Ep. 6: Michael Johanns - smart charging enthusiast from Deftpower, energy transition, EV stakeholders, smart charging, projects, outlooks
文字记录
由机器转录整理而成。译文为机器翻译,可能存在错误。
欢迎收听由RiDERgy制作的Smart Charge播客。我是RiDERgy的创始人兼首席执行官Claudio Geyken。这是你学习能源管理和电动汽车及车队智能充电创新的节目。
嘿,Michael,你今天怎么样?很高兴你在这里。嘿,Claudio,谢谢你的邀请。是的,我在柏林这边感觉很不错,天气很好,晴空万里,终于夏天要回来了。对我来说,这总是让我心情愉快的时刻。很好,在我们深入讨论更具体的话题之前,也许你可以向听众介绍一下自己。你的背景是什么?你可以讲得尽可能详细,讲你认为相关的部分就好。
然后讲讲你是如何走到今天的,以及你现在在做什么。好的,很好。如果太长的话你就打断我。我是Michel Joan,我来自比利时,母语是德语。我总是这样说,因为这相当特殊,我们只有77,000人说德语,这在很大程度上定义了我的来源,我来自比利时艾菲尔地区,一个小村庄,但在那里你会遇到很多边界和地表,所以到处都有
不同的语言和文化。说荷兰语的比利时人、法语使用者、卢森堡语使用者、德语使用者,这是一个相当有趣的地区,因此在我心中,我是一个深深的欧洲人。是的,完全同意。所以我用法语学习。我在比利时列日大学学习工程学,完成了能源管理硕士学位,然后在现在的道达尔能源公司工作了几年,那时候它叫Lampiris,是比利时自由化后最早的大型能源
供应商之一。我们是市场上第三大企业,我在那里从事投资组合管理、价格制定、预测等工作,所以我真的把那个15分钟的节奏融入了我的血液,因为我之前对能源市场一无所知。我一直想在可再生能源和能源转型领域工作,但从市场角度了解这一切对我来说完全是新的。那是哪一年?那是2015年。是的,从那以后已经
10年了。那段时间里有不少工作变动,我可能不是最忠诚的员工,所以我从那儿离开,来到柏林,在柏林工业大学完成了MBA课程,专注于能源管理。遇见了我的妻子,留在柏林,在EA 50Hertz公司的未来系统团队工作了一年,我们真正地思考了,那就像一个智库,我们在思考
大的变化以及它们如何影响TSO的业务。在新冠疫情期间,我去了一家较小的初创公司Oxolar工作,在公寓楼太阳能业务领域工作,这又是一个完全的转变,从TSO、所谓的电网高速公路,到非常小的规模。公寓楼。是的,完全是公寓楼。我们设想了一个可扩展的解决方案,在屋顶上放置某种阳台太阳能电池板,并将其分割
到各个公寓,所以真的是从瓦特级别而不是TSO的吉瓦级别。然后我去了大众集团充电部门工作。我在那里工作了两年多,在战略部门工作,参与双向充电、智能充电、车网互动等所有事务,是的,我认识了Deft Power的创始人,我立刻确信这是
我想要工作的地方,也是我想要从事的领域。是的,非常好。在我们深入讨论你现在所从事的工作之前,也许我们可以稍微回顾一下,你在这些不同的岗位上学到的关键收获是什么?你对哪些收获感到自豪和满意?哦,这是个很好的问题。
从个人角度来说,我多年来真正意识到我不是一个项目经理,我不喜欢局部的小解决方案,但我真的想从事可扩展、更大的解决方案,真正能够在全国、全市场甚至全球扩展的解决方案。大多数时候这只有通过软件才能实现,在这种方式下你仍然能与用户接触但又完全可扩展。我自己根本不是来自IT领域,这真的是多年来最大的学习之一,即我想要在软件领域工作,这正是我思考问题的方式。我也在所有我工作过的公司看到了障碍所在,那就是我创建可扩展、指数级增长业务的思维方式与项目管理的限制之间的冲突,而项目管理的局限是你需要更多人来做更多项目,你只能,它
有一个限度,不能真正实现指数级扩展。另一个学习是,我之前说过,我是纯正的欧洲人,这也体现在这里。我见过许多不同的市场、具有不同法规的能源市场。我也看到了,尤其是在德国有900个电网运营商的情况下,有许多小王国、地方小政客拥有限制可扩展性的权力,这与我所看到的以及我们所需要的东西相反。
是的。整个欧洲范围内可以扩展到数百万用户的解决方案,因为我们在能源业,尤其是流动性领域,所需要的是真正的低单位成本和高度可扩展性。如果你需要填写某个小城市中只营运的本地电网运营商的PDF表格,这是行不通的。你需要有法规,你需要有可能在所有市场中立即扩展你的解决方案。
这当然也引起了我的共鸣。我相信软件将发挥至关重要的作用,大多数能源行业专业人士还没有真正理解这种能源分配所涉及的复杂性,这是我们以前从未经历过的,可再生能源的进步和所有这些电动汽车,我们肯定会涉及这个话题。我是说,到目前为止能源转型经历了许多困难,
这肯定能引起我的共鸣。我相信软件将发挥至关重要的作用,大多数能源行业专业人士还没有真正理解能源分配的复杂性,这是我们以前从未经历过的,可再生能源的进步和所有这些电动汽车,我们肯定会涉及这个话题。我想说的是,到目前为止能源转型遇到了许多障碍,
但原则上这相当容易,因为前30%的去碳化,你在现有系统中放置风车,在现有系统中放置太阳能板,系统本身或多或少可以容纳它们。在某些国家,在某些地区,情况要好一些,但总体上是可行的。现在我们进入了,我们实际上处于第二阶段,数据就是一切,预测变得更加重要,其中
配电,甚至消费,变得更加重要,因为现在我们正在对供暖和交通进行去碳化。这意味着它们应该使用来自风力和太阳能的能源,而不仅仅是在某人回家并把车插入墙上的插座时。这是一个关于如何收集信息、如何实现互操作性的完全新的思维方式,而这与分布式系统不兼容,分布式系统的做法是从70年代的服务器上发送文本文件
,这就是德国市场通信的运作方式。这根本不兼容。所以我们需要采用REST API。我们需要有集中式服务器,实时收集信息,并使其可供整个系统中的多方访问。我们不能采用这种旧系统,即一个小城镇公用事业公司每天或每周只发送一次文本文件,然后某人读取该文件并
处理它,这对于去碳化第二阶段所需的规模来说是远远不够的。好的。在我们深入讨论DFT Power和smart charging的细节之前,你提到你上一个职位是在Eli。它一直是领先的OEM之一,传统OEM试图在能源领域中发挥重要作用。你认为未来车辆OEM在
能源管理和能源转型中作为能源企业会扮演什么角色?我们最近几天也看到雷诺等公司的一些声明,试图在这一领域发挥作用。你对OEM有什么看法?我的观点改变了很多。在许多试点项目中,每个人都说,哦,我们绝对需要一个OEM,在业务中也是如此。我的看法
与几年前有很大不同。我曾真正认为OEM必须抓住客户接触点,并利用销售电动汽车的势头来建立整个生态系统。我不是说这是不可能的,但现实表明OEM不拥有客户,他们也没有与客户的接触点,因为汽车是通过,特斯拉在某种程度上是例外,但其他OEM是通过
经销商、进口商出售的,通常在生产和最终销售之间有三个公司。这使事情变得非常复杂。此外,他们都在全球范围内运营,而能源业务通常是本地业务,或至少是大陆业务,这使得对他们来说超级困难。最重要的是,这是一个软件业务,我们已经看到德国OEM以及一般来说欧洲OEM在
软件,这不是什么大问题。他们只是太贵了。创新周期不适合这种模式。我现在看到的反而是相反的情况:原始设备制造商真的在回归他们擅长的领域。他们会制定四年的开发周期,推出新平台,大规模生产,降低成本,销售硬件。但软件恰恰相反,软件需要频繁迭代,需要测试,需要
,你不能为软件做七年的规划。这些公司的管理逻辑意味着他们根本没有把合适的人放在合适的位置。他们等级制度太严格,无法做出分散式决策,因为没人被培训去做决策,甚至根本不被允许做决策。这使得很难适应本地市场的需求。但我仍然看到原始设备制造商的优势
很大,因为他们有很强的品牌。但我认为更好的方式是大企业与那些提供软件即服务的合作伙伴合作,比如 DFT Power,还有市场上很多其他公司,为每个市场、每个大陆找到真正适合的解决方案。然后有,我稍后会讲到,一个好的 MSP,一个好的充电应用,你可以控制这个应用,你也许会购买一些代码片段或其中的部分,但
其余的你可以控制,至少在设计和用户体验上,然后通过好的 API 结构,你可以在本地市场与你想合作的任何人建立合作。比如,大众可以走向世界上每家公用事业公司说:"嘿,我想和你们合作。如果你们有很好的预测算法,我有灵活性,我们是否可以一起做点什么?你们有客户,我有汽车的数据。"而且,这还是个数字游戏。我可以花几分钱做到,我要几欧元,这有很好的商业案例。但不要试图让客户签订自己的能源合同和自己安装硬件等,因为组织内部的人没有被训练得那么快能进行创新,相比之下他们的成本也太高了,比不上其他初创公司和其他企业能做的。好的,非常有趣的见解。那作为过渡,是的,那么是什么吸引了你加入 Dea Power 和创始人 Jacob 呢?什么
是那么引人注目,使你决定跳槽?所以我一直有这种想法,早在 Eli 和大众时期就有了,我加入 Eli 和大众的原因就是这样的:好的,
你有这个第一接触点,这通常是 MSP 业务,也就是公共充电。每个购买电动车的人都有里程焦虑,想知道他们在哪里可以充电,要付多少钱。所以 MSP 业务确实是提供这种安全感的关键供应商,你知道充电站在哪里,你可以导航到那里,你知道你要付多少钱,你可以确定
你有这个第一接触点,这通常是 MSP 业务,也就是公共充电。每个购买电动车的人都有里程焦虑,想知道他们在哪里可以充电,要付多少钱。所以 MSP 业务确实是提供这种安全感的关键供应商,你知道充电站在哪里,你可以导航到那里,你知道你要付多少钱,而且你可以确定
你有一个联系人可以投诉或者在街上有问题时打电话,比如充电器不工作,这种情况有时会发生,发生得越来越少了,但还是可能发生。如果你有一个强大的app,你可以看到,"好的,这个充电器不工作,但100米远处我有另一个充电器",而且你的MSP有一个很好的CPO评分引擎,你可以提前知道它只有2星,所以如果你是一个风险规避型的人
你就只去4星或5星的充电站,这样你100%确定它们能工作。因此,早在多年前,Eli和DCS以及市场上的其他人,这个MSP业务对电动出行的腾飞确实至关重要,因为即使你有车库和家用充电器,有时你也需要在路上充电,这给了你安全感。通过拥有这种安全感和app,你喜欢它
它可以是OEM app,可以是公用事业app,可以是任何声称是MSP的人,你有这种可能性真正地无需任何客户获取成本就可以开始与这些人进行smart charging。这一直是我在Eli的愿景:利用OEM的MSP,然后在这个首次客户接触点的基础上构建,说"这里实际上是一个菜单,我们可以做一些峰值/非峰值时段的充电,我们可以在家里为你节省一些钱
一些动态关税,或其他什么",因为OEM或MSP可以拥有车的数据,可以拥有电量状态,可以询问出发时间。这是我的愿景。但它并没有真正被建立起来,因为这涉及不同的业务部门和OEM中的不同关注领域。然后我遇到了Jacob,这就是Dea Power背后的想法,他们为什么创办了Dea Power。它
正是结合了MSP和smart charging,当我听到这个时,我想"好的,我需要加入这个行列",因为这听起来像是我多年来一直在讲的故事。很好,我改变了。也许,因为有一些听众可能不太熟悉我们将要使用的所有术语,让我们快速定义一下。所以,MSP,也许你可以定义一下,然后我们可以按照MSP
需要与之沟通的顺序排列,比如CPO、CPMS等。也许我们也可以给出一点,是的。是的,这是一个极客环境,那是肯定的。我们每周都看到新人入职等等,我们使用很多术语。为所有可能不熟悉这个的听众道歉。所以CPO,充电点运营商,是那个
大多数拥有充电器、安装充电器、运营充电器,并为这些充电器定价的人。然后另一方面你有MSP,或者在德语中经常被称为EMP,这是一个移动服务提供商,是面向用户的部分。通常他们是无法区分的。例如,IONITY既是:他们拥有自己的充电器和自己的app,但在app中他们也提供对不是由他们拥有和运营的其他充电点的访问。这是我们看到一个明确的,应该在两者之间有明确的区别。所以一个运营硬件并在基础设施中有自己的商业案例,当然还有能源,因为他们买卖能源,但一切都围绕基础设施。这个基础设施需要工作。这个基础设施需要对市场上尽可能多的解决方案开放和互操作。另一方面你有MSP完全专注于驾驶员和他们的车以及
驾驶员的需求和定价。所以这有点像能源领域的零售商,他们拥有价格权。他们可以说"我采用与CPO相同的价格",这是我们大多数客户所做的,但我也可以说"这个群体,他们与我有订阅,所以他们便宜20%",或"这些人,我把账单寄给他们的雇主,因为这是一个车队"。所以所有这些访问权、最终客户的价格设置是MSP的业务。好的。是的,然后也许作为补充,在我看市场中还有其他大参与者的角色值得理解。大多数CPO没有充电软件,他们不构建自己的充电软件,对吧,然后他们从CPMS购买。所以在这两个主要角色后面还有其他两个角色。所以在
的背后你有一个CPMS,所以一个充电点管理系统,这是运营充电点的软件。有些自己开发了,有些采用白标解决方案或市场上的软件即服务解决方案。MSP端也发生同样的事情。EMBA两方面都自己开发了,但很多玩家从我们或许多其他软件即服务解决方案提供商那里采用。而且我们实际上没有
你那样好听的名字。CPMS,CPO的软件,我们在MSP端没有真正为它取名字。所以它是MSP的软件即服务,是的,MSP使用的后端。这也是,是的,也许你可以分享与其他MSP相比Dea Power的独特角度是什么,可以说,如果你说好的,宝马建立了自己的MSP,然后还有其他人也建立了自己的,或者可能也有公司作为商业模式销售MSP白标应用。那么Dea Power对整个市场的角度是什么?是的,让我们从头开始。我认为真正重要的是理解当你谈论Dea Power时谈论创始人,因为他们来自哪里,Jacob von Sonnefeld在10多年前在柏林创办了Plugsurfing
他和他的同事兼联合创始人Adam是第一个独立的漫游模式。所以他们不是OEM,他们没有连接到汽车,他们没有连接到充电器,但他们仍然想在业务中获得一席之地。所以他们开启了很多漫游协议,很多封闭系统对他们开放,他们是市场上第一个说"我们有客户"的人
CPO你有一个CPMS,所以一个充电点管理系统,这是运营充电点的软件。有些自己开发了,有些采用白标解决方案或市场上的软件即服务解决方案。MSP端也发生同样的事情。一些人两方面都自己开发了,但很多玩家从我们或许多其他软件即服务解决方案提供商那里采用。而且我们实际上没有
你那样好听的名字。CPMS,CPO的软件,我们在MSP端没有真正为它取名字。所以它是MSP的软件即服务,是的,MSP使用的后端。这也是,是的,也许你可以分享与其他MSP相比Dea Power的独特角度是什么,可以说,如果你说好的,宝马建立了自己的MSP,然后还有其他人也建立了自己的,或者可能也有公司作为商业模式销售MSP白标应用。那么Dea Power对整个市场的角度是什么?是的,让我们从头开始。我认为真正重要的是理解当你谈论Dea Power时谈论创始人,因为他们来自哪里,Jacob von Sonnefeld在10多年前在柏林实际上创办了Plugsurfing
他和他的同事兼联合创始人Adam是第一个独立的漫游模式。所以他们不是OEM,他们没有连接到汽车,他们没有连接到充电器,但他们仍然想在业务中获得一席之地。所以他们开启了很多漫游协议,很多封闭系统对他们开放,他们是市场上第一个说"我们有客户"的人
我们没有汽车,我们不卖汽车,我们也没有基础设施,我们只是想获得这个基础设施的使用权。这真正代表了一种互操作性的理念,即每张充电卡都应该能在任何地方使用,并且应该能够进行计费。另一方面是Marc Dick,他当时是Allego的首席信息官,Allego是最早完全从基础设施业务角度而不是从用户角度思考的CPO
体验,当然用户在充电桩处的体验也很重要,但不一定要追踪用户、向用户计费或拥有用户。所以他们想建立一个基础设施业务并开放漫游服务。这两个人经过多年的经验积累走到了一起,创立了DF Power,愿景是创建市场上最大的虚拟电动汽车电池。基于这一原则,即MSP
,MSP以各种形式存在,我们稍后讨论谁是我们的客户时会详细说明,持有客户接触点,智能充电和优化应该只在获得用户明确同意和明确指导的情况下进行,因为灵活性由用户拥有,而不是由充电桩硬件提供商拥有。这是一个完全不同的愿景。到目前为止,我认为我们是市场上唯一
