EVs get free rides on ferries
• EVs get free parking in municipal parking spaces
• EVs carry a low annual road fee
• EV buyers pay no tax on purchase
Some of these advantages will eventually have to be cut back as the number of EVs on the road grows. But for now the incentives are huge and are not costing the government a great deal of money.
Other European countries have also been successful in promoting the purchase of electric vehicles. EVs now make up 5.7 percent of new car registrations in the Netherlands and 1.2 percent in the United Kingdom. The U.S. counts only 0.8 percent of new registrants as EVs, a figure that is matched by France. Germany and Japan counted only 0.6 percent of new registrations during the first quarter.
The reason EVs are doing so well in Europe is easy to identify: Europe imports nearly all its oil, and gasoline prices are much higher, mainly because of the imposition of heavy taxes. Gasoline sells for $8 a gallon in much of Europe, while prices are generally below $3 per gallon in this country. But air pollution is also playing a role. Pollution in some European cities has gotten as bad as it is in China and other parts of Asia. Paris shut down all auto traffic for three days last year when air pollution reached the same levels of Beijing and Shanghai. Sales of the Nissan Leaf – now the best-selling electric vehicle in the world – skyrocketed during this period. It’s expected that if emergencies like the one in Paris become commonplace, electric vehicles will be exempted from the ban.
Meanwhile, it appears that electric vehicles are finally taking off in China, which is now the world’s largest auto market. Back in the early 2000s, the Chinese government promised it would have 500,000 EVs on the road by 2011. Officials publicly announced they would be challenging the American industry by then. But as late as 2014, China was selling only 600 EVs a month, at the same time the U.S. was selling 6,000.
All that has reversed over the past year. In December, China sold 27,000 electric vehicles, almost 30 times the number as the previous January, and surpassed the U.S. in monthly sales for the first time. In 2015 China will probably become the world’s largest buyer of EVs.
All this has happened while Tesla was failing in its attempt to break into the Chinese market. The reason is plain: Tesla is marketing a luxury vehicle, something that few Chinese can afford. Meanwhile, the Chinese manufacturers, BYD, Kandi, Chery Zotye and BAIC, are selling no-frills vehicles that can only reach about 35 miles per hour. But such utilitarian vehicles are perfect for Chinese families to buzz around their cities for shopping and short commutes. There is even speculation that the Chinese manufacturers may start marketing their vehicles in the United States, where they would compete with entries such as the Chevy Volt and the Ford Focus. There is even talk that such vehicles may be able to feed off the rise of Uber for short-term ride-sharing in an urban setting.
Tesla’s moment of truth will come with the expected 2017 release of its Model 3, the $35,000 version of its EV, aimed at the average car-buyer. Then we will see if Tesla can really meet its deadlines, and if it can sell its highly stylized car on the mid-market. If it can, Tesla will probably have oodles of customers in both Europe and America, giving it a shot at the 500,000 sales Elon Musk has declared as his 2020 goal.
One simple slide in a PowerPoint presentation by a Tesla official at an auto convention in Washington this month did almost as much damage as Elon Musk’s rocket blowing up soon after liftoff.
JB Straubel, chief technological officer and co-founder of Tesla Motors, put up a slide on June 15 indicating that Tesla’s Model 3 would not “begin production until 2018.” This apparent delay set the new vehicle back from the previously announced deadline of 2017 and almost knocked the company for a loop. The website Inside EVs broke the story, as it were, and word of the PPT slide was repeated in countless news stories. The interpretation was clear: Once again, Tesla had been forced to postpone key product rollout.
Within hours, Tesla had assured investors and analysts that it was not changing its schedule. The $35,000 Model 3 will be available in 2017, as previously planned. “Contrary to speculative blogger reports, we still plan to show Model 3 in 2016 and begin production in 2017,” Ricardo Reyes, vice president of communications, tweeted. The statement about production in 2018 was said to refer to “full production,” an attempt at back-filling that many analysts viewed with a grain of salt.
