#Hardest-to-reach electrification solutions

[greenthestral]

Breaking Barriers: The Challenge of Electrification in Remote Areas

In today's rapidly evolving world, the importance of electrification cannot be overstated. Access to electricity is a cornerstone of modern living, enabling progress in education, healthcare, communication, and economic development. Over the past few decades, remarkable strides have been made in electrification efforts, but there remains a significant challenge in reaching the hardest-to-reach areas. This article explores the obstacles hindering impressive progress in electrification and sheds light on the efforts being made to overcome these challenges.

The Significance of Electrification

Electrification is a critical component of building sustainable and inclusive societies. It enhances the quality of life for people in both urban and rural areas, enabling them to access vital services and technologies. Electricity facilitates the functioning of schools, hospitals, industries, and communication networks, empowering communities to thrive and participate in the global economy. However, despite its transformative power, millions of people around the world still lack access to electricity.

The Impressive Progress

In recent years, electrification efforts have achieved remarkable progress. Governments, non-profit organizations, and private companies have collaborated to expand electricity access to remote and underserved regions. The adoption of renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydro power, has played a significant role in bringing electricity to areas with limited infrastructure. Additionally, advancements in technology and innovative micro-grid systems have made it possible to overcome geographical barriers and provide energy solutions to previously inaccessible locations.

Challenges in Reaching the Hardest-to-Reach

While impressive progress has been made, electrification in remote areas faces formidable challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

Geographical Barriers: Many remote regions are situated in rugged terrains, such as mountains, forests, or deserts. Building and maintaining traditional power infrastructure in these areas can be prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging.

Lack of Infrastructure: Remote regions often lack basic infrastructure like roads and transportation networks, making it difficult to transport materials and equipment needed for electrification projects.

Affordability: In impoverished regions, the cost of setting up and maintaining electricity infrastructure can be a burden for both the communities and the providers.

Political and Social Instability: In certain areas, political conflicts and social unrest can hinder progress in electrification efforts, discouraging potential investors and disrupt ongoing projects.

Environmental Concerns: Balancing the need for electrification with environmental conservation is crucial. Some remote areas are ecologically sensitive, and care must be taken to ensure sustainable and eco-friendly energy solutions.

Solutions and Initiatives

Despite the challenges, numerous initiatives are actively working to bring electricity to the hardest-to-reach regions. These efforts include:

Off-Grid and Micro-Grid Systems: Off-grid solar systems and micro-grids provide localized and decentralized energy solutions, bypassing the need for extensive infrastructure. They can be tailored to suit the specific energy demands of a community.

Mobile Technology: Mobile technology has become a powerful tool in facilitating electrification. Mobile payment platforms and smart grids help manage energy distribution efficiently.

Public-Private Partnerships: Collaborations between governments, non-governmental organizations, and private companies have proven effective in pooling resources and expertise to tackle electrification challenges.

Miniaturized Technologies: Technological advancements have led to the creation of compact and efficient energy solutions, such as portable solar panels and mini wind turbines, making them suitable for deployment in remote areas.

Community Engagement: Empowering local communities to take ownership of electrification projects fosters a sense of responsibility and sustainability.

Conclusion

Impressive progress in electrification has undoubtedly improved the lives of millions, but there is still much work to be done to reach those hardest-to-reach areas. The challenge of electrifying remote regions requires innovative solutions, collaborative efforts, and a commitment to sustainable development. As technology continues to advance and awareness grows, there is hope that the barriers hindering electrification will gradually crumble, lighting up the lives of those who have remained in the dark for far too long. It is essential for governments, organizations, and individuals to come together and invest in electrification as a means of driving positive change, fostering economic growth, and leaving no one behind in the pursuit of a brighter and sustainable future.

What's In It For Me? (WIIFM)

Are you curious about the state of electrification in remote areas and the challenges hindering its progress? Discover how impressive efforts to bring electricity to the hardest-to-reach regions impact global development, the environment, and the lives of millions. Learn about innovative solutions and initiatives that can transform the future of those in need, while contributing to a sustainable and inclusive world.

Join the Movement: Let's Light Up Lives Together!

Be a part of the electrification revolution! Help us overcome the challenges of reaching remote areas with electricity. Share this article to spread awareness and inspire others to support electrification efforts. Together, we can make a difference and empower communities worldwide. Click here to learn more about how you can get involved and contribute to this meaningful cause.