同时结合了智能充电和MSP这两种商业模式,并将它们相互融合思考的参与者。这是我们与其他公司的主要区别之一。还有,我们进入市场的时间晚一些,因此通过这种经验,我们拥有的优势是,我认为我们拥有该领域最先进的平台之一。什么是明确的,我认为在这一点上我们也是唯一的,从一开始,我们就
完全采用软件即服务模式,这意味着我们的平台上没有自己的驱动程序,我们没有自己的车队作为客户。我们的客户完全拥有业务案例的所有权,他们可以设定价格,他们拥有用户数据而不是我们。这与市场上大多数其他MSP软件提供商不同。他们通常与自己的客户处于竞争关系,他们往往是业务提供商。所以在
最后的发票上署名的是软件提供商,而不是真正提供品牌的实体。例如,在斯柯达品牌下面署名的是大众集团充电而不是斯柯达。所以在这方面也有些不同。因此这种软件即服务的方法具有更大的灵活性,可以说是这样,而且配合独特的智能充电功能,是的。好的,那么
我认为让我先检查一下是否还有其他要点,然后再深入讨论,是的,也许在我们深入讨论智能充电之前,你还想说一下DF Power通常会服务哪些客户群体。有趣的是,我们最大的两个或几个最大的客户根本不在我们的客户群体中,因为他们是协会。所以我们有ANWB,它是荷兰的ADAC,拥有超过100年的
经验和客户基础,实际上每两个荷兰人中就有一个是他们的会员,我们还有挪威电动汽车协会Norske Elbilforening。这两个截然不同的实体都在寻找能为他们提供软件即服务的人,而不是MSP服务。这真的很不一样,因为他们拥有客户数据。对于挪威电动汽车协会,我们甚至没有任何客户名称。我们只是从
他们的CRM系统中获取令牌,所以他们实际上是把我们当作漫游平台、他们的应用和白标应用来使用,但在后台是他们的系统、他们对客户和客户数据的所有权。这就是他们选择我们的原因,即使在我们的解决方案相当初级的时候,就像一开始一样。所以这两个大客户,还有CPO。我们
有很多CPO想要他们的客户接触点用于订阅、某些月度忠诚度计划。为了说清楚,在这种情况下,不是CPO只拥有CPMS,而是CPO同时拥有CPMS和MSP,所以他们想添加一个MSP层。很多人都在一站式商店中这样做,所以大多数CPMS系统也都具有处理漫游卡的某种能力,但事实上,这只是一个副业。
你看应用评分,你看客户的满意度,对于大多数这些解决方案来说,它已经不再是驾驶员今天所需的最先进技术。所以我们确实与我们的客户进行了大量的游说,告诉他们:为这两项业务采用两个不同的、截然不同的解决方案,因为在CPMS方面,你需要能够处理进来的漫游,即第三方充电卡。而在MSP
业务中,只有少数百分比的充电会话发生在你的充电点上,但很多也发生在第三方充电点上。然后你需要处理来自外部的所有这些发票等等。所以这是两个完全不同的业务,具有不同的逻辑和你需要的不同IT解决方案。是的,这是我们目前的成功之处。很多曾经在一站式商店中的人在迁移。所以是的,CPO是我们的
业务。还有很多车队运营商,例如,对获得良好的客户解决方案、客户应用感兴趣。然后是OEM,我们曾有菲斯克,不幸破产了,但我们有,例如,通用汽车的欧洲业务。我们也与相当多的大型全球OEM进行了深入对话。然后是能源公用事业公司,我们有相当多的能源供应商,他们想通过不同的产品线进行交叉销售,特别是在德国,他们也安装了一些充电器,他们什么都自己做,所以他们需要一个很好的客户接触点。好的,是的,我明白了。但也许对于听众来说,因为有时可能会让人困惑,只是用非常简单的方式解释一下,因为我意识到当我与非行业专业人士交谈时,人们会感到困惑,所以
得很简单,因为我意识到当我与非行业专业人士交谈时,人们会感到困惑,所以
漫游作为一个概念有点像我们从电信行业知道的那样,当你带着手机和SIM卡进入不是你原始电信运营商的网络时,比如德国电信进入沃达丰。在电动汽车行业,我们有点复制了同样的术语,所以如果有不同的充电点运营商,可能会有不同的,在这种情况下不是SIM卡,而是MSP。这
是充电卡,这些卡需要彼此兼容和互操作,这就是为什么有漫游概念。所以深入了解一下:我们目前在整个欧洲有超过2000个实体连接到我们的平台,拥有超过900000个充电点。有些只有几个,有些有50000个,但我们在技术上连接的充电点运营商有超过2000个实体。其中有些是
比如说同一家公司但在不同市场有三个实体的情况。但尽管如此,对于他们所有人来说都有不同的IT连接,他们都需要同意我们客户的卡能在他们的充电器上工作。所以背后有合同,背后有IT连接,所以欧洲任何地方的充电器都需要检测并接受这一张卡或通过应用程序进行远程启动,并需要允许驾驶员在那里充电,并需要
相信我们和我们的合作伙伴来承担成本,因为他们允许充电而不会立即获得金钱。然后在月底我们从这2000多个实体那里收到来自欧洲各地的发票,有不同的增值税制度等等。我们也得到充电详细记录,充电的具体情况,充了多少度电,什么时候,是什么时间,停车有多长
时间,以及我们欠他们多少钱。是的,这相当复杂,曾经有过像Hubject这样的漫游平台简化这些参与者之间的接入,但仍然需要很多信任,你真的在支付账单,你相信他们你的卡真的在那里工作,从意大利南部到挪威北部。好的,现在让我们关注也许最
有趣的方面。在奠定了这个基础之后,我认为你在LinkedIn上自称为智能充电爱好者,所以让我们谈谈智能充电。这个播客也叫Smart Charge by RiDERgy,那么在你看来智能充电为什么对能源系统如此重要?为什么它如此相关,为什么听众应该关心呢?是的,我认为有两个主要原因。我们之前说过,在能源转型的第二阶段
我们需要某种程度上摆脱可再生能源,我们需要在合适的时刻消耗它们,因为每当有阳光时网格中就有太多太阳能。如果我们不在可再生能源上充电而是在煤炭上充电,那么仅通过对电动汽车进行脱碳化才有意义,因为最后,即使是煤炭也有点更高效,但仍然没有意义只是转移二氧化碳排放。所以这
智能充电的第一个原则是:我们需要在最便宜和二氧化碳最少的时间充电。但另一方面,这也是一种必要性,从系统的角度来看,我们无法在不进行智能充电的情况下适应100%的电动车出行。所以这不是一个好处;这是很多人不理解的。电网运营商可以声称他们想要多少铜
把它放在地下,他们无法放足够多的铜在地下来容纳德国的4500万辆电动汽车,如果我们不智能地给它们充电,因为当你看到只有500万辆车在同一时刻充电时,这几乎是整个德国能源网的负载。所以你一年中有很多小时有大约50吉瓦的消耗,相当于50个大型发电厂。而500万辆
辆车在同一时刻以10-11千瓦的充电器充电,这是一个普通家用充电器,相当于整个工业、整个国家的每个家庭、每个企业。而我们想要这个的十倍,我们想要5000万辆电动汽车,而不仅仅是500万辆。所以当500万辆在晚上6点回家并插入时,很有可能其中500万辆中的很多是真的在那时充电,可能更像是2000万,这意味着
能源系统根本无法提供它。没有发电厂能提供它,没有电网能运输它,所以没有替代方案来进行智能充电。回到我提到的第一个原则,电动汽车,我们需要灵活性作为一个关键词。我们需要消耗的灵活性。而电动汽车在市场上所有设备中具有最大的灵活性,并且他们已经为交通部分支付了费用,所以他们会变得更便宜,他们会
变得更便宜并相当于柴油,所以他们会规模化并接管市场。但他们的消耗是超级灵活的。他们只需要一周充电两次左右,每次充电1到3小时,所以平均每天开车1小时,每天充电1小时,他们停放22小时。而这个充电容量就是这么大,在峰值小时是平均家庭的10倍,
如果你把这个推向正确的时间,你对能源系统有巨大的影响,并且你有这种自然的灵活性,这是你从其他设备中没有的。即使是热泵:当天气冷时,你也许可以停止它们半小时或一小时,但你不能停止它们一整天。电动汽车你可以就是不充电两天,因为周三有风要来,所以我周一或周二就不充电,这真的
特别的地方是,为什么我这么喜欢它,为什么我是电动汽车充电的热情爱好者。是的,太好了。我肯定能理解。而且为了明确定义,在我们深入讨论之前,我看到过关于智能充电的一些不同定义。当我真正开始深入研究智能充电话题时,我甚至看到有人说充电器只要连接到互联网就是智能的,我想我们
可以同意这不是我们讨论的智能充电。我看到双向充电、V2G和智能充电之间有很多区分,对我来说,我不知道,我不确定是否有词典定义。实际上,我的一个有趣小事实是:我的父亲实际上是德国词典的负责人,所以我应该问他。也许他在听。那么,对你来说的定义是什么?智能充电是指停留在V1G,也就是说,只
单向充电,还是也包括双向充电,包含所有的灵活性?V1G和V2G之间的开始和结束对我来说也不是那么清楚,因为通过我在大众汽车的经验,我对V2G按了至少3到5年的虚拟暂停按钮。地面上有这么多障碍,而且每个人都专注于这个,在每一个讨论中,在每个领域,在每个试点项目中,每个人都想做一些
双向充电的事情。但目前超过95%的充电会话,我们充电的真实千瓦时,没有经过优化,不是智能的。研究中的讨论以及许多播客中的讨论与市场现实完全不同。我会说我们有少于0.01%的充电会话发生在具备双向充电功能的车辆、具备双向充电功能的用户和具备双向充电功能的充电器的情况下
当这是百分比时,是的,对于我们公司来说,也对我从能源市场的角度来说,这在此刻是一个理论上的练习。这是需要在政治中准备的东西,需要在监管研讨会中成为话题,需要在电网接入描述中解决,需要在原始设备制造商如何构建他们的平台中解决,因为他们有5到7年的开发周期。但在可扩展的水平上,它还不是终端消费者的话题。现在开始了。与两年前不同,但对我来说,当我谈论智能充电时,我不排除双向充电,但我也没有把它作为我心中的第一件事,因为我一直声称这只是等式前面的一个负号
有意义。是的,很好的观点。实际上,让我们也许深入讨论一下。所以从障碍开始,你看到什么大障碍?从简单的开始:为什么我们仍然有,如你所说的,95%的充电会话没有被优化?那里的障碍是什么?为什么我们实际上还没有这样做
已经开始了?让我们也许深入讨论一下这个。所以从障碍开始,你看到什么大障碍?从简单的开始:为什么我们仍然有,如你所说的,95%的充电会话没有被优化?那里的障碍是什么?为什么我们实际上还没有这样做
关于可能的事情呢?你看到有什么可能性,而对于其他事情,我们最终要真正充分发挥潜力的主要障碍是什么?我认为这是一个自然演进的过程。过去10年,每个人都专注于把汽车推向市场。他们是早期采用者,有续航焦虑。我们只有50到80公里的续航里程,所以他们并不真正,日常可用性,用德语说,到处都有很多障碍,只是为了让事情运转起来。当你听了你之前的
播客时,有人说,是的,2015年在德国我认为是每月100辆车销售。现在我们在,它是什么,20000,我想30000左右。所以我们现在真的进入了大众市场。在比利时、荷兰等其他市场的车队接纳情况,以及
丹麦,我们在过去三年里看到从10到15%的市场份额增长到现在接近50%的市场份额。所以我们真的进入了大众市场。因此,过去电网互动在充电桩处停止是很正常的。所以我在这个充电桩的充电卡:我插入,汽车检测到充电桩,电子流动。这是十多年来的艰苦工作才使这一切真正有效。我在谷歌上看到一个
充电桩,我去那里,我放上我的卡,它就工作了。在家也是一样:我打电话给我的电工,他知道他要安装什么,它就充电。所以这就是原因。这样也没问题,因为从能源市场规模来看,电动汽车没有任何意义,既不对电网,也不对能源市场。这现在在改变。正如我所说的,当你在
欧洲系统中进入数百万时,这正在改变。为了给你一个透视,因为我认为我现在了解这些数字,如你所说,500万将是德国整体车队的10%,而现在我们在德国大约2%左右,对吧?是的,我认为我们甚至还不到2%,大约160万、200万之类的。所以是的,而且我认为整个车队
大约是4000多万辆。我们还有很多工作要做。在挪威,我们看到新车销售几乎是100%电动的,在整个车队中也超过20%或30%,他们甚至已经超过了柴油车。汽油仍然略微领先,但它每年都在真正改变,平均使用寿命是8到10年。是的,那将直接改变,我们现在在与我们
最大客户之一的讨论中在挪威看到他们现在处于第二阶段。而且在很多国家,还有一个额外的因素,就是要优化,你需要有一个激励机制。现在大多数的优化只是:我想消费我自己的电力,自给自足,自主性,无论如何。但这不是一个好的激励机制,因为它应该总是:系统需要什么,而不是你的小家庭在优化什么。为此,我们在RiDERgy有一个原则
即我们只在货币系统上进行优化,所以只有当驾驶员省钱或我们能为他们所做的事情给予他们奖励时。
所以智能充电现在对市场变得更加相关,而我们需要找到的是价格激励、价格激励、价格激励。在德国这根本不可能。我的老板说:未来3年内放弃德国。这是有原因的,因为你们没有智能电表。当你没有智能电表时,当你有950个电网运营商每周都在BDEW中进行游说以阻止进展,因为这是一个摇钱树,
电网运营而不用智能方式进行就是投入少而回报多,他们在过去50年都是这样做的。所以德国就处于这个阶段。对电网运营商来说区别在哪里呢?你认为他们为什么这么强烈地反对智能电表?首先,因为所有这些文本文件、服务和服务器等等只是,是的,他们需要改变。
整个市场沟通。数字电表更复杂,安装也更复杂。你需要对你的人员进行培训。作为一个电表运营商,你需要IT基础设施、IT安全,以及周围的一切,而950个运营商根本无法处理。所以在这950个中,也许5个能处理,即使是E.ON在进行这方面工作时也遇到了巨大困难,也是因为
德国的监管完全荒谬,完全偏离了逻辑。我希望在过去的三年里有人能说,好吧,让我们给每个智能电表网关供应商一百万欧元或500万欧元,补偿他们的损失,然后我们重新开始,只采用其他国家正在使用的系统,不要安全通道,不要任何东西,我们需要15分钟的测量,最好甚至
是分钟级的测量。但我们需要这些数值,因为没有这些数值我们无法创建市场信号,无法创建价格信号。德国的公共充电站,即使有超过10万千瓦时通过它们,也是按照SLP,合成负荷曲线计费。它们一年只被测量一次。所有的不平衡、在下午6点这个最困难、最昂贵的时段拥有的风险,没人感受到,因为它被放入一个Ausgleichskreis、一个Bilanzkreis,然后被社会化到电网费用中。
德国是欧洲唯一这样做的国家。所以整个链条中没有任何激励来优化任何东西,无论是在家里还是在公共场所,因为没有价格激励。当你没有15分钟的测量时,我在6点还是9点充电没有区别,因为最后它就是年底收集的同一个测量。对的,可能是解释一下,因为我理解了,但
一些不太熟悉的人可能没有理解你最后提出的要点。电力网的工作方式是,作为电力消费者或生产者,你需要提名,这是行业术语,但它真正的意思是你预测并说明在特定时间段内你将消耗和生产多少电力。这是为了保持稳定性
50赫兹,所以生产和消费在同一时间总是需要相等,这是物理学的前提条件。如果在你说你会在的特定时刻你不在,你会被罚款。这正是你所说的:为此你需要测量。即使用SLP也可以做到。像比利时这样的国家,当我10年前在能源供应商工作时,大多数
家庭没有智能电表,所以只有年度测量。但他们所做的是,对于某个区域,他们说:这里有一个消耗,比如说1兆瓦。你作为供应商拥有10%的客户,所以每15分钟你负责这1兆瓦的10%。这意味着你仍然需要良好的预测,即使在日内交易中你也需要良好的采购,如果你做错了,你会被不平衡价格击中。而且
太阳能也是一样:你在那个区域、那个电网区域拥有X%的太阳能,所以你也会承担由它造成的不平衡的1%。在德国,系统是:电网运营商每天处理它。他们说这是合成负荷曲线,这个提名。每个人都只是遵循它,所有偏离它的东西都由系统接管。当然,这给不了任何激励。在德国,一个只有
5个人的供应商可以处理整个能源供应商的运营,这不应该是这样。你应该有投资组合管理,你应该真正进行日内优化,但你不需要。当然,这导致了你有零价格信号的结果。此外,在公共充电方面我们有复杂性。我们之前谈过漫游已经非常复杂,一方面有2000个参与者,另一方面有数千个,只是为了
让正常的计费正确:它是1千瓦时乘以Y价格,我想在月底为这个会话支付30欧元。这已经很复杂了。当你现在加入时间因素时,它变得超级复杂。它在应用程序中比较不同的充电点时变得复杂,在计费中变得复杂,在沟通中也变得复杂。所以如果你问为什么在过去10年内没有做到这一点,每个人都专注于获得正确的发票和完成会话。现在加入这个时间因素相当复杂,因为涉及那么多合作伙伴。这就是DER power通过角色发挥作用的地方,这对复杂性是有意义的。然后我们回到开始的软件点:这个据说的旧系统,其中软件不必发挥这么大的作用,现在当我们谈论实时数据传输和