Whether the reference to 2018 was just a typographical error or an inadvertent peek under the kimono, the controversy showed how delicately balanced Tesla’s position is, both in terms of meeting customer expectations and in raising money to continue its projects.
Missing deadlines would certainly be nothing new for Tesla. In February 2012 the company said its crossover Model X would be available by the end of 2013. In February 2013, it said it would be late 2014. In November 2013 the company announced that a small number would be available by the end of 2014, but actual deliveries would not begin until the third quarter of 2015. Everyone is waiting to see if this deadline will be kept. Meanwhile, speculation has increased that any delay in the debut of the Model 3 may be due to the resources that have been spent trying to get the Model X out the door.
The Model 3 is Tesla’s bid for the big time. The car is projected to have a range of 500 miles and would be priced at the aforementioned $35K, less than half of the $79,570 MSRP of the 2015 Tesla Model S. The Model 3 is intended to be a mass-market sedan that’s well within the reach of the average car buyer. Musk, Tesla’s flamboyant co-founder and CEO, hopes to sell 500,000 versions of the Model 3 by 2020, a feat that could put Tesla on a firm financial footing.
But there are pending obstacles. One is the Chevrolet Bolt, a plug-in all-electric that is the successor to the Volt, a plug-in hybrid. GM demonstrated the Bolt in a sample model this month and will also be priced in the $35,000 range. GM promised to have the Bolt on the market by early 2017, which would beat Tesla’s Model 3 out of the gate.
Whether electric-car buyers will be attracted to the Bolt – or whether they will wait for what will almost certainly be a superior product from Tesla – is a hotly debated question. “GM is ramping up to make 20,000 Bolts. Tesla is ramping up to make 500,000,” said one commenter to a Wall Street Journal story. “When a company names its new car the ‘Bolt,’ Tesla has little to worry about,” said another. But other readers cited GM’s superior service network, and the company’s long history of making money, while Tesla has only lost money.
One thing is certain: Tesla is building brand loyalty. A survey of 145 Tesla owners by automotive analyst Dan Dolev of Jeffries found that 85 percent said their next car would also be a Tesla, and 25 percent wouldn’t even consider another brand. Eighty-three percent said they would recommend Tesla to their friends, and a remarkable 89 percent said they would still buy a Tesla without the $7,500 federal government tax break. The owners also turned out to be not nearly as rich as expected. Almost 70 percent had previously owned cars that cost less than $60,000, including ones as modest as a $15,000 Toyota Highlander. They paid an average premium of 80 percent over their previous car when they bought a Tesla. As a result of the survey, Jeffries raised its target price for Tesla stock to $350 from its current $265.
The battery-producing Gigafactory outside Reno is moving ahead on schedule, with the first phase of the structure near completion and machinery is about to be moved in. The current phase represents only 14 percent of the planned layout. Once completed, the Gigafactory will be the largest building in the world, with a footprint of 5.8 million square feet and two stories of manufacturing totaling 10 million square feet. Panasonic, Tesla’s battery partner, is expected to send hundreds of workers to the site this fall to prepare for full-scale production. The factory will also employ hundreds of local workers.
Wall Street Journal columnist Charley Grant threw a wrench into the works recently when he wrote that Tesla is still burning through cash and probably will run out of money if the Model X does not sell as expected. He says the company should sell another issue of stock while the price is still high. He suggested that a price of $200, 25 percent below the current market rate, could raise $750 million and carry the company over to the introduction of the Model 3.
Whether the company will dilute ownership or take a chance that Model X sales will reverse its cash flow is just one of the many decisions Musk will be facing in the near future. One thing is certain: He will be balancing atop that high wire for several years to come.
Elon Musk is a darling of libertarians and free-market advocates because he is proposing to change the way Americans drive their cars through purely private effort. But he is now coming under fire for accepting gobs of government assistance in the process.
Critics charge that he has already accepted $4.9 billion in federal and state assistance and is angling for more. One article even asks if Musk has not become a “welfare king.”