Blog Excerpt

The quest for electrification in remote and underserved areas has seen impressive strides, yet it faces significant challenges that slow its progress. Access to electricity is pivotal in shaping modern living, but millions of people still lack this essential resource. This article delves into the obstacles hindering electrification, including geographical barriers, lack of infrastructure, and affordability issues. We explore the solutions and initiatives driving change, such as off-grid and micro-grid systems, mobile technology, and community engagement. By addressing these challenges head-on, we can create a brighter and sustainable future for all.

Meta Description (320 characters)

Discover the challenges impeding impressive progress in electrification efforts to reach remote areas. Explore innovative solutions and initiatives, empowering communities and transforming lives worldwide.

[orbemnews]

That Spotty Wi-Fi? There’s $100 Billion to Fix It. WASHINGTON — Kimberly Vasquez, a high school senior in Baltimore, faced a tough problem when the pandemic began. She had no fast internet service in her home, but all her classes were online. Marigold Lewi, a sophomore at the same school, was regularly booted off Zoom classes because of her slow home connection. Ms. Lewi spent a lot of time explaining Zoom absences to teachers. Ms. Vasquez sat outside local libraries to use their internet access and at times used her phone. The two of them helped push a successful public campaign for better and free service to low-income families in the city. “It was very chaotic,” Ms. Vasquez said. “We had to do this because no one else was going to change things.” A year after the pandemic turned the nation’s digital divide into an education emergency, President Biden, inheriting the problem, is making affordable broadband a top priority, comparing it to the effort to spread electricity across the country. His $2 trillion infrastructure plan, announced on Wednesday, includes $100 billion to extend fast internet access to every home. The money is meant to improve the economy by enabling all Americans to work, get medical care and take classes from wherever they live. Although the government has spent billions on the digital divide in the past, the efforts have failed to close it partly because people in different areas have different problems. Affordability is the main culprit in urban and suburban areas. In many rural areas, internet service isn’t available at all because of the high costs of installation. “We’ll make sure every single American has access to high-quality, affordable, high speed internet,” Mr. Biden said in a speech on Wednesday. “And when I say affordable, I mean it. Americans pay too much for internet. We will drive down the price for families who have service now. We will make it easier for families who don’t have affordable service to be able to get it now.” Longtime advocates of universal broadband say the plan, which requires congressional approval, may finally come close to fixing the digital divide, a stubborn problem first identified and named by regulators during the Clinton administration. The plight of unconnected students during the pandemic added urgency. “This is a vision document that says every American needs access and should have access to affordable broadband,” said Blair Levin, who directed the 2010 National Broadband Plan at the Federal Communications Commission. “And I haven’t heard that before from a White House to date.” Some advocates for expanded broadband access cautioned that Mr. Biden’s plan might not entirely solve the divide between the digital haves and have-nots. The plan promises to give priority to municipal and nonprofit broadband providers but would still rely on private companies to install cables and erect cell towers to far reaches of the country. One concern is that the companies won’t consider the effort worth their time, even with all the money earmarked for those projects. During the electrification boom of the 1920s, private providers were reluctant to install poles and string lines hundreds of miles into sparsely populated areas. There are also many questions about how the administration plans to address affordability. It is one thing to extend service to homes; it is another to make it inexpensive enough for people once it gets there. The White House was scant on details on Wednesday, though it stressed that subsidies alone were not a long-term solution. In addition, the money would arrive more than a year after the pandemic closed schools and as many were starting to reopen their doors. As a result, many students without good internet connections have already fallen a full year behind. About 25 percent of students don’t have adequate broadband at home, with Native American, Black and Latino children hardest hit, said Becky Pringle, the president the National Education Association, the teachers’ union. Mr. Biden’s plan would be tested in places like Chinle, a school district in the Navajo