控制时,比以前变成了更多的软件游戏,对吧?是的,我们只是看到这是必要的。在过去的六个月里,我们经历了2到3次Dunkelflauten,其中下午6点、7点、8点的价格爆炸,而仍然不是每个生产都在运行,仍然大多数消费,即使是像电动汽车这样的灵活消费,仍然只是在充电,因为没有激励。价格没有从A变到B。所以我们拥有一切,
控制,变成了比以前更多的软件游戏,对吧?是的,我们只是看到这是必要的。在过去的六个月里,我们经历了2到3次Dunkelflauten,其中下午6点、7点、8点的价格爆炸,而仍然不是每个生产都在运行,仍然大多数消费,即使是像电动汽车这样的灵活消费,仍然只是在充电,因为没有激励。价格没有从A变到B。所以我们拥有一切,
这些工具已经存在,但我们一直无法从A点沟通到B点,比如"请停下来,作为回报我会给你奖励"。与此同时,我们这个周末已经在整个欧洲看到了首次负电价再次出现,因为有一点阳光。但我们仍然没有看到更多的充电上升会话。所以这就是我们需要解决的问题。考虑到你刚才说的
德国是一个有点棘手的市场,因为缺乏智能电表,而且配电系统运营商众多,还有其他一些原因。那么你现在的实用方法是什么,以便今天就能推动事情进展?首先,也在其他国家开展工作,听起来很愚蠢,但这真的是最好的学习曲线。与愿意的人合作,他们称之为"愿意者联盟"。遍历
欧洲,在市场方面我们总是跟随电动车。一般来说,我们在荷兰、比利时和挪威等国家实力较强,这些国家的电动车市场完全处于大众市场阶段,比较成熟。人们已经测试过...遗憾的是还没有完全实现。我们已连接那里等等,但我们还没有大客户。我们有一两个正在上线,但这不是什么,是的,遗憾的是还没有。这是一个值得关注的市场
因为我认为英国是灵活性、监管和风险承受意愿方面最先进的市场,而且没有地方公用事业公司掌握权力,所以这实际上是一个完美的组合。是的,要做这么多...太可惜了。是的,我知道。据我所知,从能源系统灵活性的角度来看,英国也相当成熟。而英国人,一般来说盎格鲁-撒克逊人,更关注汤本身,而不是汤里的头发
在这个背景下你什么意思?在欧洲,特别是在德国,我们通常首先需要经历每一个边界情况和每一个潜在问题,所有这些都需要首先在理论上解决,然后通过实际试验,然后我们才会推出一个解决方案,这中间要花十年。英国只是有这种能力来倾听市场,监管机构如何运作真的很有趣
例如,现在在十二月他们再次推出了这个我们已经游说多年的疯狂概念:灵活性提供商可以自己直接获得日内市场、能源市场的准入,甚至无需与场地的供应商有任何合作。他们可以交易和优化,这真的是革命性的。听起来确实如此,我们已经讨论了多年,他们现在实施了。他们进行了一些试验,举行了听证会,现在
花了2到3年,现在已上线运行。他们之所以更快、更愿意承担风险,是因为他们看到:好的,我们有一个问题,这个问题需要被解决,这是一个解决方案,让我们去做。而不是太"技术开放",这最终意味着好的,我们做我们过去所做的任何事情。他们真正拥抱新解决方案,说好的,让我们去做。是的,这种实用主义,我
听你说。实用主义,是的,那很好。成功的创新至关重要,对初创公司也是如此。我们总是需要看:好的,我们现在有什么效果,10到15年后会有什么?我们不能等到问题升级才推出我们的解决方案。所以现在实际上有可能制定一项法规,让它运行。有些人高兴,有些人不高兴。你看到了结果。好的,真正的财务
效果是什么?因为在理论上,在Excel表格上,很多人可以声称有很多问题。但在现实中,你看到的是,好的,人们真的在玩这整个激励博弈讨论吗?只要资产数量还不是那么多,让我们去做。让我们尝试。制定第二个法规2.0版本,其中包含一些处罚,制定3.0版本,进行另一个调整,然后我们学到的远比
一些教授基于理论进行的计算要多。这有点是我们改变监管的方法,当然在欧盟也是如此。但我看到英国人在那里,只是实用主义,他们进行有趣的事情。但不仅仅是英国人,我认为你之前也提到过荷兰人。荷兰人比英国人少一点,是的,这里有点更困难。是的,我不知道你是否
关注中国市场,因为它最近一直在我脑子里。我是说他们也因为中国速度而闻名。你是否关注那里发生的事情,特别是在智能充电方面?不,特别是在智能充电方面,我不太了解。一般来说,我会关注,就像人们关注中国政治一样,关注其对世界的影响,特别是关于可再生能源、汽车生产和电池科学进步等方面,但不幸的是在充电业务方面没有。
我从来没有真正深入研究过。太可惜了。好的。那么,很多人对能源系统、电网和市场感到困惑,也许只是做一个快速解释,然后接下来的问题是:有能源生产,然后另一方面有能源需求,这构成了市场,所以有基于需求和生产的市场定价,就像经济学101中那样
是需求和生产的结果。所以当有大量可再生能源时,这就是我们之前讨论的,市场中的价格通常很低甚至为负,这是一个现象,我们现在可能不会深入探讨。反之亦然。然后还有电网方程的一方,如果你用水的比喻,你有多少水可以流入这些管道,在同样的类比中,电力
无法无限流入这些管道,所以根据那里的铜缆有一个自然的限制。正如Michael之前说的那样,我们要么可以选择扩展这些缆线,要么决定如何在时间上最好地利用这些缆线。现在这是一个前奏。所以通过smart charging可以捕获电力价格套利和能源市场中的机会,然后是这些电网运营商的降低电网费用。
我认为每个国家的情况都略有不同,但在欧洲,至少在能源市场和电网方面,现在相当协调一致。有了这样的背景:你的方法是什么?是更好地先进入能源市场然后进入电网,还是逐个国家?我知道荷兰
受到电网的严重限制,所以关注那个领域可能更有吸引力。从商业或监管的角度来看,你如何看待这些价值流?首先从商业角度,然后也许你可以说有哪些监管障碍。从商业角度来看,最简单的总是关注能源市场,如果你有smart meters和真实配置以及真实平衡的话,因为你有明确的责任和明确的规则
和直接的好处,因为只是两个独立的系统。一个是,对住宅或场所或其他任何地方的测量,为系统如何工作以进行计费而工作,另一方面你有优化。当你优化时,采购成本会立即降低,所以你有一个直接的效果,其中某个人从中获利。因此整个系统更容易,因为你不需要与某人沟通,你不
需要集成,你可以只是说,好的,我为你在这里优化,这是你的节省,给我其中一部分。而在电网部分,当然,他们是受监管的企业,根本不被允许给我钱,所以他们需要有监管来为提供他们灵活性的人付款,在大多数国家这种情况并不存在。所以大多数国家的大多数电网运营商只有在建造新东西时才能获得金钱。而
然后他们有10年时间获得其中的10%,这很荒谬,因为这样他们就会说,当然我需要建造更多东西,因为这就是他们获得更多金钱的方式。如果你没有smart meters和系统中的传感器,你甚至不知道是否需要更多,因为你不知道利用率是多少,你可以只是声称你需要更多,在最容易的地方放入缆线,并获得更多金钱。
这个系统里有很多钱,有数十亿、数百亿、数千亿。我是说,目前这简直太荒唐了。我们现在的电网费用超过每度电10美分。这是一大笔钱。这比能源本身的价值还要多。所以我们所主张的、所为之游说的,但当然,作为一项业务,这不是第一个有吸引力的市场,因为有太多的监管、太多的规则、太多的障碍才能
进入这个市场。在很多国家,根本就没有这样的东西。比如在德国,就没有配电系统运营商(DSO)的资金可以收集。他们现在开始推出一些灵活的电价,但不幸的是,同样不是全球性的,而是每个小型实体都在他们的网站上发布一份PDF,里面有某些规则和更多条件。有了这样的效果,这真的既不有趣去扩展,也不有趣去使用。所以
是的,我们支持动态电网电价,但更支持灵活性市场,比如挪威的NODES平台,电网运营商说:在这个地区、这个城市,我需要人们不消耗电,或者我需要人们现在消耗电,像我们这样的人可以说,是的,我们实际上可以为你做到,对吧?我想在荷兰,我现在忘了名字,就在舌尖上,
他们也有那样的系统。GOPACS?GOPACS,正是。那会很相似。你认为它应该被改变或升级吗?我听说过一些好的评价,但我不像你在荷兰那样熟悉它。你认为应该改变或升级它吗?我认为它的原理是好的。问题是,就像能源市场的常例一样,与某个在一个地点拥有一兆瓦灵活性的人签合同更容易,你可以用更昂贵的仪表来测量,等等,而不是真正分散到家庭级别,你有多个资产,比如一辆车加上光伏、加热,相互干扰的情况。而且真正看清你下达命令产生了什么效果也更困难。在这里同样不是真正的细粒度级别。所以对于大型方和大公司来说,
访问很容易,这是一个超级好的系统,但DSO还没有使用得足够充分。所以它经常被用于租户级别的再调度,而不是真正在本地级别。而且,对于小型资产类别还不够,在这些类别中很容易说,好的,我在那个地区有这里10,000辆车。给我一个简单的流程,这是你的红按钮,给我一些钱。所以他们会去那里,这是一个
好的开始,但对我们来说还不能使用。我在这个新能源世界中发现有趣的一件事是,有各种各样的不同参与者,我很想听听你对以下问题的看法:有人在优化热泵,有人在生产电池或优化正在兴起的固定式电池。然后还有充电器、OEM,所以有人从充电器的角度进行优化,有人来自电动汽车。所以
我在这个新能源世界中发现有趣的一件事是,有各种各样的不同参与者,我很想听听你对以下问题的看法:有人在优化热泵,有人在生产电池或优化正在兴起的固定式电池。然后还有充电器、OEM,所以有人从充电器的角度进行优化,有人来自电动汽车的角度。所以
有各种各样的维度,如果你想的话,是关于优化的。你如何看待不同资产或参与者之间的关系在未来是否同步?会是,我最近用了一个类比,会是一大堆信号的混乱,试图以某种方式使其运作,还是会是一个漂亮的API交响曲,能够协调运作以创造,是的,我喜欢你的类比,因为
我刚想到了一个很好的答案。如果你把业余音乐家聚在一起说做一场音乐会,那会是一团糟。这就是我们现在在做的事情。我们市场上有业余玩家,他们只优化自己的系统,没有考虑互操作性,然后他们试图一起演奏,结果行不通。但如果你拿专业音乐家,你可以在晚上把他们聚在一起,他们彼此从未见过
面。你给他们和弦,说现在我们一起演奏,他们可以演奏交响乐。我有在这种演出中演奏的朋友,他们没有为此训练,只是在演出前去了一下,这是乐谱,然后他们短暂地排练了一下,就去了,他们可以在大型音乐会中演奏。我认为这是我们需要走的方向,这实际上是我想使用的类比。如果你有
市场上有好的解决方案的专业玩家,他们愿意合作,因为这是第一个条件:你需要愿意合作。你不需要想要建立一个新的封闭的一站式解决方案,你想要一切,为客户。但如果你愿意合作,我认为通往罗马的路不止一条,应该说通往答案的路不止一条。有很多区域玩家,很多针对不同需求的解决方案,每个家庭都不同,
每个用户做出不同的选择,他们应该这样做。所以对我们真正重要的是,当我们进入一个有其他玩家的家庭时,比如你会与RiDERgy合作的地方,我们找到为用户优化的最佳方式。最终目标总是降低总拥有成本,因为成本降低了
我们会获得更多的电动车参与。而这我们只有通过合作才能实现。所以就像我们现在与数千个CPOs合作一样,我们也想与数千个本地控制器合作,不是与控制器本身,而是与其后端。与OEMs我们已经整合了40个OEMs,我们可以看到电池有多满,等等。同样地在复杂的场景中:整个欧洲有人比我们做得更好,好吧,那么我们只是提供一个用户界面
和一些数据,他们做这项工作。在其他地方没有人,所以我们就做这项工作。如果有一个公用事业公司为那个场景供电,并且已经有程序在运行,那么我们需要整合到它们中,为他们提供我们能提供的最好的预测或灵活性。所以我们真的是来自这个:我们是电动车和用户的专家,我们拥有尽可能多的,希望有一天是整个欧洲数百万的,用户的界面。然后我们的卡,
我们客户的应用在某些地方被使用,在那个地方,如果有很多这样的地方,我们将整合并尝试在本地帮助。我们根本没有总控制、一站式解决方案的野心。是的,没错,这和我想的一样。我昨天也听了一个播客,来自某家公司的创始人。我觉得更封闭的方法不是前进的方向
我是说,我很高兴当Philip打电话给我们,也想要一个很好的街道充电解决方案时,因为我认为他们有很好的品牌。但我不同意他们的哲学,说你需要在一个系统中拥有完全控制才能达到100%,因为我真的相信一个完全互操作的方式。就像他们做的那样,因为在每个
市场他们有不同的后端助手,让我们说,把解决方案带入能源市场。但仍然,我希望我们能够,例如,在我们的汽车来到他们的充电点的地方,例如在充电器不可控时向他们发送电池状态数据,因为它已经在那里,不要用他们的来替换它。让我们通过汽车来控制。让我们向你提供数据,我们可以
合作。所以我真的相信以这种方式,有时你接触,有时你不接触,我们的坚强信念是,无论汽车来到哪里,司机来到哪里,都应该有可能降低成本并帮助系统,对吧?你在你的博客文章中提到,我认为你也和Jacob一起写的,MSP或特别是DEF Power会处于非常有利的市场位置来
利用最多的灵活性。也许你想为听众强调一下你写的主要观点?是的,这是一个很好的机会。所以我们来自公共充电,在公共充电中现在没有智能充电发生。大多数谈论智能充电的人只谈论在
家里,如我所说,做一些太阳能优化,对吧。但我们来自的方向是:我们有这个MSP解决方案,我们有数百万个会话,很多充电会话发生在任何地方,我们就是这样想的。因为我们离司机和汽车这么近,我们可以预测汽车在什么时候会在什么地方,以及什么时候需要离开,所以我们可以预测有多少灵活性,这在公共和私人以及
半公共场景中,例如在你们所在的场所。因此我们相信MSP是离心的,因为他们有能力将这种灵活性带到公共充电,并为其计费、开发票和处理数据,与用户一起,例如采取选择加入或选择退出。用户需要处于控制中,如果你只通过充电器来做,这是不可能的。是的,我们相信
MSP就是那些拥有数百万用户接触点的企业。是的,我们下周三展示了这个项目。很遗憾我们原本计划本周上线,但推迟了一周,因为,就像所有的产品发布一样,有一些小的app问题。app现在要发布到app store了,我们最大的客户,荷兰的Abey,下周三将在荷兰一个大型CPO的平台上线
荷兰的平台,覆盖阿姆斯特丹的超过2000个充电桩,有超过20万用户可以使用。当用户到达充电桩时,他们之前可能信息不完整,但到达时会收到推送通知,可以告诉我们他们何时离开。当能源市场出现潜在节省机会时,我们会代表电网和CPO进行优化,月底我们会给
驾驶员返现来帮助我们,然后我们会向CPO开具所提供服务的账单。在我看来或根据我的了解,这是最早的完全互操作的智能充电解决方案之一,你不能说这是试点,因为它是完全生产运营的、完全上线的,而且完全可扩展。所以每一个听这个节目的CPO都可以给我发邮件。我们可以在几分钟内完成这个
我们可以把你的充电桩也加入这个项目。然后我们可以优化这些充电桩上的充电会话。这是我们真正深信不疑的东西,希望有一天我们能够优化用户在任何环境中进行的50%、60%或70%的充电会话,每次都与本地最优的合作伙伴合作以节省成本。听起来非常不错。是的,我很期待看到结果
然后也许我们可以再录一期节目来详细了解。那就太好了。是的,大的新闻发布会,新闻活动会在27号,所以我们进行的是一个低调的发布。好吧,现在已经不是那么低调了,既然我已经说了,但大的官方发布会在27号,届时会通过新闻宣布,我们希望很多
CPO,首先在荷兰,但希望也会在其他地方,会加入我们的行列。我们相信这个互操作的智能充电生态系统。很好。那么你对大规模双向充电的速度有什么看法?我是说,你确实说过,我想你说过0.01%,有些情况下这实际上是可行的。我想来自日本的CHAdeMO在该标准方面处于领先地位
一开始可以与一些特定的日本汽车兼容。我想英国的Octopus Energy推出了最早的、如果不是第一个的双向或V2G电价计划,我想这只与那种类型的车辆和充电桩兼容。我也想Mobility House最近与雷诺在法国宣布了一些东西,那也相当有趣。但是,是的,确实非常少
这里那里有一些案例。特别是数量,我想知道到目前为止有多少辆车参与了这个试点项目,因为你需要有来自雷诺的正确充电器,配合来自雷诺的正确汽车,配合来自雷诺或The Mobility House的正确能源关税,然后你需要愿意与他们合作。所以有很多条件限制,相比之下全球的情况
欧洲汽车销售,仍然很少。尽管如此,我非常喜欢这个特别的雷诺案例,因为我可以说是大众集团内推行交流双向充电的最大倡导者。我坚信当你采用交流路径时,我们最终在几年内能让欧盟强制电网运营商建立一个全球的,或者说一个欧洲的聚合平台,这样你就可以说,好的,无论
规则是什么,规则可以尽可能严格。这对电力电子设备不是问题。问题是如果你有每条街上的每个充电器,每个电网运营商都有不同的规则,这些规则总是相同的但只是略有不同。问题是这使得它们变得很复杂,你对这些逆变器的要求,但在整个欧洲使它们保持相同。当我们在整个欧洲都有相同的规则时,加上因为如果它们那么