Well, let’s take a look at the charges and see how they stack up:
The original article appeared in Mother Jones and was not entirely unfavorable. Staff reporter Josh Harkinson thinks the Tesla is a marvelous car and quotes all the accolades from Consumer Reports and Motor Trend. He even thinks Musk may be the next Steve Jobs and quotes New York Times blogger Jim Motavalli to that effect: “Individuals come along very rarely that are both as creative and driven as that. Musk is not going to settle for a product that is good enough for the marketplace. He wants something that is insanely great.”
What Harkinson objects to is simply that Musk hasn’t given the government enough credit for helping him on his way. He quotes Fred Turner, a Stanford professor and author of From Counterculture to Cyberculture, as saying: “It is not quite self-delusion, but there is a habit of thinking of oneself as a free-standing, independent agent, and of not acknowledging the subsidies that one received. And this goes on all the time in the Valley (i.e., Silicon Valley).”
It’s important to note that Harkinson is not just talking about Tesla. Musk’s other enterprise, SolarCity, which is installing rooftop panels on private homes, actually gets more federal and state subsidies than Tesla. And SpaceX, Musk’s venture into space travel, has a $4.2 billion contract with NASA to build a launching pad in Texas, which does not count as a subsidy but still comes from the government.
As far as Tesla is concerned, here’s what Harkinson counts as government assistance:
• Everyone who buys a Tesla gets a $7,500 tax credit from the federal government. Buyers in California get an additional $2,500 tax credit. Tesla buyers have an average income of $320,000. The federal tax credit will go to the first 200,000 customers. So far, Tesla has sold only one-quarter of that.
• The state of Nevada gave Tesla $1.2 billion in tax benefits to build its Gigafactory outside Reno. The offer came as Nevada was in competition with seven other states for the siting. The factory is expected to produce 6,000 jobs.
• Tesla’s principal source of income in recent years has come from selling Zero Emission Vehicles credits to other manufacturers in a program particular to the state of California. All auto manufacturers are required to produce ZEVs. When they can’t meet their quota, they can buy credits from other manufacturers. Tesla has pocketed $517 million in recent years. Harkinson counts this as a government subsidy, although Musk points out that the money comes from other car companies, not the government.
Musk has been quick to fire back: “If I cared about subsidies, I would have entered the oil and gas industry,” he told the media after The Los Angeles Times ran a story repeating the Mother Jones charges.
He points out that the$1.2 billion from Nevada will be spaced out over a period of two decades. It will also be contingent on the factory having an output of $5 billion every year for the 20-year period. He notes that hiring and other aspects of the Gigafactory will make it a profitable venture for the state of Nevada. And of course he notes that the fossil-fuel industry has received huge subsidies over the decades.
It really isn’t fair to say that Musk is “living off welfare.” His original entrepreneurial success, PayPal, rose to a valuation of $1.5 billion without the slightest assistance from the government. Tesla did receive a $465 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy under the same program that funded the ill-fated Solyndra. But Musk made a grand gesture by paying back the loan ahead of time.
The fact is, it’s almost impossible to start a business these days without becoming involved at some level with the government. If Nevada hadn’t offered tax abatements, some other state would have – and did in fact. Many other factors were involved in the selection of Nevada, and states obviously benefit from such facilities.
Musk is a unique visionary whose reach extends far beyond making money. His ambition is to completely remake America’s automobile system and end the dominance of fossil fuels. He also wants to see America succeed at space travel. He plans to build a colony on Mars and has said he hopes to die on the Red Planet.
“Just not on impact, he added.
(Photo credit: J.D. Lasica, posted to Flickr)
In the May issue of the Harvard Business Review, Clayton Christensen and Tom Bartman tackle the question, “Is the Tesla a truly disruptive innovation?” The answer they come up with is “no,” but they have some interesting things to say in the process.