Nation in northeast Arizona. As with electrification, the most remote homes — particularly on Native land — got service last. Today, many homes in that isolated corner of the state have no access to broadband or speeds that are so slow even one device on a Zoom conference takes up most of the bandwidth. Cellular phone service is nonexistent or spotty in many parts. School is slowly beginning to return to the classroom. But until last week, 31 buses were sent out daily with packets of printouts for homework and flash drives with videos of lessons for math, science, history and English. The graduation rate is expected to be near 60 percent this year, down from 77 percent last year, said Quincy Natay, the superintendent of the Chinle Unified School District. “It has been a tough and challenging year,” Mr. Natay said. “A lot of learning loss has occurred for this group.” Congress has approved more than $10 billion in the past few months to help make broadband more affordable and to put more laptops and other devices in students’ hands. Of those funds, the F.C.C. is working to figure out how to distribute $7.2 billion for broadband service, devices, and potentially routers and other equipment for households with school-age children. In February, the F.C.C. announced $50 to $75 broadband subsidies for low-income families from $3.2 billion granted by Congress in December for emergency digital divide funding. Both programs involve one-time emergency funding to address broadband access problems exacerbated by the pandemic. The administration’s $100 billion plan aims to connect even the most isolated residents: the 35 percent of rural homes without access. In those areas, the White House said, it would focus on “future-proof” technology, which analysts take to mean fiber and other high-bandwidth technology. The administration highlighted its support for networks run and owned by municipalities, nonprofits and rural electrical cooperatives. Several states have banned municipal broadband networks, and the F.C.C. failed in its attempts to overturn those bans in court during the Obama administration. The Biden infrastructure plan faces a tough path in Congress. Republicans have pushed back on the cost. They even argue about definitions of broadband. Republicans balk at some proposals to require faster broadband standards — such as 25 megabits for downloads and as much as 25 megabits for uploads, which they say is a bar too high for providers in rural areas. Those speeds would allow multiple family members to be on videoconferencing, for example. “I believe that this would make it harder to serve those communities that don’t have broadband today,” Michael O’Rielly, a former F.C.C. commissioner, told the House commerce committee last month. Educators lobbied Congress throughout the pandemic to extend broadband in the country. When little relief was in sight, some took matters into their own hands. Last April and through the summer, administrators at the Brockton School District in Massachusetts bought more than 4,000 hot spots with their own funding and a federal loan. They were able to reduce the percentage of students without high-speed internet or a device to about 5 to 10 percent, from about 30 percent. Superintendent Mike Thomas said the district was starting to go back to classrooms and would most likely be fully in person by the fall. But he plans to retain many aspects of distance learning, he said, particularly after-school tutoring. In Baltimore, where an estimated 40 percent of households lack high-speed internet, students and community activists fought to raise awareness of their circumstances. Ms. Vasquez and Ms. Lewi held protests against Comcast, the dominant provider, for better speeds and lower costs for its much-publicized low-income program. Their group, Students Organizing a Multicultural and Open Society, also lobbied the Maryland legislature and the city to put a priority on affordable broadband for low-income households. “We didn’t have options, and we deserved better,” Ms. Vasquez said. Adam Bouhmad and some community activists began to install antenna “mesh” networks tapping into the hot spots of closed Baltimore schools to connect surrounding homes. Through a jury-rigged system of antennas and routers, Mr. Bouhmad’s group, Waves, got cheap or free internet service to 120 low-income families. Mr. Biden’s promise to support alternative broadband providers could include projects like the one led by Mr. Bouhmad, who said the past year had shown how scant broadband options had left residents in Baltimore in the lurch. “Investment upfront to build out infrastructure and support internet providers is fantastic,” Mr. Bouhmad said. He added that residents in places like Baltimore would continue to need federal subsidies and that the administration should focus on the costs of broadband as a major hurdle. “Availability doesn’t equal accessibility in terms of price and user experience,” he said. Source link Orbem News #Billion #Fix #Spotty #WiFi