严格,我们就根本不需要任何监管了,充电器上也没有什么。所以充电器不需要是双向充电器。如果车辆承担所有监管工作,它可以只是一个普通的充电器,而且整个欧洲的监管规则是相同的。当我们拥有真正的双向充电时,这实际上来自与电动汽车到电网完全无关的案例,用吸尘器在你的插头里清洁你的车,或者你在插头里给笔记本电脑充电,所以它真的来自这个。你在去年或两年前看到过,福特制作了一个关于F-150的广告,只讲烧烤。这实际上与汽车无关。所以我真的相信这一点:电动汽车应急家用电源,在很多国家我真的相信这种电动汽车到负载的概念,人们愿意多花200欧元购买一辆车,如果它内部有一个插头的话。
拥有50千瓦时或100千瓦时真的很好。你可以用它举办整个音乐节,持续整个周末。比如阿尔河谷的那些人,如果他们有一辆停在那里的车就会很高兴。我是说,不是那些失去家园的人,而是所有那些几周内没有电的周围地区的人。对他们来说,在家里放一块70-80千瓦时的电池,然后只需插上灯等设备就会产生非常大的影响。
所以我真的相信从这个效果出发成本就能被承担。当监管到位,成本被承担时,你就拥有了我们用smarter做的东西,你有了一个免费资产,然后我们可以专注于最初的案例。我对短期内的完全套利不抱希望
battery in the house and just plugging in your lamps and so on would have been a super big effect. So I really believe that from that effect the cost is taken over. And when the regulation is there and the cost is taken over, you have exactly what we do with smarter,you have a free asset, and then we can concentrate on the first cases. I don't believe in the short term in the full arbitrage
业务,因为整车制造商有一个巨大的电池耐久性问题。问题不在于终身保修,是的,这是保修,问题不在于他们无法制造电池。但你总是有这4个方面:重量、充电速度、成本和耐久性,你不可能同时拥有这4个方面。所以每当你向快速充电方向发展时,耐久性或成本就会有所下降,所以他们拥有的所有化学配方
都是这样:每当你在一个方向上有所改进,在另一个方向上就会有所下降。它们都在不断改进,但你总是面临这种权衡,你需要决定,好的,我想为我的车型要什么。而且他们还面临一个问题,就是他们有3到5家供应商,每3到4个月就推出一个新的电池芯型号,所以在同一款ID.3中,我不知道,1000个不同的电池芯
在10年内。他们需要为所有这些都保证160,000公里、8年的全覆盖。对于90%或80%来说很容易做到,但不幸的是,对于保修来说,帕累托分布不适用。对于保修,你需要达到99.9%或类似的水平,否则你会赔钱,因为召回、将车运回和更换电池等等都非常昂贵。所以存在这种谨慎态度,我能理解。这破坏了很多业务案例,比如说,在套利
模型上。但双向充电能发挥超强作用的地方是,比如说,FCR。它说的是,比如说,帮助电网运营商,对于那些不太了解市场的人来说,你可以向电网运营商出售容量、被激活的可能性,你因为什么都不做而获得报酬。所以你因为仅仅可用而获得报酬,而这种可用性对能源系统有巨大价值。如果我们有很多双向充电器或连接到
电网的汽车,因为仅仅可用而获得报酬,如果系统需要的话,我们就不再需要备用电厂了。我们目前在德国电网中有,我不知道,3到4个、10吉瓦或类似的储备。如果你有所有这些汽车连接到电网,你就不再需要所有这些了。所以我相信的是,我不知道,每年最多100次激活,也许只有20次左右,真正用于高峰中的高峰。但黑暗寒流,
晚上6点,一年10次,这是下一个双向充电时代的完美案例。再次为听众说明:这种双向充电,通常在行业术语中,是交流或直流。它真正的意思是汽车中的逆变器,它基本上是将,或者更准确地说是反转,直流电池转换为电网可用的交流电,这可以发生在汽车中或充电器级别。如果它在汽车中,由于某种原因被称为
交流电,然后如果它在充电器中,就被称为直流电。因为电缆中运行的要么是交流电,要么是直流电,所以要么交流电进入汽车。你用慢速充电器做的事情,你总是在汽车中有,这也是为什么我真的相信它应该在汽车中,因为你已经有功率电子器件。它们是二极管,所以它们还不是双向的,但尽管如此,你
已经有了这个车载充电器。它的成本大约是300欧元,要使其双向的成本大约是350欧元,所以额外成本并不是那么大。问题是当你需要为平台上的3000万辆汽车做出这个决定时,这个决定变得很重要,这50欧元,汽车制造商以分厘为单位计算,因为真的每一点小成本乘以1000万。这是一笔很大的钱,但还是。如果你
在你的车载充电器中通过30欧元、50欧元、80欧元,不管是多少,作为一个商业模式,比如车到负载、比如应急电源,并且你把它放在车里,那么链条中就几乎没有额外成本了,而像我们这样的人可以通过数字解决方案访问它。问题是如果你走直流路线:是的,你在汽车中没有额外成本,只是一些软件开发,他们已经做过了,所以有效。他们不再有额外
成本了,但那时你需要一个相当昂贵的壁挂式充电盒。交流充电器无非是一个带有一点安全和软件的插头,它是一个小微芯片,它是一个插头,但直流充电器完全不同。它更像一个太阳能逆变器,但更复杂。太阳能逆变器要容易得多;你有某些其他方面,但对于汽车充电,你需要
将汽车与电网断开连接,这使其更昂贵,因为你没有达到规模。在汽车中成本300到500欧元的相同硬件,在你这里成本3000到5000欧元,因为你没有达到规模。而且,不要忘记的是,你需要专业人员来安装它们。电工非常昂贵。电网运营商需要不同的认证,这个过程非常昂贵。所以对我来说,真正关键的是我们走哪一边。我知道中国走的是完全不同的道路,很多汽车甚至没有车载充电器;他们完全走直流路线。当你沿着那条路走下去时,这是另一回事。但在欧洲,由于我们到处都有交流充电器,我们下一年的汽车总是会有车载充电器,我真的想说,就像雷诺做的那样,将双向性放在汽车中。我看到的问题是,确实趋势还不确定。直流上的工作甚至比交流上还多,因为交流要容易得多,这只是一个软件升级,特别是电网代码,据我所知,有问题。你需要向所有这些不同的电网运营商申请。委员会会看到这是他们可以在几个月内解决的最重要的问题之一,然后我们可以回顾性地通过软件升级做
边的方式。我知道中国走了完全不同的道路,很多汽车甚至没有车载充电器;他们完全走直流路线。那是当你沿着那条路走时的另一种情况。但在欧洲,由于我们到处都有交流充电器,我们下一年的汽车中总会有车载充电器,我真的想说,就像他们用雷诺做的那样,把双向性放在汽车里。我看到的问题是,事实上趋势还不确定。直流的工作甚至比交流还多,因为交流要容易得多,只是一个软件升级,特别是电网代码,据我所了解,很成问题。你需要向所有这些不同的电网运营商申请。欧盟委员会会把这看作是他们可以在数个月内解决的最重要问题之一,然后我们可以回顾性地通过软件升级来做
趋势还不确定。直流的工作甚至比交流还多,因为交流要容易得多,这只是软件升级,特别是电网代码,据我所知是有问题的。你需要向所有这些不同的电网运营商申请。委员会会把这看作是他们可以在数个月内解决的最重要问题之一,然后我们可以回顾性地通过软件升级来做
通过所有充电器。现在内置在汽车中的物理充电器能够处理欧洲市场上最严格的电网规范,成本并不比低功能充电器高多少,因为它们可以在微秒或毫秒内反应,这足以满足电网所需的一切。所以如果你在汽车中内置了物理硬件,那么即使法规要再过三年才出台
你也可以进行软件升级,然后它在整个欧洲都可以互操作。但如果你选择直流的方式,你仍然总是需要这个昂贵的充电器,汽车里什么都没有,所以你需要希望用户愿意支付这么多钱,但没有商业案例。我没有看到过任何书面上的商业案例说:好的,我现在建造一个5000欧元的双向直流充电器,我有一个车对电网的正向商业案例,并且
在软件方面仍然存在障碍:ISO 15118-20是充电器和车辆之间的标准通信协议,对吧,为了能够使用,如果我们有我们刚才讨论的交流设置,这也是双向充电的一个要求,对吧?嗯,这是一个要求,因为我们想让它成为一个要求。如果我们没有不同的电网接入规范,我们只是说:这是欧洲电网接入规范,这辆车在欧洲,因为它们只是不同的车辆,具有
因安全原因不同的规格。欧洲、美国和中国的车辆各不相同,所以你知道这辆车在欧洲,它是为欧洲市场生产的。所以你可以在这辆车中硬编码:这是欧洲电网规范,一旦你连接到电网,这就是你需要遵循的。所以,如果我们以这种方式制定法规,我们就不需要ISO 15118中的任何通信,这
定义了你需要遵循哪些电网规范曲线,因为它从一开始就在汽车中。因此我们总是被困在相同的讨论中。在德国,如果950个参与者在互联网上某个地方放置一个带有不同余弦φ曲线的PDF文件,就永远不会具有可扩展性。他们的余弦值都是0.9,但你不确定,所以你需要去搜索它,然后
作为电工你需要在本地对其进行编程。但如果我们就说它是0.85,这更严格,但它只适用于整个欧洲,这是需要遵循的曲线,即使不是0.85,而是从1到0.5的曲线,无论如何,取决于电网的情况,并且你在车载充电器中测量它,这无论如何都需要做的来让车对负载充电工作。在车对负载的场景中,车载充电器需要测量所有这些流。
所以它有这样做的能力。如果我们愿意,我们不需要充电器中的任何额外功能。但电网运营商正在游说反对这一点。法规尚未确定,但很高兴看到一些原始设备制造商,雷诺现在开始这样做,说,不,我们走在前面,我们把它放在充电器中。这里是一个场景,它在一个国家有效,但我们将其放在每辆车中,因为
他们甚至把它放在销往德国的汽车中,即使他们知道未来三年在德国没有生意可做。这很勇敢,我很乐意看到所有人都这样做。这是一个勇敢的举动。那么我们会得到,让我们乐观一点,假设很多人做出了勇敢的举动,这些事情完成的最乐观时间表是什么?嗯,"完成"总是个问题,对吧?我们已经看到
现在它工作了,它是适用的。我认为它会增长。它会呈指数增长,但从一个真正很低、很低、很低的起点开始,我们知道这些平台开发有多慢,以及他们想在市场上保留多长时间。在这方面,我们不会看到来自中国的很多创新,因为他们那里的技术设置完全不同,原始设备制造商不能在欧洲能源市场中发挥大作用。
因此我没有那么乐观,但我真的相信到2030年双向充电会出现,在每辆车中。
它至少有直流路线,但即使是交流方面我认为很多汽车都会内置。然后,最后,完全是另一个话题,但我觉得很有趣,也许这也可能是一个有趣的话题,所以我也知道,你知道,詹姆斯·邦德和这类电影,你总能看到一些有趣的阴谋。我最近看到,我认为是Jakob或你的开发页面,你发布了关于EV充电中盗窃是目前一个问题的内容。也许你可以分享一些关于这些人是谁、什么类型的黑帮试图欺骗系统以及需要做什么或MSP正在做什么来防止这种事情发生的见解。是的,我当然可以
无法进入全面的细节,因为欺诈的问题是,如果你把你的解决方案公开,人们会找到漏洞然后继续这样做。欺诈是整个行业的一个大问题。问题是MSP业务的利润率真的很低,大多数商业案例只是勉强为正,或者大多数实际上是负数,他们这样做是为了
其他目的,所以他们不能承受更多的钱的损失。正在发生的是有两种主要不同的欺诈方式。一种是不幸的是,15年前我们选择了一项真正薄弱的技术,带有RFID卡,它只是保存在其上的简单标识符,也保存在充电器中,一旦他们检测到它,他们就允许充电。非常遗憾的是我们没有更多地采用NFC或银行业使用的其他协议,因为这些卡超级容易复制,你可以从亚马逊上购买一个系统,你可以真正复制代码,你甚至可以远距离做到这一点。所以在某个时刻某人找到一个代码,通过互联网发送,不幸的是,我不想有种族歧视,在保加利亚和罗马尼亚有很多案例。那
通过所有充电器。现在内置在汽车中的物理充电器能够处理欧洲市场上最严格的电网规范,成本并不比低功能充电器高多少,因为它们可以在微秒或毫秒内反应,这足以满足电网所需的一切。所以如果你在汽车中内置了物理硬件,那么即使法规要再过三年才出台
其他目的,所以他们不能承受更多的钱的损失。正在发生的是有两种主要不同的欺诈方式。一种是不幸的是,15年前我们选择了一项真正薄弱的技术,带有RFID卡,它只是保存在其上的简单标识符,也保存在充电器中,一旦他们检测到它,他们就允许充电。非常遗憾的是我们没有更多地采用NFC或银行业使用的其他协议,因为这些卡超级容易复制,你可以从亚马逊上购买一个系统,你可以真正复制代码,你甚至可以远距离做到这一点。所以在某个时刻某人找到一个代码,通过互联网发送,不幸的是,我不想有种族歧视,在保加利亚和罗马尼亚有很多案例。那
他们会在特定的几小时或几天内使用。很多人在本地设备上使用相同的代码来模拟卡片,然后用被盗的令牌尽可能多地进行充电会话。然后该令牌被屏蔽,他们获得新的令牌,显然有一个黑市可以花几欧元买到一个令牌,并用它进行一定数量的会话。这是一个方向,我们
有相当多的措施,比如一些客户就直接关闭某些国家,一些客户不再允许虚拟令牌;比如说,你需要在你所在国家有一个实际地址才能充电。尤其是对于这种复制行为,我们检测是否在物理上可能,比如说,如果你同时有两个会话,我们就会阻止,如果两地距离有1000公里,我们也会阻止。所以有某些
措施,比如如果你充的度数远超你声称自己车辆有的电量。所以有某些措施我们会自动检测,我们每隔几周就会加入一项新的措施来检测欺诈并尽快阻止令牌。第二个问题是不幸的是很多客户不再使用物理令牌了。他们也允许虚拟令牌,所以你只需通过
应用程序创建一个账户,然后你就可以通过应用程序开始会话。当然,创建虚假账户会更容易。有Revolut现在发行信用卡,每个人都认为信用卡和欧洲法律下的银行有某些了解你的客户规则,但显然只需5次点击,你现在就可以在Revolut上拥有一张虚拟信用卡,你可以用这张虚拟信用卡在MSP上创建一个虚拟用户,然后开始使用
虚拟令牌进行一个会话。你在这个账户上放1欧元,所以整个了解你的客户或任何最初的检查都能通过,因为这是一个官方账户,但账户里根本没有钱,然后你进行一些快速会话。当你有很多MSP时,他们只在一个月后才收费。你已经充了1000欧元的电,账户仍然存在,然后你创建一个新账户。所以这是
第二种大的欺诈问题,现在我们正在处理,很多客户现在采用,预授权的方式,在开始时对前6个会话,在你的账户上冻结50欧元。然后他们意识到,好吧,钱不在那里。但我们仍然面临的是,由于行业相当不成熟,我们仍然有很多充电器,比如那些物理令牌存储在充电器本地的大型令牌列表中,然后
他们接受充电,一天后才通知我们,哦,发生了一个充电会话,所以我们不知道,因此无法阻止它。当然,我们可以通知他们所有人,请不要再允许这个令牌了,但仍然可能已经发生了未来的会话。所以我们在两个地方都有问题:我们有旧系统,相当多的系统,但我们也有,显然,有组织的团伙
真正选择最弱的。对我们作为一个平台来说,他们总是寻找阻力最小的,就像欺诈总是针对弱者,这个行业里有很多弱者。所以作为平台,我们需要确保的是我们的客户不是最弱的。而是别人更弱,他们就去那里,这有双重的积极效应:我们的客户没有
欺诈,而且我们竞争对手的客户也会寻找新的解决方案。我知道这听起来不太好,但这就是市场的运作方式,我们想要脱颖而出,通过与客户的紧密合作来解决这些欺诈问题。但也必须说的是:就像在任何业务中一样,总有一定比例的未支付账单。我认为即使你拥有最好的客户,你也总是有一些人需要进行债务催收、一些流程和一些
提醒。但这不是真正的欺诈,更像是未支付的账单。我们刚才讨论的内容,特别是在2024年,在整个行业中爆发了,这需要得到解决。很高兴你在处理这个问题,相当具有挑战性的时代。然后最后,为了以积极的音符结尾,有很多挑战,也包括宏观挑战,看看美国,那里奇怪的是电动出行正在遭到攻击,
如果你想的话,从最开始讲起。包括埃隆·马斯克,我很惊讶他会支持一个显然反对电动出行的政府。不仅在那里,在德国和其他地方的政府也是这样。这里那里都有挑战,比如欧洲的车队排放标准,我觉得就在昨天或前天,这些目标被降低了。电动出行、可持续性、可再生能源和能源转型,这个播客的话题,似乎正在受到来自不同方面的攻击。什么给了你希望,你对接下来1到3年内能够实现什么的最大希望是什么?