Christensen is the author of The Innovator’s Dilemma, one of the most highly regarded business books in recent memory. It originated as an article in the HBR exactly twenty years ago, and was published as a book in 1997. Christensen pointed out that established companies were often beaten at their own game by cheaper imitations that performed the same service at a much better price. He cited steel mini-mills and personal computers as examples of innovations that created whole new markets and ended up displacing previous technologies. The “innovator’s dilemma” is that established companies cannot compete at first without undercutting their own products. By the time they make the shift, however, they might be left behind.
An investor challenged Christensen as to whether Tesla was truly disruptive. (“Game-changer” is another popular term for the electric-car company.) Christensen has been feeling defensive about his work recently after a critical 2014 article in The New Yorker, and so he decided to take up the challenge. He assigned the task to Bartman, one of his assistants.
Bartman posed five questions: 1) Does the product target overserved customers by offering lower service at a lower price? 2) Does it create “asymmetric motivation” in that existing competitors aren’t motivated to initiate change? 3) Can it improve performance fast enough to keep pace with customers’ expectations? 4) Does it create new value networks, including sale channels? And 5) Does it disrupt all incumbents, or can an existing player exploit the opportunity?
“As Bartman worked through the questions,” says the article on HBR’s website, “it became clear that Tesla is not a disrupter. It’s a classic ‘sustaining innovation’—a product that, according to Christensen’s definition, offers incrementally better performance at a higher price. There’s nothing rudimentary about Teslas, which compete on price against cars by BMW and Mercedes.”
Truly disruptive technologies, so Christensen’s theory goes, start from the bottom up. They offer a cheap substitute, then grab a market and gradually improve until they have become a full competitor to the existing players. At that point, it might be too late for established companies to adopt the innovations.
Tesla is doing the opposite: It is starting at the high end of the market, competing only with luxury cars, and working its way down. The Model X, a family SUV scheduled to sell for $60,000, is due out this year; and the Model 3, which has a target price of $35,000 is scheduled to be showcased next year for 2018 sale.
It makes a big difference. “If Tesla is following a disruptive innovation strategy, theory predicts that it will continue to see no strong competitive response,” Bartman told HBR. “However, because it’s a sustaining innovation, theory predicts that competitors will emerge. Our analysis concludes that a competitive response won’t happen until Tesla expands outside its current niche of people who prefer electric vehicles to gas-powered cars—but if it expands by creating more variety (such as SUVs) and more-affordable vehicles, competition will be fierce.”
This seems like a pretty good assessment. Right now, Tesla is welcoming competitors. Musk even invited Apple to join him in the automobile business last week. There have been persistent rumors of Apple and Tesla joining forces in automobile manufacture, although Apple seems content to stick with personal electronic devices. But if Tesla succeeds in selling a $35,000 electric vehicle, it is certain it will face competition from GM, Nissan, BMW Volkswagen and the entire established industry.
So is there a vehicle out there that would be truly disruptive to the auto industry? In fact, there is. Bateman and Christensen identify it as the “neighborhood electric vehicle” – the NEV – and say there are already signs of it bubbling up from the bottom.
“In 2011, Polaris, the Minnesota-based manufacturer of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, bought Global Electric Motorcars, a small division of Chrysler that makes battery-powered neighborhood electric vehicles,” writes the HBR. “Although NEVs cannot exceed 35 miles per hour and lack many features of cars, they could eventually steal enough market share to disrupt the automobile industry.”
Polaris CEO Scott Wine told HBR that his company has tightened up the braking system and added heaters and stereos in an attempt to upgrade toward regular automobiles. But the modified golf carts remain extraordinarily cheap –$2,000 to $12,000 — and are now being used in retirement communities. Bateman also points out that 200,000 of these vehicles are being sold in China each year. “When we launch our new model, in the not-too-distant future, it will be an opportunity to do exactly what Clay Christensen’s work says,” Wine says. “It’s going to be a significant disruption.”
So will the modified electric golf cart turn out to be the truly disruptive innovation that upends the internal combustion engine? We’ll soon see.