[eddiejpoplar]

PSA’s CEO on What It Will Take to Re-Enter the U.S.

Our New York bureau chief Jamie Kitman recently sat down with the CEO of French automaker PSA Carlos Tavares to further discuss the company’s future in North America and across the globe. Note: This interview, which took place before the recent Carlos Ghosn scandal, has been edited for clarity.

Automobile Magazine: Why come back to North America?

Carlos Tavares: Because it is one of the biggest [markets] in the world and being present in Europe, in China, we also need to be present in the United States, as we were a long time ago. So, we want to come back. We want to come back to stay. Perhaps that’s the most important fact.

We understand that the investment in the U.S. market will be long. It will take time. This is the reason why when we presented the Push to Pass strategic plan we said we would take 10 years. We want make sure that our teams understand the U.S. consumer, so we decided that we would start by understanding them through the mobility services activities that we are now implementing. It is a good way to understand the market.

We also started a very deep planning phase. We are working on three major decisions that we need to make before the Spring of 2019. The first decision is what the product line will be, and what brand that we are going to bring to the United States. The second is what the distribution model is going to be. Because distribution is, or course, paramount for sales and marketing efficiency, for the costs of the distribution, for the efficiency of the marketing and communications. The third decision is about sourcing. [Once] those three strategic decisions are made, we’ll be in a position where we’ll be able to start the implementation of our plans.

AM: Where do you enter the market? Everybody is obsessed with volume yet that’s probably the hardest nut to crack. Either Peugeot or Citroën would likely be seen as a reasonably premium brand, and without even having a car, you kind of have the opportunity to come in at a slightly higher level.

CT: I think you are absolutely on the spot. We need to understand who our target customers could be. We have done focus groups on the perception of our models and our brands. We were very encouraged. Most of our brands are perceived as being quite upscale which of course opens value opportunities in valuable positions.

Of course, [we need to do] the detail work in terms of product planning, sales planning, selecting the target customers, making sure that for those target customers we mean something different from all the other OEMs, and we talk to them in a way which is relevant for them.

AM: Right. But broadly, doesn’t it seem a stretch to go in as a mainstream brand?

CT: We don’t exclude that because we are in other parts of the world being a mainstream brand or upper part of the mainstream with some of our brands. This is not preventing us from bringing appropriate value. So far what is rather surprising, and rather positive, we didn’t see anything that was negative. Our [brand] equity in the U.S. is so limited that we are starting from a white sheet of paper.

AM: What is the future of your concept car based on the old Pininfarina 504 coupe, the E-Legend? It looks great.

CT: So far, this is a pure concept car. It is here to express the creativity of our people and the vision we have for autonomous driving, but it’s a car where you can still enjoy driving. So we have a steering wheel that is retractable, and you can use the firewall as a giant screen to enjoy entertainment. You have fully autonomous [capabilities] but when you want to drive, you get your steering wheel back. We will discuss with the teams if it makes sense to one day make it happen or not, but at this stage it is the expression of our vision of what a stylish, autonomous, zero-emission coupe might look like.

AM: It’s an exception to what we most often we see now in the States, which is that everyone wants to make a crossover. Electric cars seem likely to be more like SUVs than less.

CT: We estimate that sedans and coupes still have a future for the very simple reason that a boxy SUV has a frontal area which is much bigger and therefore is going to absorb much more energy. And if you are talking about the quantity of energy that you put in your batteries to ensure a certain range, the more energy you are going to use, the lower the range, which of course is one big expectation of our customers. We believe that sedans and coupes still have a future because their ability to use less energy through aerodynamics.

AM: As a matter of strategic planning, do you believe that perhaps what’s going on in the States now in terms of the environmental policy is an aberration, that the country will return to being concerned about efficiency and things like that?

CT: It depends on the citizens. It depends on what the American people think about what should be done for the future. I think there is a lot of wisdom in the society. At one point in time this expectation may be stronger that what it is today and of course, politicians will have to take that into consideration.

What we can tell them is that we have the technologies to support low-emission vehicles and clean mobility. We are able to bring this technology for the U.S. consumer if it is something that makes sense. By the way, it doesn’t have to be driven by regulations. It can be also an expectation of the U.S. consumer that is sensitive to environmental issues, and that concern about those issues can be demonstrated by buying a pure EV or a plug-in hybrid.

AM: PSA is run against the trend of companies doing worse. You’ve expanded and grown in the last five years, a time when things have looked grim for many other companies. Yet one sees the pressure that autonomous cars, electrification, and the other forces of the market suggesting that maybe there will be fewer car sales overall. If it’s true that the market will shrink, what can be done to preserve your position?

CT: We start from a very simple thought: We believe that human beings are eager to protect their spontaneous freedom of movement. You need to have an available mobility tool that is going to fulfill this need for your freedom to move anywhere and at any time. The U.S. market is unique because there are a lot of big distances, and there is a significant infrastructure for automobiles. We see that the need to be able to meet this expectation of spontaneous, convenient, and comfortable freedom of movement is still very strong.

This being said, if you go look at the urban areas of cost shared mobility, [the convenience to choose your method of mobility] is also a significant trend. That’s why we have introduced our Free2Move mobility service in the United States. But to a certain extent, there is some divergence between urban and rural areas in terms of expectations for the ability to [travel, for example using a vehicle] that you own for rural areas or one that you share for urban areas.