是的,我的希望来自一点实用主义,我会这么说。当你看我们过去20年做了什么,自从2008年光伏热潮开始以来,有点像,以及从2015年以来,电动汽车热潮开始还不到10年。没有人,人类总是善于遗忘过去的立场,这真的很糟糕,但比我们15到20年前预期的要好得多。用这个"糟糕但比我们想的更好"的论点,我想结束这个播客,因为我们为2050年设定了这个人为的100%去碳化目标。我是帕累托原理的拥护者,所以我们现在不应该关注最后的20-30%,我们应该
关注其他80%。如果最后到2025年底,但我们有一个真正可持续的解决方案,那也没问题。现在重要的是,这真的给了我希望,无论谁是美国总统,无论谁是德国的联邦总理,因为我们已经看到了换道超车,像巴基斯坦、尼日利亚等国家都在走向分散化。他们看到这只是生产能源的最便宜方式。它在所有第三世界国家蓬勃发展
无论谁是美国总统,无论谁是德国的联邦总理,因为我们已经看到了换道超车,像巴基斯坦、尼日利亚等国家都在走向分散化。他们看到这只是生产能源的最便宜方式。它在所有第三世界
国家。他们不会再走煤炭的路。他们会直接走向分散式太阳能和风能。我在电信行业做过这个,正是跨越式发展,现在电池行业也发生了同样的事情。电池便宜得不可思议。因此,也在这里:请求电网运营商,停止制定这些大规模的5000到6000亿欧元计划来建设更多电网。安装电池,让我们到处安装电池,它们会解决我们系统中的这么多问题,而且它们每天都在变便宜。我们5年前从未想过它们会这么便宜,5年后会更便宜。正因为这一点,正是因为这个,以及实际上要感谢中国,我们的太阳能产业繁荣不是我们的功劳,而是感谢中国以我们从未想过的规模接管了市场。有人能生产200吉瓦或300吉瓦的太阳能,现在电池电芯也走同样的路,感谢中国这种难以置信的制造
能力,没有回头路了。你在第一个特朗普时代看到过:从未有过4年时间美国的碳减排比那4年还多。从未有这么多煤电厂被关闭,因为它们根本无法与其他解决方案竞争,电动出行也会是同样的情况。这有点难,特别是在像德国这样的国家,在高速公路上以250公里时速行驶几乎像一种信仰。但对于
普通民众来说,在某个时点是有意义的。对电动出行持负面态度的人大多没有开过电动车。一旦你开过一次,开了几天后,你就会想,好吧,这开起来真是不可思议地舒服。如果我有车库,我可以在家充电。比如说我就没有车库。我只在公共地方充电,但我在市中心有免费停车位。这太棒了。我们开到市中心,我可以提前看到停车位是否空着,大多数时候是的,有时会有坏人把它堵住,但大多数时候我会看到,好吧,有两个位置空着,所以我有了我的停车位。我不用付停车费。我同时充电。这是无法阻止的。这波浪无法阻止。即使我们晚2年,对指数曲线来说也不重要。结果是增长速度快得不可思议,这让我超级乐观。我们正处于太阳能、风能和电池以及
电动出行的中间,这个增长曲线是指数级的,在接下来的10年里,它将改变能源世界。是的,太棒了。顺便说一句,为了收尾,是的,我也为中国在所有这些太阳能系统、电池和电动汽车上所做的巨大投资感到热情洋溢,而不是总是批评这个,说嘿,为什么他们在这些技术上投资这么多,而我们必须与这种
巨大投资竞争,让我们也加倍努力,在欧洲加大投资。如果像我和你肯定同意的那样,这就是未来,那么让我们投资于未来,而不是批评那些这样做的人。是的,还有,当衣服行业、手机、所有电视机、我们家里甚至大多数机器,一切都来自中国或东南亚时,为什么我们要特别针对太阳能产业呢?因为他们在制造上要好得多:更便宜、质量更好
和真正大的产量。我们从这里失去了所有这些产业,这没关系,因为它们变得更好、更便宜,因此对我们所有消费者来说都很棒。但随后我们进口100%的石油,现在所有硬煤和所有天然气,但关于太阳能电池,我们对中国看得非常批评。我就想,为什么?甚至没有自然
依赖,当他们提高价格时,其他人会开始大规模生产,因为这项技术在全世界都可用。我们知道如何建造这个。所以如果他们提价,我们停止从他们那里购买一年,然后另一个国家建立起巨大的生产,比如印度正在做的。然后我们仍然拥有它。这不像他们掌握稀土元素,比如有问题的地方,但在太阳能制造中,他们将成本降得这么低
他们相互竞争,即使他们在其中投入补贴,这也很好。让他们对制造进行补贴,为全世界提供超便宜的电力,甚至到非洲最后一个荒漠地方的人现在也能负担得起光和电。这是一件好事。我们应该关注好的方面,而不是消极的方面。好的,用这最后几句话,非常感谢你,迈克尔,参加播客,祝你即将到来的项目一切顺利。非常感谢你。谢谢你,克劳迪奥,让我来这里发言。好的。哇,和迈克尔一起真是太有趣了。我学到了很多。希望你也是。我们第一次深入探讨了smart charging的维度。我们的时间比平时长一点,但我认为我们从他的背景中获得了很多,以及像全球第二大企业这样的OEM如何思考,以及这些类型的
参与者如何在充电市场中与CPO、MSP和CPMS等术语的分解一起运作。我们涵盖了很多内容,以理解不同国家、今天和未来机会之间的差异,特别是在双向充电方面,考虑电网代码、技术差异,然后一直到实际例子以及是什么使该电力产品独特。是的,我在学习所有这些时玩得很开心。然后是发生的巨大欺诈和人们总是想到的所有创意方式来欺骗,然后你需要玩猫鼠游戏,以及所有好的方法来阻止和打击今天发生的这些欺诈。然后特别是以积极的、酷的、乐观的、有希望的语调结束,我喜欢迈克尔的乐观主义,我也坚持这一点,即使有些人试图挑战未来,看不到减少污染和解决
气候变化等所有好处,我认为我们有一个美好的未来等待我们。所以现在进入"Smart Charge by RiDERgy"的下一集,我想邀请一位专家来深入探讨电池制造和价值链,这非常有趣。敬请期待,再见,朋友们。
运气。非常感谢你。谢谢你,克劳迪奥,让我来这里发言。当然。哇,和迈克尔一起真是太有趣了。我学到了很多。希望你也是。我们第一次深入探讨了smart charging的维度。我们的时间比平时长一点,但我认为我们从他的背景中获得了很多,以及像全球第二大的OEM这样的企业如何思考,以及这些类型的
参与者如何在充电市场中与CPO、MSP和CPMS等术语的分解一起运作。我们涵盖了很多内容,以理解不同国家、今天和未来机会之间的差异,特别是在bidirectional charging方面,考虑电网代码、技术差异,然后一直到实际例子以及是什么使该电力产品独特。是的,我在学习所有这些时玩得很开心。然后是发生的巨大欺诈和人们总是想到的所有创意方式来欺骗,然后你需要玩猫鼠游戏,以及所有好的方法来阻止和打击今天发生的这些欺诈。然后特别是以积极的、酷的、乐观的、有希望的语调结束,我喜欢迈克尔的乐观主义,我也坚持这一点,即使有些人试图挑战未来,看不到减少污染和解决
气候变化等所有好处,我认为我们有一个美好的未来等待我们。感谢你,迈克尔,再次参加"Smart Charge by RiDERgy"播客。我期待我们的下一次谈话。这是克劳迪奥·盖肯。再见。
气候、全球变暖,这将带来巨大的后果,而且许多人已经面临这些后果。我们不仅是为了避免所有这些负面后果而行动,也是为了抓住这一转型中即将到来的更便宜的出行和能源的机遇。这个转型带来的挑战也带来了机遇。实现这一点将是令人惊喜的,我们正处于这个过程中,让我们记住我们已经取得的所有成就
我们已经做到了。最好的还在后面,基于这一点,敬请收听下一期节目,感谢各位的收听。
Welcome to the Smart Charge by RiDERgy podcast. This is Claudio Geyken, founder and CEO of RiDERgy. This is your show to learn about all things energy management and smart charging innovation for electric vehicles and fleets.
So hey, Michael, how are you today? Nice that you're here. Hey Claudio, thanks for the invitation. Yeah, I'm doing quite well here in Berlin, nice weather, blue sky, finally the summer is coming back. So it's always for me the moment where my joy gets up. Cool, yeah, and before we dive into more specific topics, maybe you can introduce yourself to the listeners. What's your background? You can go as far as you wish, what you think is relevant, and
then to where you are today and what you're up to today. Yeah, perfect. Please stop me, interrupt me when it's too long. So Michel Joan, I'm originally a German-speaking Belgian. I always say this because it's quite, yeah, one of the few. We are only 77,000 and it quite defines a lot of where I come from, so really from the Belgian Eifel, from a little village, but still you have more borders and surfaces, so everywhere you have like
different languages, different cultures around. So Belgium speaking, the French speakers, the Luxembourgish, the Germans - it's quite an interesting region, and therefore in my heart, yeah, a deep European, let's say. Same, yeah, exactly. So I studied in French. I studied in Liège in Belgium, engineer, finished my master's in energy management, worked a few years at what is now TotalEnergies, what was back then Lampiris, one of the first bigger energy
suppliers in Belgium after the liberalization. We were number 3 on the market, where I worked a lot with portfolio management, pricing, forecasts, so I got really this 15-minute rhythm in my blood, because I had nothing to do with energy markets before. I had always wanted to work in renewables and energy transition, but it was completely new for me to get it from a market side. Which year was that? That was in 2015. And yeah, since then it's
10 years ago. There were quite some years, quite some company hopping as well. I was perhaps not the most loyal person, so I went from there, came to Berlin, did an MBA at the TU with an energy management focus as well. Met my wife, stayed in Berlin, worked a year at EA 50Hertz in the System of the Future team, where we really thought - it was like a think tank where we were thinking about
yeah, the big changes and how they influenced the business of a TSO. I went in the COVID times to a smaller startup, Oxolar, and worked there in solar business for apartment buildings, so a complete change again - from the TSO, the so-called grid autobahn, to very much lower. Apartment buildings. Yes, it was really apartment buildings. We were thinking of a scalable solution of putting kind of balcony solar but on the roofs and splitting it
into the apartments, so really about a handful of watts instead of gigawatts at the TSO. And yeah, then I went to Volkswagen Group Charging. I was there for a bit over 2 years, in the strategy department, everything around bi-directional charging, smart charging, vehicle-grid integration, and yeah, met the founder of Deft Power and was immediately convinced that this is
where I want to work and the topics I want to work on. Yeah, very cool. Before we dive deeper into the topics that you're working on, maybe just staying a little bit in the past - what are your key takeaways from the jobs that you had, key learnings that you are still proud and satisfied of having made in these different positions? Oh, that's a good question.
On my personal side, I really realized over the years that I'm not a project manager, that I don't like local small solutions, but that I really want to work on scalable, bigger solutions, ones that are really scalable throughout countries, throughout markets, and even globally. And most of the time it is only possible with software, where you still have the user contact but which is fully scalable. Me not at all coming from IT - that was really over the
years one of the biggest learnings, that I want to work in the software area, and that this is exactly how I think. I saw as well at all of the companies where the barriers were between my mindset of creating growing, scalable, exponential businesses and the limitations when you are doing project management, which is you need more people for more projects and you can only - it has a
limit to really scale this exponentially. And the other learning is - I mean, I said earlier, I'm a pure European, and this comes here as well. I have seen many different markets, energy markets with different regulations. And there I've seen as well, especially in Germany with the landscape of 900 grid operators, little kingdoms, little politicians locally that have the power of limiting scalability, that this is on the opposite side of what I see and what we need to have, yeah.
solutions throughout Europe that scale into the millions, because what we need in the energy business in all of its kinds, but especially mobility, is really low unit costs and high scalability. And this doesn't work if you need to fill in some PDFs of a local grid operator that is only working in a tiny city. You need to have regulation, you need to have possibilities to scale your solution throughout all of the markets immediately.
It definitely resonates with me as well. I'm convinced that software is going to play such a crucial role, and most energy industry professionals haven't really still grasped the complexity that lies in this distribution of energy, as we have never experienced it before - the advance of renewables and all these EVs, as we will definitely touch upon. I mean, the energy transition until now had its hurdles,
but in principle it was quite easy, because the first 30% of decarbonization - you put windmills in the existing system, you put solar panels in the existing system, and the system itself can accommodate them more or less. In some countries, in some regions, a bit better than in others, but it works. And now we are entering - we are actually in the second phase, where data is everything, where the forecasting is more important, where the
distribution, or even the consumption, becomes more important, because now we decarbonize the heating and mobility. And that means that they should use the energy that comes from the wind and the sun, and not just when somebody comes home and plugs in the car into the wall. And this is a completely new mindset of how you need to gather information, how you need to have interoperability, and this is not compatible with distributed systems where we send text files
on servers from the 1970s, which is how market communication in Germany is working. That is just not compatible. So we need to go into REST APIs. We need to have centralized servers that gather information in real time and make it accessible throughout the landscape to multiple parties. And we cannot have this old system where a little Stadtwerk sends a text file once a day or only once a week, and then somebody reads the text file and then
processes it - that's just not scalable enough for what we need in the second phase of decarbonization. Cool. And before we move into the specifics of DFT Power and smart charging, you mentioned your last role was at Eli. It's been one of the leading OEMs - traditional OEMs trying to take on a big role in the energy scene. How do you see vehicle OEMs in the
future having a role in energy management and in the energy transition as an energy player? We've also seen quite a few announcements in the last few days from the likes of Renault, etc., trying to take a role in that. What's your view on OEMs? My views have changed quite a lot. In a lot of pilot projects everybody said, oh, we absolutely need an OEM here, and in the business as well. I see
it a bit differently than a few years ago. I really thought that OEMs had to capture the customer touch point and use the momentum of selling an EV to also get the whole ecosystem around it. And I don't say that it's impossible, but the reality has shown that OEMs don't own the customer and they don't have a touch point with the customer, because cars get sold through - and Tesla is a bit the exception - but the rest of the OEMs have
dealerships, importers - there are often three companies in between the production and the final sale. And that makes it super complex. Also, they all operate really worldwide, and the energy business is often a local business, or at least a continental business, and that makes it super hard for them. On top of that, it is a software business, and we have seen what the German OEMs, but also in general the European OEMs, are capable of doing in
software - it's not that much. They're just too expensive. The innovation cycles are not built for this. And what I rather see at the moment is the opposite: that OEMs are really focusing back on what they're good at. It's making a four-year development cycle, bringing a new platform, producing it at mass, bringing the costs down, and selling hardware. In software it's just the opposite - in software you need to iterate often, you need to test, you need to
- you cannot do seven-year planning for software. The whole logic of how management in these companies works means they just don't have the right people in the right places. They're so hierarchical and not able to make distributed decisions, because nobody is trained to make decisions or even allowed to make decisions. That makes it super hard to adapt the solution to a local market. And I still see the strengths of OEMs as
huge, because they have this big branding. But I see it rather in corporations using partners that do software as a service - like DFT Power, but also like a lot of other companies on the market - and finding, per market, per continent, a really fitting solution. And then having, for example - I'll come to it later - a good MSP, a good charging app where you have the app under your control, where you perhaps buy some snippets or some parts of it, but
the rest you control - at least the design and the user journey - and then, with a good API structure, you partner in local markets with whoever you want. I mean, a Volkswagen could go to every utility in the world and say, "Hey, I want to partner with you. If you're a great forecasting algorithm and I have flexibility, can we not do something together? You have the customers, I have the data of the car." And again, it's a numbers game. I can do this for some
cents, I want some euros - there's a nice business case. But don't try to get the customers into own energy contracts and own hardware installations and so on, because the people inside the organizations are not trained to be that fast at innovating, but are also too expensive on the numbers compared to what other startups and other companies can do. OK, very, very interesting insight. And then as a segue - yeah, so what drew you to Dea Power and Jacob the founder? What
was so compelling that you decided to switch? So I always had, already at Eli and Volkswagen - the reason why I joined Eli and Volkswagen was really this: OK,
you have this first customer touch point, which is often the MSP business, which is the public charging. Everybody that buys an EV has range anxiety and wants to know where they can charge and how much they pay for it. So the MSP business is a really crucial provider of this security - you know where the chargers are, you navigate to them, you know how much you will pay, and you're sure that
you have a contact person to complain to or to call when you have a problem somewhere on the street and the charger doesn't work, which occurs sometimes - which occurs less and less, but still, it can occur. And then if you have a strong app and you see there, "OK, this charger doesn't work, but 100 m further I have another charger," and your MSP has a good CPO rating engine where you know beforehand it's only 2 stars - so if you're a risk-averse person
you go only to the 4- or 5-star ones where you're 100% sure they will work. Therefore, already years ago, Eli and DCS and others in the market - this MSP business was really crucial for the lift-off of e-mobility, because even if you have a garage and a home charger, from time to time you need to charge on the way, and this gives you the security. And by having the security and this app, and you like it,
it can be the OEM app, it can be a utility app, it can be whoever claims to be an MSP - you have this possibility to really, without any customer acquisition cost, start smart charging with these people. And this was already my vision always at Eli: to use the MSP of the OEMs and then build on top of this first customer touch point and say, "Here is actually a menu and we can do some peak/off-peak, we can save you some money at home,
some dynamic tariffs, or whatever," because the OEM or the MSPs can have the data of the car, can have the state of charge, can ask for a departure time. And this was my vision. And it was not really built upon, because it was different business units and different focus areas in the OEM. And then I met Jacob, and that was the idea behind Dea Power - why they founded Dea Power. It
was exactly combining MSP and smart charging, and when I heard this I was like, "OK, I need to jump on that horse," because it sounds like the story that I've been telling for years. And cool - I changed. Just maybe, because there are some listeners that might not be as familiar with all the jargon that we're going to use, let's just make a quick definition. So, MSP - maybe you can define that, and then we can put it in order of what an MSP
needs to communicate with, like CPO, CPMS, etc. Maybe we can also give a bit of a - yeah. Yes, it's a geek environment, that's for sure. We see it every week when we have new people onboarding and so on - we use a lot of jargon. Sorry to all of the listeners that are perhaps not used to this. So the CPO, the charge point operator, is the one
that mostly owns the charger, installs the charger, and operates the charger, and puts the prices on these chargers. And then on the other side you have the MSP - or in German often EMP - it's a mobility service provider, it's the user-facing part. Often they are not distinguishable. For example, IONITY is both: they have their own chargers and they have their own app, but in the app they also give access to other charge points that are not owned and operated by them. And these are the
two roles where we see a clear - should be a clear cut between both. So the one operates hardware and has their own business case in infrastructure, and of course energy as well, because they buy and sell energy, but it's all around the infrastructure. This infrastructure needs to work. This infrastructure needs to be open and interoperable with as many solutions on the market. And on the other side you have the MSP that is fully focused on the driver and their car and
on the needs of the driver and on the pricing. So it's a bit like the retailers in energy - they have the price authority. They can say, "I take the same price as the CPOs," which most of our customers do, but I can also say, "This group here, they have a subscription with me so they get it 20% cheaper," or, "These people, I bill it to their employer because it's a fleet." So all of all
Of this access rights, the price setting for the end customers is business of the MSP. All right. Yeah, and then maybe as a complement as well, there's in my view in the markets this other big player role that is good to understand. The CPOs mostly are not charging software - they don't build their own charging software, right - then they buy from CPMSs. So there are two other roles behind these two major roles. So you have behind
the CPO you have a CPMS, so a charge point management system, which is the software to operate the charge points. Some have developed it on their own, some take white label solutions or software-as-a-service solutions from the market. And the same happens as well on the MSP side. EMBA has developed it themselves, both sides, but a lot of players take it, for example, from us or from a lot of other software-as-a-service solution providers. And we have actually not
that nice a name as you have. CPMS - the software for the CPO - we don't really have a name for it on the MSP side. So it's the software as a service for MSPs, yes, the back end that MSPs use. That is also, yeah, maybe you can share what's the unique angle of that power compared to other MSPs, so to say, if you say, OK, BMW has built their own MSP, and then there's others that have built also
their own, or there might also be companies that sell MSP white label apps as a business model. And what is DF Power's angle to the whole market? Yeah, let's start at the beginning. I think what is really important to understand when you speak about DA is speaking about the founders, because where they came from - Jacob von Sonnefeld has founded, over 10 years ago, Plugsurfing here in Berlin actually
and he was the first independent, with his colleague and co-founder Adam, the first independent roaming models. So they were not OEM, they were not connected to the cars, they were not connected to the chargers, and they still wanted to get their place in the business. So they opened up a lot of roaming agreements, a lot of closed systems opened up for them, and they were the first ones on the market saying, we have the customer but
we don't have the car, we don't sell the car, and we don't have the infrastructure - we just want access to this infrastructure. Which is really a mindset of interoperability, that every charging card should work everywhere and should be invoiceable. And on the other side was Marc Dick, who was back then CIO at Allego, which was kind of the first CPO that was thinking really purely from an infrastructure business and not from the user
experience - user experience of course at the chargers, but not necessarily following up the user, billing the users, and having the users. So they wanted to have an infrastructure business and opening up for roaming. And so these two came together after a lot of years of experience and founded DF Power with the vision of creating the biggest virtual EV battery on the market. Based on this principle that the MSP is
the one that - the MSP in all of its forms, which we'll come to later when we talk about who our customers are - holds the customer touch point, and that smart charging and optimization should only be done with the clear consent and the clear guidelines of the user, because the flexibility is owned by the user and not by the hardware provider of the charge point. And that was a completely different vision. Until now I think we are the only
party on the market that combines these two business models of smart charging and MSP, thinking them together in that regard. So that's one of the major differentiations to the others. And also that we came a bit later, so through that experience we have the advantage of having, I think, one of the most advanced platforms in that regard. And what is clear - and here I think we are as well the only ones - we have never, like
from the start, been the only software as a service, meaning we have no own drivers on our platform, we don't have own fleets as customers. Our customers have the complete ownership of the business case, they can set the pricing, they own the data of the users and not us. And this is a bit distinctive from most other MSP software players in the market. They are mostly in competition with their own customers, and they are often the business provider. So on
the invoice at the end stands the software provider and not the entity that actually gives the brand. For example, on the Skoda brand stands Volkswagen Group Charging and not Skoda. So it's a bit distinct in that regard as well. So this software-as-a-service approach has much more flexibility, so to say, and there's a smart charging combination that is unique, yes. All right, then
I think let me just check if we had another point before we dive deeper into - yeah, maybe before we dive deeper into smart charging, you wanted to also say what are the customer groups typically that DF Power would service. So funny enough, our two biggest, or two of our biggest customers, are not at all in our customer groups because they are associations. So we have the ANWB, which is the ADAC of the Netherlands, with over 100 years'
experience and customer base - every 2nd Dutch person is actually a member of them - and we have the EV Association of Norway, Norske Elbilforening. So two really distinct entities that were really searching for somebody that does software as a service for them, and not MSP as a service. It's really different because they own the customer data. With the EV Association from Norway, we even don't have any customer names. We get them just over
token from their CRM system, so they really use us as a roaming platform, as their app and white label app, but in the background it's their systems, their ownership of the customer and the customer data. And that was the reason why they chose us, even at a time when our solution was quite elementary, like at the beginning. So these are two big customers, and we have the CPOs. We
have a lot of CPOs that want their customer touch points for subscriptions, for certain monthly loyalty programs. Just to be clear, in this case it's not the CPO having a CPMS but rather a CPO having both a CPMS and an MSP, so they want to add an MSP layer. A lot of them do this in the one-stop shop, so most CPMS systems have as well a certain capability to handle roaming cards, but as it is, it is only a side business.