(Photo credit: Polaris.com)
Elon Musk’s bet that he can sell 50,000 versions of the Model 3, the $35,000 version of the Tesla, due out in 2017, still seems like a long shot, given the somewhat limited market for electric cars.
But he might have one more card up his sleeve. The development of solar energy for home use offers an alternative market for his batteries that could be enough to save Tesla from a market collapse.
Musk is unveiling a new home storage unit that will allow homeowners to move their electrical consumption from expensive peak rates to the rock-bottom rates of overnight power. If nothing else, this will create a secondary market for the millions of lithium-ion batteries that Tesla will be cranking out from its $5 billion Gigafactory in Nevada, which is scheduled to be operational in 2017.
Early indications are that the demand for batteries to power the mid-priced roadster might be thinner than anticipated. Musk was counting on big demand from China, and already there are indications that it’s a much tougher market than he realized. As reported here last week, China already has 100 manufacturers turning out 400,000 undersized vehicles a year that can reach 48 miles an hour. They certainly wouldn’t sell in the United States, but for a million Chinese, it’s just what they need to putter around their small villages and cities. China also has 90 million electric scooters on the road and 120 million electric bicycles — an entire electric-vehicle market that doesn’t exist in this country. Making a dent in this market with a $35,000 scaled-down version of a luxury vehicle is not going to be easy, which is why Musk cut his China effort in half only a few weeks ago.
But there’s an out here in the burgeoning market for home electric storage that is taking shape in the United States, particularly in California. The Golden State has established a goal of getting 33 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2020, and 50 percent by 2030. Now powering with renewables isn’t just a matter of putting up solar collectors and windmills. You have to store that electricity for a time when it’s needed. Otherwise, most of it is wasted. And that’s where Musk’s plan to power electric vehicles with large complements of relatively small lithium-ion batteries enters in, because such a system also will be ideal for storing electricity in household-sized units.
Without any fanfare, Tesla already has installed such a system in more than 100 homes in California. It also has a deal with Walmart to install it on a commercial scale. “Tesla has been able to install more than 100 projects, really without anyone noticing,” Andrea James, a Dougherty & Co. analyst, told Bloomberg. She also estimated that the home-storage business could add $70 to Tesla’s stock, about one-third of its current value.
The effort already has paid off for Tesla in that it has collected $65 million in state incentives under the advanced storage technology portion of California’s Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), which rewards users for coming up with ways of generating their own power. With household units running anywhere from $2,000 to $10,000, they’re going to need plenty of help from the government.
Tesla is not the only company working on battery storage. Bosch, General Electric and Samsung all have experimental systems going. There are also research projects being conducted at Harvard, MIT and other universities.
In Notrees, Texas, Duke Energy Renewables, with the help of the Department of Energy, has built a project that is using thousands of lead-acid batteries to store the electricity from a large wind farm. The lead-acid batteries are more expensive, however, and require frequent repair. Also, Duke has found that there is not as much of a market for their product as it had anticipated, mainly due to the costs. “There was little interest from customers willing to pay for that,” said Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables, according to The New York Times. “That has not evolved as much as some folks, including ourselves, thought.”
But there are other opportunities that could enhance Tesla’s overall business model. One is that when lithium-ion batteries begin to lose their power so that they are no longer capable of driving a car, they still remain strong enough to power a home storage system. That could mean there will be a secondary market for Tesla’s car batteries.
Another dream that has always been in the back of people’s minds is that the electric vehicles themselves could serve as storage for utility power, drawing on cheap nighttime power and then reselling it to utilities during the day. This would involve an elaborate infrastructure, however, and this would mean the cars would not be available for a good part of the day if their stored power was being fed to the grid.
Altogether, however, the storage potential of the batteries means that Tesla will have an alternative means of income in addition to the electric cars. This means the company could diversify enough so that it will not depend entirely on the success of the Model 3. In the long run, this might mean that the company can survive long enough to make the electric vehicle a standard item for the American consumer.