We are embracing these two trends in a very dynamic way. We believe we need to bring solutions to the consumers. Of course, autonomous vehicles will be very appropriate for shared mobility. It is quite obvious. We also see that autonomous vehicles will have such a high level of technology density, that most will probably be very expensive. If they are very expensive, they carry the risk that they are used by wealthy elites. Or that they have to be shared because they are so expensive that of course they have to be shared with different kinds of users.

The most important thing that people will not compromise on is safety. We make sure we mature and fully certify each level of [autonomy that we will offer]. At any point in time, we don’t care if we’re not exactly first on the market. We will make sure that we are very clear on what we are offering. What are the limits? So that we reach level 5 [full autonomy] then the technology is mature, it’s safe, and we will be able to tell our customers, please go ahead. We are not in the race of being number one. It doesn’t make sense to [do so] at any cost when the risk is that you will not validate and certify properly each of those steps.

AM: What do you see in the age of autonomy? What does it mean when you don’t feel anything through the steering wheel because there’s no steering wheel? What does your sophisticated suspension mean to somebody who’s sitting in the back of a mobile party palace, concerned about whether they can lie down and how cold their beer is?

What does that mean for a brand, when everything is fast, everything is safe, and reasonably comfortable? Most vehicles are already pretty boring, and consumers may only care about the resolution of the giant screen in the back, or how many different devices they can connect at once. At that point, who cares if you have leading dynamics or the platform you use is based on a pickup truck?

CT: That’s a great point, but I’m not as pessimistic as that. If you look back again at the E-Legend, it can offer the pleasure of driving and the chassis is tuned to be a very lively and dynamic chassis. And at the same time, if [there is a lot of traffic and] you want [the car to drive so you can] have quality time or discussion with your friends and with your family, you can also do so. It’s not exclusively driving pleasure or quality time with your family.

Of course, if you think you want a box that is fully autonomous, there is no more driving. In that case, I would argue that you will still care about the mph, your comfort, the air-conditioning system temperature. And, yes, the beer needs to be at the right temperature also. [laughter] It’s another kind of pleasure, right? You will enjoy the quality of everything, which is full entertainment, air conditioning, speed, ergonomics. It’s going to be a little bit different but at the end of the day, if we step back, when we first enjoyed driving, it was all about freedom of movement, ensuring freedom of movement and going around all the limitations of societies. You want to be mobile, you don’t want to be limited. Your capability to go anywhere when you decide to go—we will bring you a solution.

AM: Let’s talk about Opel, another brand that I was fond of as a youth. Why did you buy this company, and what does Opel stand for now? What does being German mean, if anything at all?

CT: We bought it because we recognize that in many areas of the world many consumers consider German brands to have a specific value in terms of engineering, reliability, and everything that goes with that. We recognize that in many overseas markets this is how consumers think. Being a French carmaker we may be frustrated by that and we may say the facts aren’t supporting that anymore, but this is the perception.

We bought Opel because we wanted to buy a German brand and a British brand [Vauxhall] that has a significant power in the U.K. We looked at it and saw that the products were okay, if not very good. Our confidence level at being able to turn around those brands was reasonably high—not arrogant, but reasonably high—based on what we’d succeeded with at PSA. We wanted to enlarge our portfolio to complement the three French brands that we already have, and we are happy that we could solve a problem for GM and bring value to our own shareholders.

AM: Why couldn’t GM do what you’re doing?

CT: Perhaps their knowledge of the European market is not as deep as it needs to be. This is the reason why we are very humble regarding our comeback to the U.S. We also recognize that we need to learn a lot about the market. It’s true that Europe is a specific region with specific expectations, specific regulations, specific politics, specific union relationships. All of this creates an overall environment that is very complex. I can understand that and perhaps that at one point in time GM considered that it was best to move out than to stay in and to continue to try after 20 years of losses.

AM: Have you considered partnerships for the U.S.?

CT: So far, it’s not the strategy, but we don’t reject that idea.

[jesusvasser]

PSA’s CEO on What It Will Take to Re-Enter the U.S.

Our New York bureau chief Jamie Kitman recently sat down with the CEO of French automaker PSA Carlos Tavares to further discuss the company’s future in North America and across the globe. Note: This interview, which took place before the recent Carlos Ghosn scandal, has been edited for clarity.

Automobile Magazine: Why come back to North America?

Carlos Tavares: Because it is one of the biggest [markets] in the world and being present in Europe, in China, we also need to be present in the United States, as we were a long time ago. So, we want to come back. We want to come back to stay. Perhaps that’s the most important fact.