You see that the app ratings, you see that the happiness of the customers with it - it is not anymore, with most of these solutions, the state of the art of what drivers need today. So we really lobby a lot with our customers to say: take two different, distinct solutions for the two businesses, because on the CPMS side you need to be able to handle roaming that comes in, so third-party charging cards. And on the MSP
business, you have only a few percent of the sessions happening on your charge point, but a lot of them happen as well on third-party charge points. And then you need to handle all of these invoices from outside and so on. So these are two completely different businesses with different logics and different IT solutions that you need. And yeah, it is our success at the moment. A lot of people that were in a one-stop shop migrate. So yeah, CPOs are our
business. Also a lot of fleet operators, for example, are interested in getting a good customer solution, a customer app. Then OEMs - we had Fisker, unfortunately bankrupt, but we have, for example, General Motors for the European business. We have deep conversations with quite a handful of big worldwide OEMs as well. Then energy utilities - we have quite a lot of them that are energy suppliers and that want to cross-
sell through the different product lines, and often, especially in Germany, they have sent as well some chargers and they have everything in-house, so they need a good customer touch point. All right, yeah, I followed. But maybe just for the listener, because it might get confusing sometimes, just to explain it in a very simple way, because I realized also when I talk with non-industry professionals that people get confused, so
roaming as a concept is a bit like we know it from the telco industry, when you get with your phone and the SIM card into a grid that is not the one of your original telecommunications provider - like Deutsche Telekom going into Vodafone. In the EV industry we copied a little bit the same wording, and so if there are different charge point operators there might be different - in this case not SIM cards, but rather MSPs. This
is charging cards, and these need to be compatible and interoperable between each other, and that's why there is this roaming concept. So to go a bit deeper into this: we have at the moment over 2,000 entities throughout Europe connected to our platform with over 900,000 charge points. Some of them have only a few, some of them have 50,000, but there are over 2,000 entities we are technically connected to as charge point operators. Some have then
let's say it's the same company but with three entities in different markets, for example. But still, for all of them there are different IT connections, and they all need to agree that our cards from our customers work on their chargers. So there's a contract behind it, there's an IT connection behind it, so the charger wherever in Europe needs to detect and accept this one card or remote start over the app, and needs to allow this driver to charge there, and needs
to trust us and our partners to go in for costs, because they allow the charging without getting money for it right away. Then at the end of the month we receive from these over 2,000 entities invoices from wherever in Europe with different VAT regimes and so on. And we get as well the charge detail records - the details of what has been charged, how many kWh, when, what was the time, how long has
the parking been, and how much do we owe them. Yeah, that's quite complex, and there have been roaming platforms like Hubject that simplify this access between these players, but still there's a lot of trust needed in that regard - that you're really paying the bills and that you trust them that your card is really working there, from southern Italy to northern Norway. All right, now let's focus on maybe the most
Interesting aspect. After having laid this groundwork, I think you have on LinkedIn a self-proclaimed smart charging enthusiast, so let's talk smart charging. This podcast also is called Smart Charge by RiDERgy, so why is smart charging in your view so important for the energy systems? What makes it so relevant and why should the listener care, so to say? Yeah, I think there are two major reasons. We said before, in the second phase of the energy
transition we need to kind of get rid of the renewables - we need to consume them at the right moments, because every time there's sunshine there's too much solar energy in the grid. And it makes only sense to decarbonize mobility if we are charging on renewables and not on coal, because at the end, even on coal it's a bit more efficient, but still it makes no sense to just shift the CO2 emissions. And so this
first principle of smart charging is: we need to charge in the cheapest and in the most CO2-free hours. But on the other side it is as well a necessity - we cannot, just from a system perspective, accommodate 100% e-mobility without doing smart charging. So it's not a nice-to-have; that's what a lot of people don't understand. The grid operators can claim as much copper as they want to
put in the ground - they will not be able to put enough copper in the ground to accommodate 45 million EVs in Germany when we don't charge them intelligently, because when you see that only 5 million vehicles are charging at the same moment, it's more or less the load of the whole energy grid in Germany. So you have a lot of hours in the year where you have around 50 gigawatts of consumption, which is 50 big power plants. And 5
million vehicles charging at the same moment at a 10–11 kW charger, which is a normal home charger, is the equivalent of the whole industry, every household, every business in the whole country. And we want to have tenfold of this - we want to have 50 million EVs, not only 5. So when the 50 million come home in the evening at 6 and they plug in, the chance is really high that 5 million of them are really charging at that moment - it's probably rather 20 - and that
means that the energy system simply cannot deliver it. There's no power plant that can deliver it, no grid that can transport it, so there is no alternative to doing smart charging. And coming back to the first principle I mentioned, the EV - we need flexibility as a buzzword. We need flexibility in consumption. And the EV has just the biggest flexibility of all devices in the market, and they are already paid for the mobility part, so they will get cheaper, they will
get cheaper and equivalent to diesel, so they will scale and take over the market. But their consumption is super flexible. They need to charge only twice a week more or less, and each time for like 1 to 3 hours - so on average 1 hour per day they drive, 1 hour per day they charge, and they stand 22 hours a day. And this charging capacity is just so big - it's 10 times bigger than the average household in the peak hour -
that if you push this to the right hours you have an enormous effect on the energy system, and you have this natural flexibility which you don't have with other devices. Even heat pumps: when it's cold, you could perhaps stop them for half an hour or an hour, but you cannot stop them for a whole day. An EV you can just not charge for 2 days because on Wednesday there's wind coming, so I just don't charge on Monday or Tuesday - and that's really
the special thing, why I'm so into it, why I'm an enthusiast of EV charging. Yeah, cool. I can definitely relate. And just for the sake of definitions as well, before we dig deeper - I've seen a little bit of different definitions of smart charging actually. When I first started really looking into the topic of smart charging, I even saw some people talking about chargers being smart when they were just connected to the internet, which I think we
can agree is not the smart charging we're talking about. And I see a lot of distinction between bidirectional charging, V2G, and smart charging, which for me - I don't know, I'm not sure if there is a dictionary definition. Actually, my random side fact: my dad is actually leading the German dictionary, so I should ask him. Maybe he's listening. But yeah, what's the definition for you? Is smart charging going, stopping at, so to say, V1G - so only
charging in one direction - or also bidirectional charging, including all the flexibility? Where does it begin and stop between V1G and V2G? I don't see that so clearly either, because through my experience at Volkswagen I put a virtual pause button on V2G for at least 3 to 5 years. There are so many hurdles on the ground, and also everybody is focusing on this - in every discussion, in every universe, in every pilot project, everybody wants to do something
with bidirectional charging. But at the moment over 95% of the charging sessions - of the real kWh that we are charging - are not optimized, are not intelligent. The discussion in research and in a lot of podcasts as well is completely distinct from the reality in the market. I would say we have less than 0.01% of charging sessions happening with a vehicle that is bidirectional-charging-ready with a user
that is bidirectional charging ready at the charger, that is bidirectional charging ready. And when this is the percentage, yeah, for us as a company, but also for me from an energy market perspective, it is at this moment in time a theoretical exercise. And it is something that needs to be prepared in politics, and it needs to be a topic in regulatory workshops, and needs to be tackled in grid connection descriptions, and it needs to
be tackled in how OEMs build their platforms, because they have 5 to 7 years development. But it is not yet an end consumer topic on a scalable level. It is starting now. It's different than two years ago, but still, for me when I speak about smart charging, I don't exclude bidirectional charging, but I also don't have it as the first thing in my mind, because I always claimed that it's just a minus sign in front of
the equation. Makes sense. Yeah, good point. And actually, let's maybe dig deeper onto that for a moment. So starting with the hurdles, what are the big hurdles you see? Starting with the simple: why are we still having, as you say, 95% of the charging sessions not being optimized? What's the hurdle there? Why aren't we actually doing it already
for the things that are possible? What things do you see are possible, and for the other things, what are the major hurdles for us to finally get rocking in all the potential? I think it's a natural evolution. The last 10 years everybody was focused on bringing cars on the market. They were early adopters that had range anxiety. We had only 50–80 kilometers of range, so they were not really - Alltagstauglichkeit, in German - and there were a lot of hurdles everywhere just to get it going. When you heard your previous
podcast, a person had said, yeah, in Germany 2015 I think it was 100 cars a month sold. Now we are at - what was it - 20,000, I think 30,000 or something. So we are now really into the mass market. The fleet accepted in other markets like Belgium, Netherlands, and
Denmark - we've seen in the last three years that we went from 10–15% market share to now nearly 50% market share. So we are really there in the mass market. And therefore it was normal that in the past vehicle-grid integration was stopping at the charging works. So my charging card at this charger: I plug in, the car detects the charger, and the electrons flow. That was hard work of over a decade to make this really work. I see a
charger on Google, I go there, I put my card and it's working. At home the same: I call my electrician, he knows what he installs, and it just charges. So that was the reason. And it was also fine like this, because just on an energy market scale, the EVs had zero significance - not for the grid, neither for the energy markets. This is now changing. This is changing as I said, when you go into
the millions in the European system. This is changing, and just to put it into perspective - because I think I know the numbers at the moment - 5 million, as you said, would be 10% of the overall vehicle fleet in Germany, and now we're around 2%, I think, in Germany, right? Yeah, I think we are not even at 2%, at 1.6 million, 2 million, something like this. So yeah, and I think the whole vehicle
fleet is 40-something million. We have something to do. In Norway we see new cars sold are nearly 100% electric, and in the fleet as well over 20% or 30% - they've even surpassed the diesel cars now. Petrol is still a bit ahead, but it's really changing every year with an average lifetime of 8 to 10 years. Yeah, that will change directly, and we see in Norway now in our discussions one of our
biggest customers that they are now in the second phase. And in a lot of countries it also comes on top that to optimize you need to have an incentive. Most optimizations nowadays are just: I want to consume my own electricity, self-sufficiency, Autarkie, whatever. But this is not a good incentive, because it should always be: what does the system need, not what is your little household optimizing on. And for this we have a principle
in RiDERgy that we optimize only on monetary systems, so only when the driver saves money or we can give him rewards for what they are doing.
So smart charging becomes now more relevant for the market, and what we need to find is price incentives, price incentives, price incentives. And in Germany it's just not possible. My boss said: forget Germany for the next 3 years. It has a reason, because you have no smart meters. When you have no smart metering, and when you have 950 grid operators that are lobbying every week in the BDEW to not go further because it's a cash cow -
grid operations without doing it in an intelligent way is little effort for a lot of returns, and they did this for the last 50 years. So Germany is just at that point. What would be the difference for the grid operators? Why do you think they lobby so much against smart meters? First of all, because all of these text files, services and servers and so on are just - yeah, they need to change.
The whole market communication. Digital meters are more complex to install, more complex. You need to school your people. You need, as a metered operator, to have the IT infrastructure, the IT security, and everything around it, which 950 operators simply cannot handle. So of these 950, perhaps 5 can handle it, and even E.ON is struggling enormously with doing it, also because the
regulation is completely absurd in Germany, completely apart from what is logical. I wish that in the last three years somebody would have just said, OK, let's give every smart meter gateway supplier a million euros or €5 million, compensate them for their losses, and now we start again and just take whatever system other countries are using - without secure channels, without whatever - we need 15-minute measurements, best even
minute measurements. But we need these values, because without these values we cannot create market signals, we cannot create price signals. Public chargers in Germany, even when there are over 100,000 kWh going through them, are on SLPs - synthetic load profiles. They get measured once a year. And all of the imbalance, all of the risk of having at 6 o'clock in the hardest, most expensive hours - nobody feels it, because it is put in an Ausgleichskreis, a Bilanzkreis, and then socialized onto the grid fees.
Germany is the only country in Europe that does it that way. So there is no incentive for the whole chain to optimize anything, neither at home nor in public, because there is no price incentive. When you have no 15-minute measurement, it doesn't make a difference if I charge at 6 or at 9, because at the end it's just the same measurement at the end of the year that gets collected. Right - just maybe to explain, because I followed, but
some people who are not so familiar might not have followed the last point you made. The way the electricity grid works is that you need to, as a consumer or producer of electricity, nominate - that's the jargon - but it really means that you predict and say how much you will consume and produce in a particular time period. This is meant to keep the stability of
50 Hz, so that production and consumption always need to be equal at the same time - that's the precondition from physics. If you are not at particular moments where you said you would be, you would be penalized. And that's what you were saying: for that you need the measurements. You could do this even with SLPs. Countries like Belgium - when I was at an energy supplier 10 years ago, most of the
households had no smart meters, so only a yearly measurement. But what they did is, for a certain area, they said: here's a consumption of, let's say, 1 megawatt. You as a supplier have 10% of the customers, so for every 15 minutes you're responsible for 10% of this megawatt. That means you still need good forecasting, you still need good procurement even in intraday, and you get hit by imbalance prices if you did something wrong. And the
same for solar: you have X% of the solar in that area, that grid area, so you get 1% of the imbalance created by it as well. In Germany the system is: the grid operator takes it off every day. They say this is the synthetic load profile, this nomination. Everybody simply follows it and everything that deviates from it is taken over by the system. This of course gives zero incentive. In Germany, a supplier with
5 people can handle the whole operations of an energy supplier, which shouldn't be the case. You should have portfolio management and you should really have intraday optimization - but you don't need it. And this of course leads to the outcome that you have zero price signals. On top of that, in public charging we have complexity. We spoke earlier about how roaming is already so complex, with 2,000 players on one hand and thousands on the other, just to get
the normal billing right: it was 1 kWh times Y price, I want €30 at the end of the month for this session. That's already complex. When you now take the time component in, it makes things super complex. It makes it complex in the app to compare different charge points, it makes it complex in the billing, it makes it complex in the communication. So if you ask why this hasn't been done in the
last 10 years - everybody was so focused on getting an invoice correct and getting the session done. Now taking this time component in is quite complex because there are so many partners involved. And this is where DER power comes in with the roles, which makes sense for the complexity. And then we come back to the software point from the beginning: this supposedly old system, where software didn't have to play such a big role, now that we're talking real-time data transfer and
control, becomes much more of a software play than before, right? Yes, and we just see that it's needed. In the last six months we had 2 or 3 Dunkelflauten where prices at 6, 7, 8 in the evening exploded, and still not every production was running, and still most of the consumption - even flexible consumption like EVs - was still just charging because there was no incentive. The prices didn't go from A to B. So we have everything there,
The tools are there, but we have not been able to communicate from A to B, "Hey, please stop, and then I give you a reward for this." At the same time we saw this weekend already the first negative prices again throughout Europe because there was a bit of sunshine. And we still didn't see more up-sessions in charging happen. So that's the problem that we need to solve. So considering what you just said that
Germany is a little bit of a tricky market because of the lack of smart meters and the DSOs being so many, and some other reasons. So what's your pragmatic approach now to make things happen today? First of all, working in other countries as well - it sounds stupid but it's really the best learning curve. Do it with the willing, the coalition of the willing as they call it. Go throughout
Europe - in markets we always follow the EVs. So in general we are stronger in countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Norway where the EV market is fully in the mass market, more mature. People have tested the... Unfortunately not yet fully. We are connected there and so on, but we haven't had big customers yet. We have one or two going live, but it's not something - yeah, unfortunately not yet. It's a market to look into
because the UK, I think, is the most advanced market in flexibility, in the regulation, in the willingness to take risks, and no local utilities with power - so it's a perfect combination actually. Yeah, to do so much... Tragic. Yeah, I know. As far as I know as well, the UK from an energy system flexibility standpoint is quite mature. And you have the English people, Anglo-Saxon people in general, who focus more on the soup instead of the hair
in the soup. How do you mean that in this context? In Europe and especially in Germany, we often first need to go through every edge case and every potential problem, and all of them need to be first solved in theory, then through practical trials, and then we go live with a solution - and in between is a decade. The UK just has this ability to listen to the market, and it's really interesting how the regulator works
there. For example, now in December they launched again this crazy concept that we have been lobbying for already since years: that flexibility providers can themselves directly access the intraday markets, the energy markets, even without any collaboration with the supplier of the site. They can trade and they can optimize, and this is something really revolutionary. It sounds like it, and we have been speaking about it since years, and they just implemented it. They did some trials, they did listenings, and it
took, I think, now 2–3 years and it's live, it's running. They are just faster and more risk-embracing because they see: OK, we have a problem, this problem needs to be solved, and here's a solution - let's do it. Instead of being too "technology open," which means at the end, OK, we do whatever we have done in the past. They really embrace new solutions and say, OK, let's do it. Yeah, this pragmatism - I
hear you. Pragmatism - yes, that's good. Successful innovation is crucial, also in startups. And we always need to see: OK, what effect do we have now and what do we have in 10–15 years? We cannot wait with our solutions until the problem escalates. So now there's actually a possibility to create a regulation, to just let it run. Some people are happy, some people are unhappy. You see the results. OK, what is really the financial
effect? Because in theory, on the Excel sheet, a lot of people can claim there are a lot of problems. But then in reality you see, OK, are people actually gaming this whole incentive-gaming discussion? Let us do it as long as the assets are still not that many. Let us try it. Put in a second regulation 2.0 with some penalties and put in a 3.0 with another adaptation - then we learn way more than if
some professors do some calculations based on theory. And this is a bit our approach here to change the regulation, also in the EU of course. But I see the English out there - just pragmatics, they run interesting things. But not only the English - I think you also mentioned earlier the Dutch. The Dutch are a bit less than the English, and yeah, here it is a bit more difficult. Yeah, I don't know if
you follow the Chinese market, because it's a lot on my mind lately. I mean they are also known for China speed. Do you follow at all what's happening there, and especially in smart charging? No, especially in smart charging, not so much. In general I follow, as one follows Chinese politics, the effect on the world, especially with regards to renewables and car production and battery science advances and stuff like this, but unfortunately not in the charging business.
I've never really got deep into it. It's a pity. Yeah, OK. Then, a lot of people are confused in terms of the energy system, grids, and markets - maybe just a quick explainer, and then the following question is: so there's the production of energy and then the demand of energy on the other hand, that make up the markets, and so there's market pricing based on - like Economics 101 where
It's a result of demand and production. So when there's lots of renewables, that's what we were talking about earlier, prices are usually low in markets or even negative, which is a phenomenon we will not maybe go deeper into for now. And then vice versa. Then there's the grid side of the equation, which, if you take the metaphor of water, you have how much water can flow into these pipes, and in the same analogy, electricity
cannot flow endlessly into these pipes, so there is a natural constraint based on the copper cables that are there. So as Michael said earlier, we either have the option of expanding these cables or deciding how to best utilize these cables in time. Now this is a prelude. So there's opportunities in this arbitrage of electricity prices in the energy markets that can be captured with smart charging, and then there are reduced grid fees from these grid operators.
And I think every country has a slightly different flavor of it, but in Europe, luckily, at least in the energy markets and the grids, it's quite harmonized now. With this being the scene-setting: what is your approach? Is it better to go through the energy markets first and then the grids, or is it country by country? The Netherlands, I know, is
very constrained by electricity grids, so that might be more attractive to focus on that area. How do you view these value streams from a business or regulatory point of view? First from a business perspective, and then maybe you can say what regulatory barriers there are, if any. From a business perspective, I would say the easiest is always focusing on the energy markets if you have smart meters and real allocation and real balancing, because you have clear responsibilities and clear rules
and immediate benefits, because it's just two independent systems. There's the one - the measurement of a household or a site or whatever - that works for how the system works to bill, and on the other side you have the optimization. And when you optimize, immediately the procurement costs will lower, so you have an immediate effect where somebody profits from it. And therefore the whole system is easier, because you don't need to communicate to somebody, you don't
need to integrate - you can just say, OK, I optimize for you here, it's your savings, give me a chunk of this. Whereas on the grid part, of course, they are regulated businesses and they are just not allowed to give me money, so they need to have regulation in place to pay people that give them flexibility, which in most countries is not the case. So most grid operators in most countries only get money if they build new stuff. And
then they have 10 years where they get 10% of it, which is ridiculous, because then they say, of course I need to build more stuff, because that's how they get more money. And if you don't have smart meters and sensors in the system, you don't even know if you need more, because you don't know what the utilization is, and you can just claim you need more, put in cables in the easiest places, and get more money.
And there is a lot of money - there are billions and billions and billions in this system. I mean, at the moment it's ridiculous. We are going into over 10 cents per kWh of grid fees. That's a lot of money. That's more money than the energy value of it. So what we claim and what we lobby for - but as a business, of course, it's not the first attractive market, because there's so much regulation, so many rules, so many hurdles until
you can access this. And in a lot of countries it's just not there. Like in Germany there is no DSO - distribution system operator - money that you could collect. They have now started with some flexible tariffs, but unfortunately again not global, but every little entity somewhere published a PDF on their website with certain rules and a lot more conditions. And with an effect like this, it is not really interesting to scale, nor to use actually. So
yes, we are in favor of dynamic grid tariffs, but even more in favor of flexibility markets, like the NODES platform in Norway, where the grid operator says: in this area, in this city, I need people to not consume, or I need people now to consume - and people like us can say, yeah, we can actually do it for you, right? I think in the Netherlands - I forgot the name now, it's on the tip of my tongue -
they also have that system. GOPACS? GOPACS, exactly. That would be similar. And are you - I've heard good things about it, but I'm not as familiar with it as you are in the Netherlands. Do you think it should be changed or upgraded? I think the principle of it is good. The problem is that, like always in the energy market, it's easier to make a contract with somebody that
has a megawatt of flexibility in one location that you can measure with a more expensive meter and so on, than if you have it really distributed at a household level where you have multiple assets - say a car together with PV, with heating - interfering. And it's more difficult to really see what the effect was of what you ordered. And there again it is not really on a granular level. So for big parties and big companies,
It is easy to access and it is a super good system, but it is not yet used enough by DSOs. So it's really often used for re-dispatch at tenant level, and not yet really on local level. And on top, not enough on small asset classes where it's really easy to say, OK, I have here 10,000 vehicles in that region. Make me an easy process, here's your red button, give me some money. So they will go there, it's a
good start, but it's not yet usable for us. One thing that I found interesting in this new energy world is that there's all sorts of different players, and I'd love to hear your opinion on the following question, which is: there's people optimizing heat pumps, there's people producing batteries or optimizing stationary batteries that are up and coming. Then there's chargers, OEMs, so people optimizing from the charger angle, others coming from the EVs. So
there's all sorts of dimensions, if you want, on optimizing. And how do you see this relationship between the different assets or players in sync in the future - any trends there? Is it gonna - I used recently the analogy - is it gonna be a cacophony of signals trying to somehow make it work, or is it gonna be a nice concert of beautiful APIs that are gonna work in sync to create - yeah, I like your analogy because
I just had a great idea for an answer. If you take hobby musicians and you put them together and say make a concert, it will be a cacophony. This is what we are doing now. We have amateur players on the market that are only optimizing their own systems, didn't think of interoperability, and then they try to play together and it doesn't work. But if you take professional musicians, you can put them together in the evening, they've never seen
each other. You give them the chords and you say now we play together - they can play in a symphony. I had friends that play in this, they didn't train for it, they go just before, this is the music, and then they tested it shortly and they go there and they can play in huge concerts. And I think this is where we need to go - this is actually the analogy I want to use. If you have
professional players in the market with good solutions that are open to collaborate - because this is the first condition: you need to be open to collaborate. You don't need to want to build a new closed one-stop-shop solution where you want everything, the customer. But if you are open to collaborate, I think there's not one way to go to Rome - to the answer, I should say. There are a lot of regional players, a lot of solutions for different needs, every household is different,
every user makes different choices, and they should do so. So what is really important for us is when we come into a household where there are other players on the site - where you would be working with RiDERgy, for example - that we find the best way of optimizing for the user. The end goal is always lowering the total cost of ownership, because with lower costs
we get more EV participation. And this we only achieve if we collaborate. So as we do it now with thousands of CPOs, we also want to do it with thousands of local controllers - not with the controller itself, but with the back ends. With OEMs we already have 40 OEMs integrated where we can see how full the battery is, and so on. And the same then on complex sites: throughout Europe there's somebody that's better than us - OK, then we deliver just a user interface
and some data and they do the job. In other places there is nobody, so then we do the job. If there's a utility supplying that site that already has programs running, then we need to integrate into them and deliver them the best forecasts or flexibility that we can. So we really come from this: we are experts of EVs and the user, and we have the interface of as many - and hopefully at one point millions of - users throughout Europe. And then our cards,
our apps of our customers are used at certain places, and in that place, if there are many of these places, we will integrate and try to help locally. We have not at all a total-control, one-stop-shop ambition. Yeah, no, that resonates with me. I yesterday listened to a podcast as well from the founder of one company. I feel a more closed approach is not the way
forward. I mean, I would be happy when Philip calls us and wants a good charging solution for the street as well, because I think they have great branding. But I don't agree with their philosophy of saying you need to have full control in one system to get to 100%, because I really believe in a fully interoperable way. And in the way they do it, because in every
market they have different backend helpers, let's say, to bring the solution into the energy market. But still, I wished we could, for example, in a place like this where our car comes to their charging point, send them for example state-of-charge data when the charger is not steerable because it's already there - don't replace it with one from them. Let us steer via the car. Let us deliver you the data, and we can
work together. So I really believe rather in this way that sometimes you touch, sometimes you don't, and our strong belief is that wherever the car comes and the driver comes, there should be a possibility to lower the costs and to help the system, right? And you mentioned in your blog post - I think you wrote together with Jacob as well - that the MSP, or DEF Power in particular, would be very well positioned to
as a market position, so to say, to leverage most of the flexibility. Maybe you want to highlight some of the main points you wrote there for the listeners? Yeah, nice opportunity to do so. So where we come from is really from public charging, and in public charging there's no smart charging happening right now. And most people that speak about smart charging speak about just at
home, as I said, doing some solar optimization, right. But where we come from is rather: we have this MSP solution, we have millions of sessions, a lot of charging sessions that are happening wherever, and we think that way. Because we are so close to the driver and to the car, we can predict where the car will be at what point and when it needs to leave again - so we can predict how much flexibility is there, and this in public and in private and in
semi-public, for example on sites where you guys are. And therefore we believe that the MSP is eccentric because they have the ability to bring this flexibility to the public charging and to bill it, to invoice it, and to treat the data - with the user, to take for example an opt-in or an opt-out. The user needs to be in control, and this is not possible if you do it just through the charger. And yeah, we believe that the
MSPs are the ones that have these millions of user touch points. And yeah, we showed this next week Wednesday. It was a pity we were supposed to go live this week but we postponed it by a week because, yeah, like always with launches, some little app issues. The app gets released, I think now to the app stores, and our biggest customer, Abey in the Netherlands, goes next Wednesday live on one of the big CPOs in
the Netherlands, on over 2000 chargers in Amsterdam, with over 200,000 users having access to this. And when they arrive at this charger, they are not fully informed before, but when they arrive they will get a push notification and have the possibility to tell us when they depart. And when there's a potential to make savings on the energy markets, we will optimize in the name of the grid, the CPO, and at the end of the month we will give
the drivers a cashback to help us, and we will invoice the CPO for the service that we deliver. And this is, in my opinion or in my knowledge, one of the first fully interoperable smart charging - you cannot call it a pilot because it's in full production, in full live - and it's fully scalable. So every CPO that listens to this can write me an email. We can do this in minutes,
we can put your chargers as well in the program. And then we can optimize the sessions on these chargers. And this is something where we really strongly believe, and hopefully at one point we are able to optimize - I don't know - 50, 60, 70% of the sessions that the user does in whatever environment, with every time different partners that are locally the best ones to save money. It sounds very cool. Yeah, I'm excited to then see the results
and then maybe have another recording to learn more. It would be nice. Yeah, the big press release will come - the press action will be the twenty-seventh, so we make a silent launch. Well, now it's not that silent anymore now that I said it, but the big official launch is on the twenty-seventh, when it gets announced in the press, and we hope that a lot
of CPOs, starting in the Netherlands but hopefully beyond as well, will join our path. And we believe in this interoperable smart charging ecosystem. Nice. Yeah, and then what's your view on how fast will we be able to do bidirectional charging at scale? I mean, you said indeed that there's - I think you said 0.01% - combinations of cases where it's actually feasible. I think CHAdeMO from Japan was leading the way with that standard,
making it possible with some particular Japanese cars in the beginning. I think Octopus Energy in England launched one of the first, if not the first, bidirectional or V2G tariff, where I think it's only compatible with that type of vehicles and chargers. And I think also The Mobility House with Renault recently announced something in France, and that was quite interesting as well. But yeah, indeed there are very few
cases here and there. And especially the volumes - I would like to know how many vehicles are until now on the pilot, because you need to have the right charger from Renault with the right car from Renault, with the right energy tariff from Renault or from The Mobility House, and then you need to want to work with them. So there's a lot of ifs, and compared to the global
The European car sales - that's still little. Still, this special Renault case I like a lot, because I was the biggest ambassador, let's say, inside the Volkswagen Group to do AC bidirectional charging. I'm a strong believer that when you do it the AC path, and we finally in a few years get the European Union to force grid operators to have one global, or one European, aggregation, so that you can say, OK, whatever
the rules are, they can be as tough as possible. It's not a problem for the power electronics. The problem is if you have every charger in every street and every grid operator with different rules, which are always the same but just a bit different. The problem is it makes them just tough - what you want from these inverters - but makes them the same throughout Europe. And when we have the same throughout Europe, plus because if they are that
tough, we don't need any regulation anymore, and nothing actually on the charger. So the charger doesn't need to be a bidirectional charger. It can be just a normal charger if the vehicle takes over all the job of the regulation, and it's the same regulation throughout Europe. And if we have this real bidirectional charging, and it comes from cases actually that have nothing to do with vehicle-to-grid - it's really cool to clean your car with a vacuum cleaner in your plug, or you have your
laptop charging in the plug - so it comes really from this. You saw it last year or two years ago, Ford was making an advertisement of the F-150 only about barbecues. It had nothing to do with the car actually. So I really believe in this: vehicle-to-home emergency power, in a lot of countries I really believe in this vehicle-to-load thing, and people are willing to pay €200 more for a vehicle if you have a plug inside.