We understand that the investment in the U.S. market will be long. It will take time. This is the reason why when we presented the Push to Pass strategic plan we said we would take 10 years. We want make sure that our teams understand the U.S. consumer, so we decided that we would start by understanding them through the mobility services activities that we are now implementing. It is a good way to understand the market.

We also started a very deep planning phase. We are working on three major decisions that we need to make before the Spring of 2019. The first decision is what the product line will be, and what brand that we are going to bring to the United States. The second is what the distribution model is going to be. Because distribution is, or course, paramount for sales and marketing efficiency, for the costs of the distribution, for the efficiency of the marketing and communications. The third decision is about sourcing. [Once] those three strategic decisions are made, we’ll be in a position where we’ll be able to start the implementation of our plans.

AM: Where do you enter the market? Everybody is obsessed with volume yet that’s probably the hardest nut to crack. Either Peugeot or Citroën would likely be seen as a reasonably premium brand, and without even having a car, you kind of have the opportunity to come in at a slightly higher level.

CT: I think you are absolutely on the spot. We need to understand who our target customers could be. We have done focus groups on the perception of our models and our brands. We were very encouraged. Most of our brands are perceived as being quite upscale which of course opens value opportunities in valuable positions.

Of course, [we need to do] the detail work in terms of product planning, sales planning, selecting the target customers, making sure that for those target customers we mean something different from all the other OEMs, and we talk to them in a way which is relevant for them.

AM: Right. But broadly, doesn’t it seem a stretch to go in as a mainstream brand?

CT: We don’t exclude that because we are in other parts of the world being a mainstream brand or upper part of the mainstream with some of our brands. This is not preventing us from bringing appropriate value. So far what is rather surprising, and rather positive, we didn’t see anything that was negative. Our [brand] equity in the U.S. is so limited that we are starting from a white sheet of paper.

AM: What is the future of your concept car based on the old Pininfarina 504 coupe, the E-Legend? It looks great.

CT: So far, this is a pure concept car. It is here to express the creativity of our people and the vision we have for autonomous driving, but it’s a car where you can still enjoy driving. So we have a steering wheel that is retractable, and you can use the firewall as a giant screen to enjoy entertainment. You have fully autonomous [capabilities] but when you want to drive, you get your steering wheel back. We will discuss with the teams if it makes sense to one day make it happen or not, but at this stage it is the expression of our vision of what a stylish, autonomous, zero-emission coupe might look like.

AM: It’s an exception to what we most often we see now in the States, which is that everyone wants to make a crossover. Electric cars seem likely to be more like SUVs than less.

CT: We estimate that sedans and coupes still have a future for the very simple reason that a boxy SUV has a frontal area which is much bigger and therefore is going to absorb much more energy. And if you are talking about the quantity of energy that you put in your batteries to ensure a certain range, the more energy you are going to use, the lower the range, which of course is one big expectation of our customers. We believe that sedans and coupes still have a future because their ability to use less energy through aerodynamics.

AM: As a matter of strategic planning, do you believe that perhaps what’s going on in the States now in terms of the environmental policy is an aberration, that the country will return to being concerned about efficiency and things like that?

CT: It depends on the citizens. It depends on what the American people think about what should be done for the future. I think there is a lot of wisdom in the society. At one point in time this expectation may be stronger that what it is today and of course, politicians will have to take that into consideration.

What we can tell them is that we have the technologies to support low-emission vehicles and clean mobility. We are able to bring this technology for the U.S. consumer if it is something that makes sense. By the way, it doesn’t have to be driven by regulations. It can be also an expectation of the U.S. consumer that is sensitive to environmental issues, and that concern about those issues can be demonstrated by buying a pure EV or a plug-in hybrid.

AM: PSA is run against the trend of companies doing worse. You’ve expanded and grown in the last five years, a time when things have looked grim for many other companies. Yet one sees the pressure that autonomous cars, electrification, and the other forces of the market suggesting that maybe there will be fewer car sales overall. If it’s true that the market will shrink, what can be done to preserve your position?

CT: We start from a very simple thought: We believe that human beings are eager to protect their spontaneous freedom of movement. You need to have an available mobility tool that is going to fulfill this need for your freedom to move anywhere and at any time. The U.S. market is unique because there are a lot of big distances, and there is a significant infrastructure for automobiles. We see that the need to be able to meet this expectation of spontaneous, convenient, and comfortable freedom of movement is still very strong.