It's really cool to have 50 kWh or 100 kWh. You can have a whole festival with this for a whole weekend. Like the people in the Ahrtal would have been happy if they would have had - for those 3 months or 2 months without electricity - a car standing. I mean, not the people that had no houses anymore, but all the people around that had no electricity for weeks. For them, having a 70–80 kWh
battery in the house and just plugging in your lamps and so on would have been a super big effect. So I really believe that from that effect the cost is taken over. And when the regulation is there and the cost is taken over, you have exactly what we do with smarter - you have a free asset, and then we can concentrate on the first cases. I don't believe in the short term in the full arbitrage
business, because the OEMs have a huge battery durability problem. And the problem is not the lifetime guarantee - yes, it's the guarantee - it's not the problem that they cannot build them. But you have always these 4 points: it's weight, it's charging speed, it's cost, and it's durability, and you can never have all 4 at the same time. So always when you go more toward fast charging, you have a bit less durability or a bit less cost - so all of the chemistries
that they have: always when you go more in one direction you have a bit less of the other. And they all get a bit better all the time, but still you always have this trade-off - to say, OK, what do I want for my vehicle model. And on top they have the problem that they have 3 to 5 suppliers which bring out every 3–4 months a new cell model, so they have in the same ID.3 - I don't know - 1,000 different battery cells
over 10 years. And all of them they need to guarantee for the full 160,000 kilometers, 8 years. It's easy to do so for 90% or 80%, but unfortunately with guarantees, Pareto doesn't work. For guarantees you need to have 99.9% or something, otherwise you lose money, because recalls and taking the cars back and replacing batteries and so on is super expensive. So there is this cautiousness, and I can understand this. That destroys a lot of business cases, let's say, on the arbitrage
models. But where bidirectional charging can be super powerful is, for example, FCR. It says, for example, helping grid operators - for the people that are not deep in the market - you can sell the capacity, the possibility of getting activated, to grid operators, and you get paid for not doing anything. So you get paid for just being available, and this availability has a huge value for the energy system. And if we have a lot of bidirectional chargers or cars connected to the
system that get paid for just being available if the system needs them, we don't need backup power plants anymore. We have at the moment, I don't know, 3–4, 10 gigawatts or something in the German Netz reserve. All of this you don't need anymore if you have all of these cars connected to it. So I believe rather in this - I don't know - 100 activations maximum a year, perhaps even only 20, something like this, really for the peak of the peak. But Dunkelflaute,
6 in the evening, 10 times a year - that's a perfect case for the next era of bidirectional charging. And just for the listeners again: this bidirectional, often in the jargon, is AC or DC. What it really means is that the inverter in the car, which basically converts - or inverts rather - the DC battery into AC usable from the grid, that can happen either in the car or at the charger level. And if it's in the car, it's called
AC for some reason, and then if it's in the charger it's called DC. Because through the cable runs either AC or DC, so either the AC comes into the car. What you do with slow chargers - you have always in the car, and this is also the reason why I really believe it should be in the car - because you have already power electronics. It's diodes, so they are not bidirectional yet, but still, you
have already this onboard charger. It costs something like €300, and for making it bidirectional it costs something like €350, so the costs on top are really not that big. The problem is when you need to make this decision, of course, for 30 million cars on the platform, that becomes significant - these €50 - and car manufacturers are calculating on the cents per screw, because it's really every little cost times 10 million. It's big, but still. If you
pass the €30, €50, €80, whatever it is, in your onboard charger through as a business model - like vehicle-to-load, like emergency power - and you have it inside, then you have nearly no additional cost anymore in the chain, and people like us could just access it through digital solutions. The problem is if you go the DC road: yes, you have zero additional costs in the car, just some software development - they have done it, so it works. They have no additional
costs anymore, but then you need a quite expensive wall box. An AC charger is nothing more than a plug with a bit of security and software in it - it's a little microchip, it's a plug - but a DC charger is completely different. It's more like a solar inverter, but more complex. A solar inverter is way easier to build; you have certain other aspects, but with vehicle charging you need to
disconnect the vehicle from the grid, and that makes it more expensive because you don't get the volumes. The same hardware that costs in the car €300 to €500 costs you €3,000 to €5,000 because you don't have the volumes. And on top - what is not to forget - you need specialist people to install them. Electricians are super expensive. Grid operators want different certificates, and that process is super expensive. So for me it's really crucial which
side we go to. I know China goes a completely different way - they don't even have an onboard charger in a lot of cars; they go completely DC. That's another situation when you go down that road. But in Europe, as we have AC chargers everywhere and we will always have onboard chargers in next year's cars, I really pledge to say - like they did it with Renault, putting the bidirectionality in the car. The issue I see is that indeed the
trend is not yet certain. There's even more work still on DC than on AC, because on AC it is way easier - it's just a software upgrade - and especially the grid codes are, as far as I understand, problematic. You need to apply to all these different grid operators. The commission would see this as one of their most important problems they could solve in months, and then we could, backwards looking, with a software upgrade, do
it through all the chargers. The physical charger that is built now in the car has capabilities of handling the most severe grid code on the European market, which is not much more cost than a lower capability, because they can react in microseconds or milliseconds - it's far enough for everything that the grid needs. So if you have the physical hardware built into the car, then even when the regulation comes only in three years
you do a software upgrade and then it's interoperable throughout Europe. But when you go the DC way, you still always have this expensive charger - you have nothing in the car - so you need to hope that the user pays so much money, but there is no business case. I haven't seen a business case on paper that says: OK, I build now a €5,000 bidirectional DC charger and I have a vehicle-to-grid positive business case, and
there's still also the hurdle software-wise: ISO 15118-20, that's the standard communication protocol between chargers and vehicles, right, for being able to use - should we have then the AC setup that we just discussed - this also is a requirement for bidirectional charging, right? Well, it's a requirement because we want to make it a requirement. If we didn't have different grid connection codes and we would just say: this is the European grid connection code, and this car is in Europe - because they are just different cars with
different specs for security reasons. Cars are different in Europe, in America, and in China, so you know that the car is in Europe - it's produced for the European market. So you could hard-code in this car: this is the European grid code, and as soon as you get connected to the grid, this is what you need to follow. So then, if we would put the regulation in that way, we would not need any communication in ISO 15118, which
defines which grid code curves you need to follow, because it is just in the car from the setup. And therefore we are stuck always in the same discussions. In Germany it cannot - it will never be scalable if 950 players put a PDF somewhere on the internet with a different cos phi curve. All of them have 0.9, but you are not sure, so you need to go and search it, and
then you need to program it as an electrician locally. But if we just say it's 0.85, which is more severe, but it's just applicable for the whole of Europe, and this is the curve that needs to be followed - even not 0.85, but a curve from 1 to 0.5, whatever, depending on what the grid does - and you measure it in the onboard charger, which it anyway needs to do to make vehicle-to-load work. In a vehicle-to-load scenario, the onboard charger needs to measure all of these flows.
So it has the capabilities of doing so. We don't need any additional capabilities in the charger if we want to. But grid operators are lobbying against it. The regulation is not set up, but it would be nice to see some OEMs - and Renault is starting it now - to say, no, we go in front, we put it in the chargers. Here's one scenario where it works, in one country where it works, but we put it in every car because
they put it even in the car that is sold to Germany, even when they know the next three years there's no business to make in Germany. And this is brave, and I would love to see all of them going there. That's a brave movement. And then we would get - let's be optimistic - assuming that many take the brave move, what's your most optimistic timeline for these things to be done? Well, 'done' is always a question, right? We have seen it
now it works, it is applicable. I think it will grow. It will grow exponentially, but coming from a really low, low, low point, and we know how slow these platform developments are and how long they want to keep them in the market. And in that one regard we will not see a lot of innovation coming from China, because they have a completely different technical setup there and the OEMs cannot play a big
role in the energy market in Europe. And therefore I'm not that optimistic, but I really believe that by 2030 bidirectional charging will be there, in every car.
Has it at least a DC road, but even AC-wise I think a lot of cars will have it built in. And then, finalizing - on a completely different note, but I find it entertaining and maybe it could also be an interesting topic - so I'm also, you know, into James Bond and these types of movies where you always have some interesting intrigues. I saw recently that - I think, I
think it was Jakob or your dev page - you posted about theft being an issue right now in EV charging. So maybe you can share some insights on who these people are, what type of gangs are trying to game the system, and what needs to be done, or what the MSPs are doing to prevent this type of thing from happening. Yeah, I can - I can of course not go
into full details, because the problem with fraud is that if you put your solutions out in the open, people will find the loophole and will then continue doing so. Fraud is a big issue in the whole industry. The problem is that you have really low margins on the MSP business, and most of the business cases are just barely positive - or most of them actually negative - and they do it for
other purposes, so they cannot afford to lose even more money. And what is happening is that there are two major different ways of doing fraud. The one is we have unfortunately, 15 years ago, chosen a really weak technology with the RFID cards, which is just a simple identifier saved on it and it's also saved on the charger, and as soon as they detect it they allow charging. It's really a pity that we have not
gone more into NFC or other protocols that are used in the banking industry, because these cards are super easy to copy - you can buy a system on Amazon and you can really copy the code, and you can even do this over long distance. So at one point somebody finds a code, sends it over, and unfortunately - without wanting to be racist - there were a lot of cases in Bulgaria and Romania. That
they then use for certain hours or days. A lot of people use the same code on their local devices that mimic a card, and then they do as many charging sessions as possible with a stolen token. Then the token gets blocked, they get a new one, and there's apparently a black market where you can buy a token for some euros and use it for a certain number of sessions. That was the one direction where we
have quite a lot of measures - like some clients just shut down certain countries, some clients don't allow virtual tokens anymore; for example, you need to have a physical address in your country to be able to charge. And especially for this copying, we detect whether it is physically possible - for example, if you have two sessions at the same time we block them, if you have 1,000 kilometres in between we block them. So there are certain
measures, like if you're charging way more kilowatt-hours than you have stated your vehicle has. So there are certain measures that we detect automatically, and we're putting in a new measure every few weeks to detect the fraud and to block the tokens as fast as possible. And the second issue is that unfortunately a lot of our clients don't use physical tokens anymore. They allow virtual tokens as well, so you can just through
the app, create an account, and then you can start sessions through the app. And it is of course easier to create fake accounts. You have Revolut that gives now credit cards - everybody thinks a credit card and banks with European law have certain know-your-customer rules, but apparently with 5 clicks you can have now a virtual credit card on Revolut, and you can use this virtual credit card to create a virtual user on an MSP and you start with
a virtual token, a session. And you put 1 euro on this account, so the whole know-your-customer or whatever first checks work because it is an official account, but there's just no money in it, and then you do some fast sessions. When you have a lot of MSPs they charge only once a month. You have done 1000 euros of charging and then the account is still there and you create a new account. So this is the
second kind of big fraud issue, where we go now - a lot of customers go now - with pre-authorization, taking at the beginning, for the first 6 sessions, blocking 50 euros on your account. Then they realize, OK, it is not there. But we still, as the industry is quite immature, we still have a lot of chargers, for example, with physical tokens that are saved locally on the charger in a huge token list, and then
they accept the charging and they send us only a day later - oh, there was a charging session - so we don't know about it, so we cannot block it. Of course then we can send to all of them, please don't allow this token anymore, but it could still be that a future session has already happened. So we have both places: we have legacy systems, quite a lot of them, but also we have, apparently, organized groups that
really choose the weakest. For us as a platform, they always search for the lowest resistance - like fraud always goes to the weak players, and there are a lot of weak players in this industry. So what we need to ensure as a platform is that our customers are not the weakest player. And that somebody else is weaker and they go there - it has a double positive effect: our customers don't have
fraud, but also our competitors' customers search for new solutions. I know it's bad, but it's how the market works, and we want to stand apart, in really close collaboration with our clients, to solve these fraud issues. But it must be said as well: like in every business there's a certain percentage of unpaid bills. I think even if you have the best customers, you always have some people that you need to do some debt collections and some process and some
reminders. But it's not real fraud, it's more like unpaid bills. What we just spoke about, especially in 2024, it erupted throughout the whole industry, and it needs to be solved. Good that you're tackling that - quite challenging times. And then lastly, to end on a positive note, there are a lot of challenges, also macro challenges - see the US, where strangely the electric mobility is being attacked,
if you want, from the very top. Including Elon Musk, which I'm very surprised that he would support a government that is obviously against e-mobility. And not only there, but also governments like here in Germany or elsewhere. There are challenges here and there, like the fleet emissions standard in Europe - I think just yesterday or the day before the ambitions were reduced. It feels like e-mobility and sustainability and renewables and energy transition, the
topic of this podcast, is being a little bit attacked from different sides. What gives you hope, and what's your biggest hope for the next, let's say 1 or 3 years, that you can achieve? Yeah, my hope comes from a bit of pragmatism, I would say. When you look at what we have done in the last 20 years - since 2008 when the PV boom started, kind of - and since 2015, it's less
than 10 years that the EV boom started. Nobody - humans are always good at forgetting the standpoint of the past - and it's really bad, but it is way better than we expected 15 to 20 years ago. And with this "bad but better than we thought" argument I would like to end the podcast, because we have put this artificial 100% decarbonization target for 2050. I'm a Pareto-principled person, so we should not focus on the last 20–30% now, we should
focus on the other 80%. And if it's then at the end of 2025 but we have a really sustainable solution, that's also fine. What is important now - and this is what gives me real hope - it doesn't matter who is president of the United States, it doesn't matter who is the Bundeskanzler in Germany, because we have seen with leapfrogging that countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, and so on are going decentralized. They see it's just the cheapest way of producing energy. It's booming in all third-world
countries. They will not go the coal way anymore. They will just go directly to decentralized solar and wind. I did it in telecommunications - leapfrogging exactly - and the same happens at the moment with batteries. Batteries are so incredibly cheap. Therefore, also here: please, grid operators, stop putting these big 500–600 billion euro plans to build more grids. Put batteries, let us put batteries everywhere, they will solve so many problems in our system, and they get cheaper every day. We have never thought 5
years ago that they could ever be so cheap, and in 5 years they will be even more cheap. And so with this, just about this, and thanks to China actually - it's not thanks to the German solar industry that we have this boom, it's thanks to China taking over at scales that we would have never thought possible. That somebody can produce 200 gigawatts or 300 gigawatts of solar, and now going the same way with battery cells, and thanks to this incredible manufacturing
capabilities of China, there's no way back. You saw it under the first Trump era: there were never 4 years where America decarbonized more than those 4 years. There's never been more coal plants being closed because they just cannot compete anymore with the other solutions, and this will be the same with e-mobility. It's a bit harder, especially in a country like Germany where it's nearly like a religion to drive at 250 on the Autobahn. But for
the normal population, it makes sense at one point. People who are negative about e-mobility have mostly not driven one. Once you drive one and you drive it for some days, you're like, OK, that's incredibly nice to drive. I can charge at home if I have a garage. I, for example, don't have a garage. I only charge in public, but I have free parking in the city center. It's amazing. We drive to the city center, I see beforehand if the parking is free - mostly, sometimes there are
bad people blocking it, but mostly I see, OK, two places free, so I have my parking. I don't pay for parking. I charge in the meantime. It's not stoppable. That wave is not stoppable. And if we are 2 years later than we thought, it doesn't matter in exponential curves. The result is it's just unbelievably fast how it's growing, and that makes me super positive. We are in the middle of an incredibly exponential curve on both solar, wind, and batteries and
e-mobility, and this will change the world of energy in the next 10 years. Yeah, very cool. And just on a side note, to end as well - yeah, I'm also very enthusiastic about this huge investment that China has been doing with all these solar systems and batteries and EVs now, and instead of criticizing that all the time and saying, hey, why are they investing so much in the technologies and we have to compete against this
big investment - let's also invest in doubling down on the effort here in Europe. If, as I and you definitely do agree, that's the future, then let's invest in the future instead of criticizing those that do. Yes, and also why are we singling out the solar industry when the clothes industry, the phones, all the televisions, most of even our machines at home - everything comes from China or from Southeast Asia because they're just way better in manufacturing: cheaper, better
quality, and in really big volumes. We have lost all of these industries from here and it was OK because they just got better and cheaper, and therefore for us all as consumers that was fantastic. But then we import 100% of our oil and nowadays all of the hard coal as well and all of the gas, but then on the solar cells we look very critically at China. I'm like, why? There's even no natural
dependency - when they make the prices higher, somebody else puts up mass production because the technology is available throughout the world. We know how to build this. So if they increase the prices, we stop buying from them for a year and then another country puts up a huge production, as India for example is doing. And then we still have it. It's not like they sit on rare earth, for example, where there's a problem, but in solar manufacturing they bring the cost so far down
they're competing with each other, and even if they put subsidies into it, it's great. Let them put subsidies on the manufacturing and give us super cheap electricity for the whole world - to the last desert place in Africa that can now afford to have light and electricity. That's a good thing. We should focus on the good thing, not on the negative part of this. Well, with those last few words, thanks a lot, Michael, for joining the podcast and best of
luck with the upcoming projects. Thank you very much. Thanks, Claudio, for letting me come here and speak. Sure. Wow, that was fascinating with Michael. I learned a ton. I hope you did too. For the first time we had a deep dive into the smart charging dimensions. We went a bit longer than usual, but I think we really got a lot from his background and how an OEM like one of the 2nd largest in the world thinks, and how these types of
players are in the charging market alongside the breakdown with the CPOs, the MSPs, and CPMSs and all this jargon. We covered a lot of ground to understand the differences between different countries and opportunities today and in the future, especially in bidirectional charging - considering grid codes, technological differences, and then all the way to practical examples and what makes that power offering unique. Yeah, I had a blast learning all of that. And then the tremendous fraud going on and all the creative
ways people managed to always think of to deceive, and then you need to play the cat-and-mouse game and all the good ways as well to block and combat these frauds happening today. And then especially ending on a positive, cool, optimistic, hopeful note - I love Michael's optimism, and I also double down on it, even if some people try to challenge the future and don't see all the benefits of less pollution and tackling the
Climate, global warming - that will have tremendous consequences, and already most people are already faced with these consequences. And not only doing it for avoiding all these negative consequences, but also seeing the opportunities of so much cheaper mobility and energy that is yet to come in this transition, coming from the challenges of this transition. Getting there will be amazing, and this is - we're in the middle of it, and let's remember all that we have achieved
already. The best is yet to come, and on that note, stay tuned for the next episode and thanks for listening.
节目笔记
Michael Johanns brings a long experience in the energy transition and E-Mobility world. Now, he’s responsible for smart charging at a leading E-Mobility startup called Deftpower. Key discussions focused on his background, the energy and mobility transition, smart charging innovations, market dynamics, and fraud prevention within the electric vehicle sector. The session began with an in-depth conversation with Michael regarding smart charging, offering insights from a leading OEM on the industry's operational landscape. We analyzed the charging market's complexity, discussed key players like CPOs and MSPs, and examined the potential of bi-directional charging across different regions. Concerns surrounding fraud were addressed, highlighting prevalent tactics and prevention strategies in an industry characterized by a constant 'cat and mouse game.' The meeting concluded with an optimistic outlook, emphasizing the positive impact of reduced pollution on climate change and the ongoing transition toward more affordable mobility solutions, reinforcing that significant advancements are still anticipated.