This being said, if you go look at the urban areas of cost shared mobility, [the convenience to choose your method of mobility] is also a significant trend. That’s why we have introduced our Free2Move mobility service in the United States. But to a certain extent, there is some divergence between urban and rural areas in terms of expectations for the ability to [travel, for example using a vehicle] that you own for rural areas or one that you share for urban areas.

We are embracing these two trends in a very dynamic way. We believe we need to bring solutions to the consumers. Of course, autonomous vehicles will be very appropriate for shared mobility. It is quite obvious. We also see that autonomous vehicles will have such a high level of technology density, that most will probably be very expensive. If they are very expensive, they carry the risk that they are used by wealthy elites. Or that they have to be shared because they are so expensive that of course they have to be shared with different kinds of users.

The most important thing that people will not compromise on is safety. We make sure we mature and fully certify each level of [autonomy that we will offer]. At any point in time, we don’t care if we’re not exactly first on the market. We will make sure that we are very clear on what we are offering. What are the limits? So that we reach level 5 [full autonomy] then the technology is mature, it’s safe, and we will be able to tell our customers, please go ahead. We are not in the race of being number one. It doesn’t make sense to [do so] at any cost when the risk is that you will not validate and certify properly each of those steps.

AM: What do you see in the age of autonomy? What does it mean when you don’t feel anything through the steering wheel because there’s no steering wheel? What does your sophisticated suspension mean to somebody who’s sitting in the back of a mobile party palace, concerned about whether they can lie down and how cold their beer is?

What does that mean for a brand, when everything is fast, everything is safe, and reasonably comfortable? Most vehicles are already pretty boring, and consumers may only care about the resolution of the giant screen in the back, or how many different devices they can connect at once. At that point, who cares if you have leading dynamics or the platform you use is based on a pickup truck?

CT: That’s a great point, but I’m not as pessimistic as that. If you look back again at the E-Legend, it can offer the pleasure of driving and the chassis is tuned to be a very lively and dynamic chassis. And at the same time, if [there is a lot of traffic and] you want [the car to drive so you can] have quality time or discussion with your friends and with your family, you can also do so. It’s not exclusively driving pleasure or quality time with your family.

Of course, if you think you want a box that is fully autonomous, there is no more driving. In that case, I would argue that you will still care about the mph, your comfort, the air-conditioning system temperature. And, yes, the beer needs to be at the right temperature also. [laughter] It’s another kind of pleasure, right? You will enjoy the quality of everything, which is full entertainment, air conditioning, speed, ergonomics. It’s going to be a little bit different but at the end of the day, if we step back, when we first enjoyed driving, it was all about freedom of movement, ensuring freedom of movement and going around all the limitations of societies. You want to be mobile, you don’t want to be limited. Your capability to go anywhere when you decide to go—we will bring you a solution.

AM: Let’s talk about Opel, another brand that I was fond of as a youth. Why did you buy this company, and what does Opel stand for now? What does being German mean, if anything at all?

CT: We bought it because we recognize that in many areas of the world many consumers consider German brands to have a specific value in terms of engineering, reliability, and everything that goes with that. We recognize that in many overseas markets this is how consumers think. Being a French carmaker we may be frustrated by that and we may say the facts aren’t supporting that anymore, but this is the perception.

We bought Opel because we wanted to buy a German brand and a British brand [Vauxhall] that has a significant power in the U.K. We looked at it and saw that the products were okay, if not very good. Our confidence level at being able to turn around those brands was reasonably high—not arrogant, but reasonably high—based on what we’d succeeded with at PSA. We wanted to enlarge our portfolio to complement the three French brands that we already have, and we are happy that we could solve a problem for GM and bring value to our own shareholders.

AM: Why couldn’t GM do what you’re doing?

CT: Perhaps their knowledge of the European market is not as deep as it needs to be. This is the reason why we are very humble regarding our comeback to the U.S. We also recognize that we need to learn a lot about the market. It’s true that Europe is a specific region with specific expectations, specific regulations, specific politics, specific union relationships. All of this creates an overall environment that is very complex. I can understand that and perhaps that at one point in time GM considered that it was best to move out than to stay in and to continue to try after 20 years of losses.

AM: Have you considered partnerships for the U.S.?

CT: So far, it’s not the strategy, but we don’t reject that idea.